Congres/College Internationaal Privaatrecht
Academie Voor de Rechtspraktijk
5 april 2012
Inleidend onderdeel "Inleiding, overzicht IPR"
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Onderzoek naar de exacte reikwijdte van artikel 8 WCG -waarin het toepasselijke goederenrechtelijke regime met betrekking tot vervoerde zaken wordt aangewezen- en de geschiktheid van de daarin gekozen aanknopingsfactor. Aan de hand van een casus wordt geschetst welke onduidelijkheden er bestaan betreffende de reikwijdte van het artikel. Ingevolge het onderzoek naar de parlementaire geschiedenis, jurisprudentie en literatuur wordt geconcludeerd dat beter kan worden aangeknoopt aan de ‘nieuwe’ tot overdracht of vestiging verplichtende overeenkomst die tijdens transport wordt gesloten en niet zoals artikel 8 WCG voorschrijft, aan de overeenkomst die aan het vervoer ten grondslag ligt. Harmonisatie van het goederenrechtelijke met het verbintenisrechtelijke statuut is het resultaat.
Monsters Dance Orlando Tour Summer Finale 2013Gene Burdette
In its 9th year on the road, Monsters Dance Conventions will be making its way to Orlando, Florida. Monsters will be conducting a 3-day dance workshop, plus seminars & auditions, all instructed by their renowned faculty of professional choreographers.
Find our more at www.monstersdance.com.
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation Veerle Van Den Eeckhout "Aktuelles aus der Rechtsprechung
des EuGH (in englischer Sprache)" at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
The presentation focuses on case law of the CJEU regarding international family law, but adopts a broad view, particularly by taking into account dynamics going on in PIL outside the field of international family law, and by paying attention to case law of the CJEU outside the pure interpretation of PIL regulations. Thus, for example, a judgment such as Belgische Staat (Réfugiée mineure mariée), Case C-230/21, regarding a right to family reunification based on Directive 2003/86 is considered in the analysis.
While presenting case law of the CJEU in PIL matters, the presentation particularly aims to explore some aspects of methodology, reasoning, deductions and “consistency”. The presentation thus presents some aspects of methodology of interpretation of European law by the CJEU, as well as some issues of analysis of case law of the CJEU, and some questions regarding possible further deductions of some cases.
The presentation continues on some reflections that I presented in a discussion of CJEU case law at the Lugano Experts Meeting on 1 June 2022. See Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters? Some notes on recent case law of the Court regarding Brussels 1 bis, Lugano and the second generation regulations (slideshare.net). In a broader way, the presentation builds upon my earlier work, including, inter alia, “De wisselwerking tussen materieel recht en internationaal privaatrecht: eenrichtings- of tweerichtingsverkeer?” Rechtskundig Weekblad, 2000, p. 1249-1265; “The Promotion of Fundamental Rights by the Union as a contribution to the European Legal Space: the Role of European Private International Law”, 2006, Refgov FR 4, 44 p. and “Promoting Human Rights within the Union: the Role of European Private International Law”, European Law Journal, 2008, p. 105-127; “Europees recht en nationaal procesrecht. Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van recente rechtspraak van het Europees Hof van Justitie inzake grensoverschrijdende inning van schuldvorderingen in de EU”, tijdschrift@ipr.be, 2020, p. 49-68 (for a related PowerPoint presentation, see European Law and National Procedural Law. Some considerations following a few cases of the European Court of Justice regarding cross-border debt recovery in the EU (slideshare.net)); my previous comments on some particular issues (see e.g., regarding C-501/20, “Europees echtscheiden. Bevoegdheid en erkenning van beslissingen op basis van de EG Verordening 1347/2000” in Het nieuwe Europese IPR: van verdrag naar verordening, Antwerpen, Intersentia, 2001, p. 69-102), and my many publications, starting from the 1990s, on the relation between migration law and international family law and the instrumentalisation of PIL.
Onderzoek naar de exacte reikwijdte van artikel 8 WCG -waarin het toepasselijke goederenrechtelijke regime met betrekking tot vervoerde zaken wordt aangewezen- en de geschiktheid van de daarin gekozen aanknopingsfactor. Aan de hand van een casus wordt geschetst welke onduidelijkheden er bestaan betreffende de reikwijdte van het artikel. Ingevolge het onderzoek naar de parlementaire geschiedenis, jurisprudentie en literatuur wordt geconcludeerd dat beter kan worden aangeknoopt aan de ‘nieuwe’ tot overdracht of vestiging verplichtende overeenkomst die tijdens transport wordt gesloten en niet zoals artikel 8 WCG voorschrijft, aan de overeenkomst die aan het vervoer ten grondslag ligt. Harmonisatie van het goederenrechtelijke met het verbintenisrechtelijke statuut is het resultaat.
