1. The document discusses a recent Dutch Supreme Court case from May 2020 regarding the termination of a Turkish airline pilot employed in the Netherlands.
2. It analyzes the case in the context of prior CJEU cases on determining the applicable law for employment contracts under the Rome I Regulation.
3. Broader issues are also discussed, such as determining the "habitual place of work" in cross-border employment, the "escape clause" in Article 8 of Rome I, and ensuring adequate protection of weaker parties in private international law.
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 )
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"
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 )
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"
Clase 28.5.2021 Legal English Linguistic Features. in the Universal Declaration of human Rights. Human Rights. Collocations. False Friends. Adela Perez del Viso
Some advice to fashion and luxury businesses, from a barrister and solicitors practising in England & Wales and France, as well as a lawyer practising in Germany, specialising in intellectual property, on the practical steps to take in order to enforce one’s IPRS in France, Germany and the UK.
Holger Alt, ialci Member of the Executive Committee - responsible for Germany – and Partner, von Boetticher
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 )
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.
After reading Martin
Solution
A civil court hears a transnational dispute between private parties, which, according
to the forum’s choice of law rules, is governed by a foreign lex causae. One party submits that it
considers the foreign statute applicable to the dispute to be incompatible with the constitutional
law of the lex causae and wishes to lead evidence to that effect, or ask the court to inquire into
that question, with a view to having the impugned provision disapplied and the dispute decided
on the basis of other provisions of the lex causae. How will the court respond to that submission;
what does the forum’s private international law require it to do in these circumstances? This
question will be addressed in this essay with respect to the laws of England as applied by the
German courts on the one hand and those of Germany applied by English courts on the other.
The study will deal exclusively with the effects which an incompatibility of primary legislation
with constitutional norms of the lex causae creates from a private international law perspective
and will therefore not address the questions of ‘unconstitutional’ subordinate legislation and,
falling into a very similar category from a European law perspective, national primary legislation
in contravention of EC law1. It is conceded that the practical scope of the problem of
constitutional review of provisions of the foreign lex causae in the forum courts with respect to
the laws of two states that, like England and Germany, by and large, share common values and,
as member states of the European Community, show significant convergence or even uniformity
in many areas of the law, is indeed a limited one. This finding is reinforced by the distinct
‘homeward trend’ of the English choice of law rules governing important areas of the law such
as family law2. The fact, however, that the only case that has - so far - come to the English
courts where the court was squarely faced with the question of permissibility of constitutional
review of the foreign lex causae provision, related to the corporate law of another EC member
state (Italy)3, demonstrates at least a residual practical importance of this matter. Furthermore, a
considerable number of aspects that will be discussed in the course of this study will also be
applicable to instances where German or English law will have to be applied in fora other than
England or Germany. However, what makes the present topic particularly interesting, are the
respective peculiarities of English and German constitutional law and their practical effect on
transnational civil litigation of the kind in issue. In trying to find a satisfactory answer to the
question as to how the English and German forum courts should react when faced with an
allegation of ‘unconstitutionality’ of a lex causae statute, jurisprudence and, to a larger extent,
influential scholarly writing will be presented and critically examined. In chapter II, the attitude
taken by E.
Would a country like Germany be allowed to prohibit the ownership and trade of Bitcoin, as is the case in China? Dennis Hillemann of www.blockchainlawyersnetwork.com treated this topic in a lecture on 9.9.2020 from a constitutional viewpoint. Does the German constitution protect Bitcoin? Please find attached the presentation on this legal matter in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space.
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.
Clase 28.5.2021 Legal English Linguistic Features. in the Universal Declaration of human Rights. Human Rights. Collocations. False Friends. Adela Perez del Viso
Some advice to fashion and luxury businesses, from a barrister and solicitors practising in England & Wales and France, as well as a lawyer practising in Germany, specialising in intellectual property, on the practical steps to take in order to enforce one’s IPRS in France, Germany and the UK.
Holger Alt, ialci Member of the Executive Committee - responsible for Germany – and Partner, von Boetticher
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 )
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.
After reading Martin
Solution
A civil court hears a transnational dispute between private parties, which, according
to the forum’s choice of law rules, is governed by a foreign lex causae. One party submits that it
considers the foreign statute applicable to the dispute to be incompatible with the constitutional
law of the lex causae and wishes to lead evidence to that effect, or ask the court to inquire into
that question, with a view to having the impugned provision disapplied and the dispute decided
on the basis of other provisions of the lex causae. How will the court respond to that submission;
what does the forum’s private international law require it to do in these circumstances? This
question will be addressed in this essay with respect to the laws of England as applied by the
German courts on the one hand and those of Germany applied by English courts on the other.
The study will deal exclusively with the effects which an incompatibility of primary legislation
with constitutional norms of the lex causae creates from a private international law perspective
and will therefore not address the questions of ‘unconstitutional’ subordinate legislation and,
falling into a very similar category from a European law perspective, national primary legislation
in contravention of EC law1. It is conceded that the practical scope of the problem of
constitutional review of provisions of the foreign lex causae in the forum courts with respect to
the laws of two states that, like England and Germany, by and large, share common values and,
as member states of the European Community, show significant convergence or even uniformity
in many areas of the law, is indeed a limited one. This finding is reinforced by the distinct
‘homeward trend’ of the English choice of law rules governing important areas of the law such
as family law2. The fact, however, that the only case that has - so far - come to the English
courts where the court was squarely faced with the question of permissibility of constitutional
review of the foreign lex causae provision, related to the corporate law of another EC member
state (Italy)3, demonstrates at least a residual practical importance of this matter. Furthermore, a
considerable number of aspects that will be discussed in the course of this study will also be
applicable to instances where German or English law will have to be applied in fora other than
England or Germany. However, what makes the present topic particularly interesting, are the
respective peculiarities of English and German constitutional law and their practical effect on
transnational civil litigation of the kind in issue. In trying to find a satisfactory answer to the
question as to how the English and German forum courts should react when faced with an
allegation of ‘unconstitutionality’ of a lex causae statute, jurisprudence and, to a larger extent,
influential scholarly writing will be presented and critically examined. In chapter II, the attitude
taken by E.
Would a country like Germany be allowed to prohibit the ownership and trade of Bitcoin, as is the case in China? Dennis Hillemann of www.blockchainlawyersnetwork.com treated this topic in a lecture on 9.9.2020 from a constitutional viewpoint. Does the German constitution protect Bitcoin? Please find attached the presentation on this legal matter in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space.
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.
IP Revolution? Scenarios for the future. How to find your way in IP alternative Dispute Resolution? Part 2: Life Sciences. ADR for patent disputes in the Life Science sector
Similar to Some recent "Dutch" cases positioned in a broader Private International Law Perspective. "Orwellian language" in Private International Law? (20)
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)
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"
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
Boek 10 BW en plaats Boek 10 ten aanzien van supranationale ipr-regelgeving d...Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
Congres/College Internationaal Privaatrecht
Academie Voor de Rechtspraktijk
5 april 2012
Inleidend onderdeel "Inleiding, overzicht IPR"
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
Some recent "Dutch" cases positioned in a broader Private International Law Perspective. "Orwellian language" in Private International Law?
1. Some recent “Dutch” cases, positioned in
a broader Private International Law
Perspective
“Orwellian language” in Private
International Law?
2. www.mpi.lu
• This RR:
Cfr. Some aspects previous RR:
“regulatory role” PIL, when dealing with issues of
globalization (“neutrality” of PIL)
freedom and protection weak (and vulnerable) parties in
PIL
• Meanwhile developments legislative and case law
Continuing on previous presentations and publications
2
3. www.mpi.lu
• This presentation: focus on recent “Dutch” case law
“Dutch”:
Dutch Courts,
Court of Justice as Dutch cases referred to Court by
Netherlands
• Particularly focusing on decision Dutch Supreme Court
29 May 2020 – labour law
This presentation (content and perspective)
3
4. www.mpi.lu
• Mainly about labour law.