Monsters Dance Orlando Tour Summer Finale 2013Gene Burdette
In its 9th year on the road, Monsters Dance Conventions will be making its way to Orlando, Florida. Monsters will be conducting a 3-day dance workshop, plus seminars & auditions, all instructed by their renowned faculty of professional choreographers.
Find our more at www.monstersdance.com.
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation Veerle Van Den Eeckhout "Aktuelles aus der Rechtsprechung
des EuGH (in englischer Sprache)" at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
The presentation focuses on case law of the CJEU regarding international family law, but adopts a broad view, particularly by taking into account dynamics going on in PIL outside the field of international family law, and by paying attention to case law of the CJEU outside the pure interpretation of PIL regulations. Thus, for example, a judgment such as Belgische Staat (Réfugiée mineure mariée), Case C-230/21, regarding a right to family reunification based on Directive 2003/86 is considered in the analysis.
While presenting case law of the CJEU in PIL matters, the presentation particularly aims to explore some aspects of methodology, reasoning, deductions and “consistency”. The presentation thus presents some aspects of methodology of interpretation of European law by the CJEU, as well as some issues of analysis of case law of the CJEU, and some questions regarding possible further deductions of some cases.
The presentation continues on some reflections that I presented in a discussion of CJEU case law at the Lugano Experts Meeting on 1 June 2022. See Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters? Some notes on recent case law of the Court regarding Brussels 1 bis, Lugano and the second generation regulations (slideshare.net). In a broader way, the presentation builds upon my earlier work, including, inter alia, “De wisselwerking tussen materieel recht en internationaal privaatrecht: eenrichtings- of tweerichtingsverkeer?” Rechtskundig Weekblad, 2000, p. 1249-1265; “The Promotion of Fundamental Rights by the Union as a contribution to the European Legal Space: the Role of European Private International Law”, 2006, Refgov FR 4, 44 p. and “Promoting Human Rights within the Union: the Role of European Private International Law”, European Law Journal, 2008, p. 105-127; “Europees recht en nationaal procesrecht. Enkele beschouwingen naar aanleiding van recente rechtspraak van het Europees Hof van Justitie inzake grensoverschrijdende inning van schuldvorderingen in de EU”, tijdschrift@ipr.be, 2020, p. 49-68 (for a related PowerPoint presentation, see European Law and National Procedural Law. Some considerations following a few cases of the European Court of Justice regarding cross-border debt recovery in the EU (slideshare.net)); my previous comments on some particular issues (see e.g., regarding C-501/20, “Europees echtscheiden. Bevoegdheid en erkenning van beslissingen op basis van de EG Verordening 1347/2000” in Het nieuwe Europese IPR: van verdrag naar verordening, Antwerpen, Intersentia, 2001, p. 69-102), and my many publications, starting from the 1990s, on the relation between migration law and international family law and the instrumentalisation of PIL.
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster (in progress), with Extended version.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
The presentation focuses on case law of the CJEU regarding international family law, but adopts a broad view, particularly by taking into account also case law outside the field of international family law – especially when issues arise both in the context of international family law and in the context of PIL outside the field of international family law - , and by paying attention to case law of the CJEU outside the pure interpretation of PIL regulations – where a national court is not asking in its question referred for a preliminary ruling, as such, for an interpretation of a PIL regulation, but the case might, possibly, affect PIL or interrelate with PIL; thus, for example, a recent judgment such as Belgische Staat (Réfugiée mineure mariée), Case C-230/21, regarding a right to family reunification based on Directive 2003/86 was also considered in the analysis. While presenting case law of the CJEU in PIL matters, the presentation particularly aimed to explore some aspects of methodology, reasoning, deductions and “consistency”. The presentation thus presents some aspects of methodology of interpretation of European law by the CJEU – regarding methods the CJEU is using to interpret European law -, as well as some issues of analysis of case law of the CJEU – whereby a case of the CJEU subsequently raises questions regarding its content and reasoning -, and some questions regarding possible further deductions based on the case law of the CJEU. The presentation does not pretend any exhaustiveness in this regard, but rather explores and presents some of these aspects, looking at recent cases of the CJEU.
The presentation continues on some reflections that were presented in another analysis of CJEU case law in PIL Matters – see for the PowerPoint of the discussion of CJEU case law at the Lugano Experts Meeting on 1 June 2022, Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters? Some notes on recent case law of the Court regarding Brussels 1 bis, Lugano and the second generation regulations (slideshare.net). The presentation at the Lugano experts discusses issues of harmonised interpretation of regimes of judicial cooperation in civil matters. As a matter of fact, one may observe a wide range of instruments that are indicated as instruments of “Judicial cooperation in civil matters”. The presentation at the Lugano experts meeting offers, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonised interpretation, of making possible deductions from a judgment in one context to another context. The relevance thereof is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the CJEU, with attention for article 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Extended version (draft) Presentation at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation 1 June 2022 (Experts meeting Lugano Convention, Bern, Switzerland, 1-2 June 2022, https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/en/home/wirtschaft/privatrecht/lugue-2007.html), presenting case law since the 2017-meeting.
In the presentation, issues of (un)harmonized interpretation and (in)consistency of various regimes are addressed, consecutively, at the stage of determining the applicability of regimes (the stage of determining if a regime is applicable - Part 1 of the presentation) and, subsequently, at the stage of application of regimes (the stage, once determined that a regime is applicable, of determining how the regime should be applied - Part 2 of the presentation). In a third part, the relevance of the foregoing is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the Court. In this third part, particular attention is paid to Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially as the application of these Articles might lead to issuing an “Order” instead of a judgment.
The presentation includes, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonized interpretation (in literature also sometimes indicated as issues of « coherent » or “uniform” interpretation. Cfr. also wordings such as the “articulation between regulations”, “dimension traversale” etc.) , of making possible deductions from decisions in one context to another context - in one way or another: possibly in a harmonized way; possibly, ultimately, making deductions “a contrario” or “a fortiori.”
As the presentation has been given on the occasion of the Lugano experts meeting, the presentation particularly took the perspective of the Lugano convention – thus positioning the Lugano Convention “in context”. However, the view was broader in some regards and several issues addressed were positioned taking also other perspectives in this broad context – the context of the current situation, with its ongoing dynamics, within “Judicial cooperation in civil matters.”
The presentation is not intended to be exhaustive but rather intends to “explore”: the presentation just includes some notes on issues of (un)harmonized interpretation of regimes, looking at recent case law from the Court regarding, especially, the Brussels 1 bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the second generation regulations – instruments that all focus on the regulation of procedural aspects of civil and commercial cases, in principle with the exclusion of family issues.
Any view expressed in this text and the document attached is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Court of Justice.
(Combined short and extended version.
See also, as a pdf-document, this Slide-share page, under "documents", see https://www.slideshare.net/vvde/documents , https://www.slideshare.net/vvde/defffpowerpointluganopdf )
Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation 1 June 2022 (Experts meeting Lugano Convention, Bern, Switzerland, 1-2 June 2022, https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/en/home/wirtschaft/privatrecht/lugue-2007.html). The presentation essentially concerns case law since the previous Experts meeting in 2017.
In the presentation, issues of (un)harmonized interpretation and (in)consistency of various regimes are addressed, consecutively, at the stage of determining the applicability of regimes (the stage of determining if a regime is applicable - Part 1 of the presentation) and, subsequently, at the stage of application of regimes (the stage, once determined that a regime is applicable, of determining how the regime should be applied - Part 2 of the presentation). In a third part, the relevance of the foregoing is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the Court. In this third part, particular attention is paid to Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially as the application of these Articles might lead to issuing an “Order” instead of a judgment.
The presentation includes, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonized interpretation (in literature also sometimes indicated as issues of « coherent » or “uniform” interpretation. Cfr. also wordings such as the “articulation between regulations”, “dimension traversale” etc.) , of making possible deductions from decisions in one context to another context - in one way or another: possibly in a harmonized way; possibly, ultimately, making deductions “a contrario” or “a fortiori.”
As the presentation has been given on the occasion of the Lugano experts meeting, the presentation particularly took the perspective of the Lugano convention – thus positioning the Lugano Convention “in context”. However, the view was broader in some regards and several issues addressed were positioned taking also other perspectives in this broad context – the context of the current situation, with its ongoing dynamics, within “Judicial cooperation in civil matters.”
The presentation is not intended to be exhaustive but rather intends to “explore”: the presentation just includes some notes on issues of (un)harmonized interpretation of regimes, looking at recent case law from the Court regarding, especially, the Brussels 1 bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the second generation regulations – instruments that all focus on the regulation of procedural aspects of civil and commercial cases, in principle with the exclusion of family issues.
The author represented the CJEU at the meeting, giving the presentation on the CJEU case law, but any view expressed is the personal opinion of the author.
(In an upcoming presentation ("CJEU case law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for some aspects of logic and argumentation theory") I will continue on some aspects of this presentation)
The Instrumentalisation of Private International Law. A Regulatory Role for P...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation "The Instrumentalisation of Private International Law. A Regulatory Role for Private International Law!? Private International Law and 'Social Justice'"
(Presentation Max Planck Institute Hamburg September 2019; presented previously - February 2019 - at Max Planck Institute Luxembourg)
Rules of International Jurisdiction in the Context of the "Second Generation"...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Rules of International Jurisdiction in the Context of the "Second Generation" Regulations. Some reflections from the perspective of protection of weak parties
(For the corresponding paper, see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243316
For a sequel (working paper), see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3330821 )
Corporate Social Responsibility - Aspects de droit international privéVeerle Van Den Eeckhout
Université de Valenciennes - Mars 2017.