But (when zooming out of particular case/theme) will also
mention in that context decision CSR “Shell Nigeria”
• As related to each other, can be put under same “umbrella”
4
5. www.mpi.lu
• Labour law and recent case law
• Cross-border employment, PIL applicable law sources:
Rome 1: rules applicable law, art. 8 on employment
contracts
Posting Directive: hard core rules country where work
carried out temporarily
So focus on some PIL-aspects Labour Law, employment contracts
5
6. www.mpi.lu
• Start with Dutch case, case Dutch Supreme Court 29
May 2020
• Case itself: “simple”
• (purely) rules applicable law Rome 1 Regulation,
Case Dutch Supreme Court 29 May 2020 “Turkish airline”
6
7. www.mpi.lu
• Purely one particular aspect article 8: last paragraph article
8: “closer connection” – sometimes venom in the tail?
• Interesting when keep in mind:
preamble Rome 1, ratio article 8:
(23) “As regards contracts concluded with parties regarded
as being weaker, those parties should be protected by conflict-
of-law rules that are more favourable to their interests than the
general rules.”
7
8. www.mpi.lu
• 1. An individual employment contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties in accordance with
Article 3. Such a choice of law may not, however, have the result of depriving the employee of the
protection afforded to him by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law that, in
the absence of choice, would have been applicable pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.
• 2. To the extent that the law applicable to the individual employment contract has not been chosen by the
parties, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country in which or, failing that, from which the
employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract. The country where the work is
habitually carried out shall not be deemed to have changed if he is temporarily employed in another country.
• 3. Where the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraph 2, the contract shall be governed
by the law of the country where the place of business through which the employee was engaged is situated.
• 4. Where it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a
country other than that indicated in paragraphs 2 or 3, the law of that other country shall apply.
(See Article 8 Rome 1 Regulation, “individual employment contracts”)
8
9. www.mpi.lu
• Case Dutch Supreme Court May 2020: at SC purely about
last paragraph article 8 Rome 1 (par. 4)
case: aviation sector;
Turkish airline, Dutch pilot, fired (choice made for Turkish
law)
Pilot: relying on Dutch mandatory rules labour protection
when started procedure in the Netherlands (art. 8 par. 1 plus 2
Rome 1)
Turkish airline to Supreme Court
• Brief discussion this case hereafter, mentioning meanwhile
several cases Court Justice: CJEU Ryanair and CJEU Schlecker
Case in context (in context previous case law CJEU Ryanair and Schlecker)
9
10. www.mpi.lu
• CJEU Ryanair (Nogueira) Aviation sector. About rules
jurisdiction (Brussels 1), about “habitual working place”
(Belgium/Ireland?). CJEU: how decide habitual working
place (with attention for attempts, strategy Ryanair)
• Conclusion Belgian courts: working place = Belgium, thus:
- even though forum choice Ireland employee may sue
in Belgium.
- same line reasoning concept “habitual place work”
applicable law
Case Dutch Supreme Court in context Ryanair (following Ryanair)
10
11. www.mpi.lu
• Case SC Turkish airline May 2020:
in line Turkish airline, pilot in Netherlands, fired, …
First instance and Court Appeal Amsterdam:
Netherlands = habitual working place,
- where pilot could sue (despite forum choice),
- and also relevant applicable law (normally applicable
law) – mandatory Dutch rules (article 8 par. 1 plus par. 2
Rome 1).
11
12. www.mpi.lu
• But: before Dutch Supreme Court:
Turkish airline complaining about way arguing by Court
Appeal escape-clause “closer connection” article 8 par. 4
Rome 1,
Court Appeal Amsterdam had said:
could rely on Dutch mandatory rules protecting against
fired (escape-clause not applicable)
But Supreme Court:
Court appeal not well argued about escape-clause article
8 Rome 1 (last paragraph). Referred to another Court of
Appeal to decide
In line with CJEU Ryanair, BUT
12
13. www.mpi.lu
• What about this “escape clause”?? CJEU Schlecker
• Schlecker: (“Dutch” case)
very long habitual work in the Netherlands: escape-clause!?
• CJEU in Schlecker: even then possibility application escape-
clause (with some instructions)
“Escape clause”!? Case Dutch Supreme Court in context Schlecker, After
Schlecker
13
14. www.mpi.lu
• case Schlecker: escape-clause might lead to German law –
less favorable for employee in substantive way
• Here, “Turkish case”: as far as escape-clause would be
applied (escape-clause argued by Turkish airline):
• Turkish law completely
Thus, so, even if in line CJEU Ryanair, possibility plot twist
at the end, with “venom in the tail” for employee?