PowerPoint Veerle Van Den Eeckhout (deuxième partie): "Corporate Social Responsibility; aspects de droit international privé"
The Private International Law Dimension of the UN Principles on Business and ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Powerpoint-presentation
at Lausanne, 10 October 2014
Conference "The Implementation of the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights in Private International Law"
( see http://www.isdc.ch/d2wfiles/document/4713/4018/0/Human%20Rights%20in%20PIL-%2010-10-2014.pdf at http://www.isdc.ch )
Abstract:
In the reports on Business and Human Rights by John Ruggie, "access to remedies cq access to justice" appears to be a key element.
Rules of Private International Law can be seen as key factors in achieving access to remedies cq access to justice: PIL rules act like hinges that allow doors - granting access to a specific court and to a specific legal norm - to be opened or to be kept closed; thus, as PIL deals with issues of international jurisdiction and applicable law, PIL rules are of paramount importance in determining access to a specific court and access to a specific legal norm.
In his Guiding Principles, Ruggie addresses the responsibility of States for issuing suitable legislation and ‘access to remedies’; it may be well argued that PIL legislation (rules on jurisdiction and applicable law) and the interpretation of this legislation should also be examined in this context.
In the presentation the focus will be on the hypothesis that plaintiffs want to bring an action before a EU Member State court. When focusing on this hypothesis, one can observe that at least some PIL-aspects are covered by rules of PIL of European origin (the regulation of some other aspects is still left to the EU- Member States themselves). To what extent do these rules allow or deny access to remedies cq access to justice?
In the presentation, some rules and issues of (mainly) European PIL - both jurisdiction and applicable law - that deserve attention from this perspective will be highlighted in an introductory way.
Conference "The Citizen in European Private Law: Norm-Setting, Enforcement and Choice", Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, 18 October 2013.
Presentation Veerle Van Den Eeckhout "Choice and regulatory competition - Rules on choice of law and forum"
Internationaal privaatrecht en fundamentele rechten. Ipr als instrument ter b...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Abstract "Internationaal privaatrecht en fundamentele rechten. Ipr als instrument ter bevordering van respect voor fundamentele rechten?"
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster (in progress), with Extended version.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
The presentation focuses on case law of the CJEU regarding international family law, but adopts a broad view, particularly by taking into account also case law outside the field of international family law – especially when issues arise both in the context of international family law and in the context of PIL outside the field of international family law - , and by paying attention to case law of the CJEU outside the pure interpretation of PIL regulations – where a national court is not asking in its question referred for a preliminary ruling, as such, for an interpretation of a PIL regulation, but the case might, possibly, affect PIL or interrelate with PIL; thus, for example, a recent judgment such as Belgische Staat (Réfugiée mineure mariée), Case C-230/21, regarding a right to family reunification based on Directive 2003/86 was also considered in the analysis. While presenting case law of the CJEU in PIL matters, the presentation particularly aimed to explore some aspects of methodology, reasoning, deductions and “consistency”. The presentation thus presents some aspects of methodology of interpretation of European law by the CJEU – regarding methods the CJEU is using to interpret European law -, as well as some issues of analysis of case law of the CJEU – whereby a case of the CJEU subsequently raises questions regarding its content and reasoning -, and some questions regarding possible further deductions based on the case law of the CJEU. The presentation does not pretend any exhaustiveness in this regard, but rather explores and presents some of these aspects, looking at recent cases of the CJEU.
The presentation continues on some reflections that were presented in another analysis of CJEU case law in PIL Matters – see for the PowerPoint of the discussion of CJEU case law at the Lugano Experts Meeting on 1 June 2022, Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters? Some notes on recent case law of the Court regarding Brussels 1 bis, Lugano and the second generation regulations (slideshare.net). The presentation at the Lugano experts discusses issues of harmonised interpretation of regimes of judicial cooperation in civil matters. As a matter of fact, one may observe a wide range of instruments that are indicated as instruments of “Judicial cooperation in civil matters”. The presentation at the Lugano experts meeting offers, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonised interpretation, of making possible deductions from a judgment in one context to another context. The relevance thereof is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the CJEU, with attention for article 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
CJEU case-law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Extended version (draft) Presentation at "Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023", University of Münster.
Any view expressed in this document is the personal opinion of the author.
Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation 1 June 2022 (Experts meeting Lugano Convention, Bern, Switzerland, 1-2 June 2022, https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/en/home/wirtschaft/privatrecht/lugue-2007.html), presenting case law since the 2017-meeting.
In the presentation, issues of (un)harmonized interpretation and (in)consistency of various regimes are addressed, consecutively, at the stage of determining the applicability of regimes (the stage of determining if a regime is applicable - Part 1 of the presentation) and, subsequently, at the stage of application of regimes (the stage, once determined that a regime is applicable, of determining how the regime should be applied - Part 2 of the presentation). In a third part, the relevance of the foregoing is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the Court. In this third part, particular attention is paid to Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially as the application of these Articles might lead to issuing an “Order” instead of a judgment.
The presentation includes, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonized interpretation (in literature also sometimes indicated as issues of « coherent » or “uniform” interpretation. Cfr. also wordings such as the “articulation between regulations”, “dimension traversale” etc.) , of making possible deductions from decisions in one context to another context - in one way or another: possibly in a harmonized way; possibly, ultimately, making deductions “a contrario” or “a fortiori.”
As the presentation has been given on the occasion of the Lugano experts meeting, the presentation particularly took the perspective of the Lugano convention – thus positioning the Lugano Convention “in context”. However, the view was broader in some regards and several issues addressed were positioned taking also other perspectives in this broad context – the context of the current situation, with its ongoing dynamics, within “Judicial cooperation in civil matters.”
The presentation is not intended to be exhaustive but rather intends to “explore”: the presentation just includes some notes on issues of (un)harmonized interpretation of regimes, looking at recent case law from the Court regarding, especially, the Brussels 1 bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the second generation regulations – instruments that all focus on the regulation of procedural aspects of civil and commercial cases, in principle with the exclusion of family issues.
Any view expressed in this text and the document attached is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Court of Justice.
(Combined short and extended version.
See also, as a pdf-document, this Slide-share page, under "documents", see https://www.slideshare.net/vvde/documents , https://www.slideshare.net/vvde/defffpowerpointluganopdf )
Harmonized interpretation of regimes of Judicial cooperation in civil matters...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation 1 June 2022 (Experts meeting Lugano Convention, Bern, Switzerland, 1-2 June 2022, https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/en/home/wirtschaft/privatrecht/lugue-2007.html). The presentation essentially concerns case law since the previous Experts meeting in 2017.
In the presentation, issues of (un)harmonized interpretation and (in)consistency of various regimes are addressed, consecutively, at the stage of determining the applicability of regimes (the stage of determining if a regime is applicable - Part 1 of the presentation) and, subsequently, at the stage of application of regimes (the stage, once determined that a regime is applicable, of determining how the regime should be applied - Part 2 of the presentation). In a third part, the relevance of the foregoing is presented particularly in light of preliminary questions to the Court. In this third part, particular attention is paid to Articles 53 and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially as the application of these Articles might lead to issuing an “Order” instead of a judgment.
The presentation includes, inter alia, a discussion of issues of (in)consistency and influence/interaction between regimes, of giving or not a harmonized interpretation (in literature also sometimes indicated as issues of « coherent » or “uniform” interpretation. Cfr. also wordings such as the “articulation between regulations”, “dimension traversale” etc.) , of making possible deductions from decisions in one context to another context - in one way or another: possibly in a harmonized way; possibly, ultimately, making deductions “a contrario” or “a fortiori.”
As the presentation has been given on the occasion of the Lugano experts meeting, the presentation particularly took the perspective of the Lugano convention – thus positioning the Lugano Convention “in context”. However, the view was broader in some regards and several issues addressed were positioned taking also other perspectives in this broad context – the context of the current situation, with its ongoing dynamics, within “Judicial cooperation in civil matters.”
The presentation is not intended to be exhaustive but rather intends to “explore”: the presentation just includes some notes on issues of (un)harmonized interpretation of regimes, looking at recent case law from the Court regarding, especially, the Brussels 1 bis Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the second generation regulations – instruments that all focus on the regulation of procedural aspects of civil and commercial cases, in principle with the exclusion of family issues.
The author represented the CJEU at the meeting, giving the presentation on the CJEU case law, but any view expressed is the personal opinion of the author.
(In an upcoming presentation ("CJEU case law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law with attention for some aspects of logic and argumentation theory") I will continue on some aspects of this presentation)
The Instrumentalisation of Private International Law. A Regulatory Role for P...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Presentation "The Instrumentalisation of Private International Law. A Regulatory Role for Private International Law!? Private International Law and 'Social Justice'"
(Presentation Max Planck Institute Hamburg September 2019; presented previously - February 2019 - at Max Planck Institute Luxembourg)
Rules of International Jurisdiction in the Context of the "Second Generation"...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Rules of International Jurisdiction in the Context of the "Second Generation" Regulations. Some reflections from the perspective of protection of weak parties
(For the corresponding paper, see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243316
For a sequel (working paper), see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3330821 )
Corporate Social Responsibility - Aspects de droit international privéVeerle Van Den Eeckhout
Université de Valenciennes - Mars 2017.