14
15. www.mpi.lu
• might say:
- Perhaps Court Appeal Amsterdam (just) not
justified well/in correct way, maybe just sloppy
- and see very recent lower case law other cases
against same Turkish airline
But so
Possible risk, “sword of Damocles”?
Escape-clause and “protection”?
Advocate-General before Dutch SC in Turkish case:
issues escape-clause and “protection” (even if
agree that “protection” should not be understood as “most
favourable in substantive way”, issues)
15
16. www.mpi.lu
• In any case broader issues protection,
anno 2021 “protection” weak parties not yet
crystallised, also other issues “protection”
cfr. literature
Escape-clause? Escape-clause and protection? Broader, beyond
(ZOOMING OUT of particular case/escape-clause)
16
17. www.mpi.lu
• Cfr. broader/other cases, e.g.:
• Pending Case Hungarian truck drivers Silo-Tank,
Court Appeal: “Hungarian law” (as law habitual work
place/close connection)
Supreme Court
awaiting new Court of Appeal, pending. Difficulties
“country habitual work”, here in road sector
• Situation posting, Posting Directive: “mind your step”:
sometimes seems protection, but boomerang – sometimes
tricky, sometimes “mind the gap”, issues where sue, …
This Dutch case AND BEYOND (in labour law)
17
18. www.mpi.lu
• Case FNV (“van den Bosch”, “Dutch” case): truck drivers in
Netherlands, Hungarian wages, road transport, Posting Directive (hard core
rules of country where working temporarily)
CJEU 1 December 2020: Posting Directive in principle applicable road
sector
But need … : “a sufficient connection”
Scholars: discussions on case (what means/what means for case itself)
Regarding POSTING: recent case CJEU (“Dutch” case): case C-815/18 (FNV):
recently CJEU on applicability Posting Directive in road sector
18
19. www.mpi.lu
• Interesting, point out myself: opinion Bobek in case C-815/18 (30 April
2020),
“Orwellian” language in sense of misleading, tricky … language
• pick up from opinion: “Orwellian” language, from perspective employee
(cfr. sub-title of this presentation)
cfr. Maybe Schlecker? Cfr. Maybe case Dutch Supreme Court 29 May
2020?
(tricky, misleading, deceptive), especially if “in the name of” protection
triggering remark, triggering also to broader analysis “protection”/freedom
and limitation thereof
Opinion Bobek in FNV-case: “Orwellian language”
19
20. www.mpi.lu
• “Orwellian” protection or not: POTENTIAL analyzing issues of
globalization from perspective “protection” weak and vulnerable parties:
On the one hand “protection”: not crystallised issues
But at same time: in any case acknowledged that weak and issue
In context globalization: protection weak parties is/should be point of
attention
• Can be seen broader, cfr. e.g. theme CSR, “vulnerable” parties
POTENTIAL studying “protection”
20
21. www.mpi.lu
• Zooming out even more. In that context, perspective, cfr; also Dutch
Shell Nigeria case
decision Dutch Court of Appeal 29 January 2021
besides this particular case, other cases/legislative developments:
issues in theme CSR, i.a.:
- Rome II basic rule (art. 4): preamble Rome II “fair, reasonable balance
between interests” … but…
- issues jurisdiction and interaction jurisdiction – applicable law (rules
applicable law and overriding mandatory rules) etc.
Cfr. Current calls attribute regulatory role to PIL in issues of globalisation
Broader (ZOOMING OUT EVEN MORE, but still Dutch case law): Cfr. Dutch
case Shell Nigeria case, theme of CSR
21
22. www.mpi.lu
Cfr. E.g. Hamburg young PIL scholars March and sustainable
development goals later on this year.
Includes issues applicable law and certainly also includes
issues of jurisdiction, in interaction/relation with applicable law.
Access to justice …
Thus of interest also MPI Luxembourg!?
RELEVANCE for MPI LUXEMBOURG
22