PowerPoint Veerle Van Den Eeckhout (deuxième partie): "Corporate Social Responsibility; aspects de droit international privé"
The Private International Law Dimension of the UN Principles on Business and ...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Powerpoint-presentation
at Lausanne, 10 October 2014
Conference "The Implementation of the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights in Private International Law"
( see http://www.isdc.ch/d2wfiles/document/4713/4018/0/Human%20Rights%20in%20PIL-%2010-10-2014.pdf at http://www.isdc.ch )
Abstract:
In the reports on Business and Human Rights by John Ruggie, "access to remedies cq access to justice" appears to be a key element.
Rules of Private International Law can be seen as key factors in achieving access to remedies cq access to justice: PIL rules act like hinges that allow doors - granting access to a specific court and to a specific legal norm - to be opened or to be kept closed; thus, as PIL deals with issues of international jurisdiction and applicable law, PIL rules are of paramount importance in determining access to a specific court and access to a specific legal norm.
In his Guiding Principles, Ruggie addresses the responsibility of States for issuing suitable legislation and ‘access to remedies’; it may be well argued that PIL legislation (rules on jurisdiction and applicable law) and the interpretation of this legislation should also be examined in this context.
In the presentation the focus will be on the hypothesis that plaintiffs want to bring an action before a EU Member State court. When focusing on this hypothesis, one can observe that at least some PIL-aspects are covered by rules of PIL of European origin (the regulation of some other aspects is still left to the EU- Member States themselves). To what extent do these rules allow or deny access to remedies cq access to justice?
In the presentation, some rules and issues of (mainly) European PIL - both jurisdiction and applicable law - that deserve attention from this perspective will be highlighted in an introductory way.
Conference "The Citizen in European Private Law: Norm-Setting, Enforcement and Choice", Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, 18 October 2013.
Presentation Veerle Van Den Eeckhout "Choice and regulatory competition - Rules on choice of law and forum"
Internationaal privaatrecht en fundamentele rechten. Ipr als instrument ter b...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Abstract "Internationaal privaatrecht en fundamentele rechten. Ipr als instrument ter bevordering van respect voor fundamentele rechten?"
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
3. Polak in TPR 2007 : « Boek 10: het
verdriet van Nederland »?
Lange voorgeschiedenis, lang verwacht, lang geduurd (tegenover bv. België)
4. Lange tijd discussie:
To codify or not to codify?
Aanpak: aanbouwwetgeving (1981-2008)
5. Boek 10 BW: consolidatie van
Nederlandse regels van toepasselijk
recht
• Aanpak dus: aanbouwwetgeving (1981-2008)
• Nadien: wetjes geordend in Boek 10 BW
• Boek 10 “ordent en voegt samen”
• Boek 10: 165 artikelen
(= art. I vaststellings- en invoeringswet 19 mei 2011, Staatsblad 2011, 272)
• Transponeringstabel: vergelijking artikelen Boek 10
met (artikelen in) vroegere wetjes
http://www.arsaequi.nl/transponeringstabel/Boek_10_BW
6. Plaats Boek 10 binnen (Nederlands) ipr
• Principe:
Rechtsmacht Toepasselijk recht Erkenning en tul
Supranationaal Supranationaal Supranationaal
Nationaal Nationaal: Boek 10 BW Nationaal
Boek 10 dus in vakje nationaal-Nederlandse regels toepasselijk recht
= « Nederlandse ipr-codex »
(tegenover bv. Belgische codex: gehele nationaal-Belgische ipr: alle drie ipr-vragen)
7. Opgelet wat staat (dus) niet in Boek
10? (en wat toch wel)
• Niet: Rechtsmacht Toepasselij Erkenning
– Regels betreffende k recht en tul
interregionale situaties
– Aantal specifieke regels
Nederlands toepasselijk recht Supra-
(bv. 6:247; WFBV; Ned. ipr-
uitwerking richtlijnen) nationaal
– Procesrechtelijke ipr-regels
(behoudens her en der enkele
uitzondering - familierecht) Nationaal: Enkele
– Supranationale regelgeving Boek 10 bepalingen
(meestal wel naar verwezen) Boek 10
(bv. HVV; VOV; Rome I en Rome II; soms ook
“extrapolatie” cfr. infra) PLUS elders
(in/buiten
Dus: BW)
8. Boek 10: Much ado about nothing?
Boek 10: behoud
of toch ook vernieuwing?
9. Vernieuwende elementen Boek 10
• Eerste titel Boek 10: “Algemene bepalingen”
– Alhoewel ook hier vooral consolidatie
• Zie bv. Art. 2 Regel ambtshalve toepassen (D’Oliveira: Boek 10 is dus eigenlijk « Boek 0 ») –
Veerle: verplicht openingsnummer in plaats van toetje
• Inclusief nog steeds niet-wettelijk regelen wat eerder overgelaten aan rechter (bv.
Surrogaatrecht)
– Maar zie toch: art. 8 ontsnappingsclausule (tegenover bv. HR Schulte/Deutag over WCOD)
• Nieuwe regel toepasselijk recht echtscheiding (artikel 56) – alhoewel de facto niet zo nieuw
• Nieuw meer algemeen familierecht:
– Her en der andere regels omgang multipatridie (overzicht in artikel Frohn en Ibili)
– Paar nieuwe rechtskeuzemogelijkheden (10:35 en 10:65)
– (Maar bv. Niet verdere aanpassing regels naar aanleiding van (discussies over) HvJ Garcia Avello)
• Vermogensrecht: opvallend artikel 159 betreffende extrapolatie Rome II (als niet verdragen)
(“extrapolatie”: cfr. overigens ook betreffende overeenkomsten, 10:154)
10. Rome II en artikel 10:159
(alle/niet alle wegen leiden naar Rome II?)
• Artikel 159 extrapolatie: als Rome II niet toepasselijk, dan
toch regels Rome II
(1 uitzondering: Nederlands openbaar gezag)
• Wanneer is Rome II niet toepasselijk volgens Rome II zelf?
– Materieel: vooral smaad (extrapolatie: valt nu dus toch onder regels
Rome II)
– Temporeel: zie artikel 31/32 Rome II (en recent HvJ). Als nog voordien:
WCOD/ook hier extrapolatie? Werp kwestie op:
• (bepaalde) doctrine: dan toch nog WCOD
• Memorie van toelichting: regels temporeel toepassingsgebied
supranationale regels respecteren
• maar: bewoordingen artikel 159 zelf “buiten werkingssfeer”?; WCOD
opgeheven? (en geen “voorganger” van Rome II - zoals EVO bij Rome I)
• Rome II ook hier extrapoleren of niet: kan verschil maken (want her en
der toch verschillen WCOD/Rome II, zie regel milieuschade). Bv. In zaak
als “Shell Nigeria”
11. Waar verschillen: belang kennen
regels temporele werking
• Inwerkingtreding boek 10: 1 januari 2012 (KB inwerkingtreding, Staatsblad 2011, 340)
(Tegelijk opheffen (intrekken)
afzonderlijke wetjes, zie art. IV vaststellingswet Boek 10 (WFBV nog wel behouden als
aparte wet – naar verwezen in 10:124; 2 wetjes « opgeslorpt » door supranationale; WCOD
niet geconsolideerd )
evenals opheffen artikel 6 en 10 Wet AB Boek 10, zie art. III vaststellingswet;
cfr. « overzichtstabel », Polak: «Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘t »)
• Temporele bepalingen wetjes overgenomen (staan tussendoor in Boek 10)
• (En sowieso respect regels supranationaal (bv. Evo/Rome I))
• Overigens: gemeend (zie toelichting) niets speciaals nodig (“geen ingrijpende wijzigingen”)
– Behoudens echtscheiding: zie nieuw artikel 270 ONBW voor wat betreft artikel 10: 56
(onderscheid verzoekschrift voor/na 1 januari 2012)
– Maar daarbuiten: art. II vaststellingswset Boek 10: zie algemene overgangsbepalingen ONBW
• Art. 68 a: directe werking
• Art. 74: lopende procedures
• (Art. 75 wel onder correctiemogelijkheid redelijkheid en billijkheid)
12. Moet dus mee werken; wanneer mee
werken: gemak?
• Punt “wennen”
– aan nummers artikelen
– aan relatief kleine verschillen her en der
• Overigens (als gewend/niet “gehinderd” door
voorkennis) puur gemak? Ja en neen.
– Ja: ordening, voordeel toegankelijkheid
– Maar: voorbehoud:
• cfr. al supra wat niét in Boek 10 te vinden
• En: moet alert zijn voor ontwikkelingen op
supranationaal vlak
13. Plaats van Boek 10 ten aanzien van
supranationale ipr-regelgeving, die zelf
in volle ontwikkeling is
Was aandachtspunt voor nationale wetgever (marges,
speelruimte; plus vraag op gegeven moment of überhaupt
wel doorzetten codificatieproject)
Is aandachtspunt voor toepasser van Boek 10
14. Boek 10 « onder druk »?
Nu Boek 10 in werking: « to codify or not to
codify, that was the question »
(zij het mogelijk al weldra
nationale wijzigingen op komst, bv.
« wetsvoorstel tegengaan
huwelijksdwang)
Maar Europa: « to interfere or not to
interfere, that will be the question »
15. Supranationale ontwikkelingen
• Supranationaal: vooral Europa (meer en meer) en/of Haagse Conferentie
- In concurrentiepositie met elkaar? Voorstellingen in sommige literatuur als
« Beauty and the beast », « Brusselse schaduwen over Den Haag »
- Soms in interactie met elkaar (bv. Alimentatieverordening en Haags Protocol
alimentatie: Vlas: « Alimentatie uit Brussel met een Haags randje »)
• Inmenging Europa: “to interfere or not to interfere”; momenteel
bijzonder actief (beeld van tsunami’s etc., Vlas “Brusselse TGV”)
- Via verordeningen
- Via uitspraken Hof Justitie
- uitleg verdragen en verordeningen
- toetsen nationaal ipr (conformiteit met Europees recht)
• Tot voor kort in sommige literatuur: “Haagse Conferentie bedreigd door
“Brussel””;
Mr. Magazine maart 2012: “Boek 10 bedreigd door “Brussel””
16. Verordeningen:
(gaan voor op nationaal ipr!)
(cfr. Reminder 10:1 )
• Oude verdragen omgezet in verordenigen
– Bv. EEX-verdrag – EEX-verordening (Brussel I)
– Bv. Evo-verdrag – Rome I verordening (art. 28 Rome I voor wat betreft
afscheiding)
• Nieuwe verordeningen gemaakt
- Bv. Rome II, Brussel II bis, Rome III, Alimentatieverordening
- op komst verordeningen huwelijksvermogensrecht,
vermogensrechtelijke gevolgen gp’s, erfrecht (telkens 3 aspecten ipr
geregeld: « traité triple »)
• Verordeningen nadien soms weer aangepast
- Bv. EEX proces van herschikking aan de gang
- Bv. Momenteel wordt gewerkt aan regeling inzake smaad voor Rome II
• Opgelet, fenomeen: verordening kan zijn gebaseerd op techniek
« nauwere samenwerking » - zie Rome III: slechts beperkt aantal lidstaten
(Nederland niet partij bij Rome III; Rome III zal op 21 juni 2012 voor aantal
landen in werking treden maar niet voor Nederland )
17. Uitspraken Hof van Justitie
• Uitleg verdragen en verordeningen
– Bv. EEX
– Bv. EVO (recente uitspraken artikel 6,
internationaal arbeidsrecht: Koelzsch,
Voogsgeerd)
• Toetsen nationaal ipr op conformiteit met
Europees recht: nationaal ipr soms
« veroordeeld » - met soms discussies over
precieze impact
18. Belang besef van voorgaande voor
toepasser Boek 10
• Opletten voorrang supranationale regelgeving
- weliswaar in Boek 10 vaak naar verwezen
- maar risico achterhaald (snelle ontwikkelingen bv. Familierecht, materie kinderbescherming
en alimentatie: HKV 1996 (sinds 1 mei 2011 in werking) en alimentatieverordening/protocol
(sinds 18 juni 2011 toepassen) – art. 11 Uitvoeringswet internationale inning)
- supranationale regels slorpen mogelijk (bijna) alles op, nationale dan niet meer relevant
(cfr. Ook Belgische ervaring Codex: « optische effecten »: nationale regels staan er, maar niet/nauwelijks
toepassen
• Opletten impact uitspraken Hof van Justitie (waarbij nationaal
ipr kan zijn « veroordeeld »)
- bv. Namenrecht: impact uitspraak Garcia Avello op namenrecht? (Boek 10 niet « pro-actief »)
Cfr. Belgische ervaring Codex: regel uit codex niet toepassen zoals wordt geserveerd?
voor wat betreft « Europese gevallen » (algemeen: Europese tendens « liberalisering »)
- cfr. Belgische ervaring vennootschapsrecht: impact uitspraak Uberseering op vennootschapsrecht
(cfr. Nederland destijds impact uitspraak Inspire Art op WFBV)
Ook op deze manier mogelijk « optische effecten »? Regels Codex niet toepassen op voorgeschreven manier –
voor wat betreft « Europese » situaties?
19. Toespraken hierna, toegespitst op
enkele thema’s:
• Waar precies momenteel regelgeving onder
supranationale druk (verordeningen/verdragen en/of
uitspraken Hof? Hoe deze begrijpen en uitleggen?)
• Waar precies in Boek 10 zelf verschillen te ontwaren
met vroegere nationale ipr-regelgeving?
• Waar nieuwe ontwikkelingen op komst?
• Cfr. Sprekers hierna over diverse specifieke thema’s
20. Zelf:
• Wou vooral algemeen oriënteren, schetsen
Daarbij tegelijk wijzen op
- « gemak » boek 10
- Waarschuwen, oproepen tot alertheid
• Beseffen: sowieso nog Europese golven op
komst. Daarbij: