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)
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
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
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
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
Actualiteiten IPR: Nieuw Boek 10 BW; What's new in het ipr?
European uniform procedures: a French and Luxembourgish perspective
1. European uniform procedures: a
French and Luxembourgish
perspective
Rotterdam, 14 November 2019
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
2. www.mpi.lu
MPI Luxemburg: (ook) partner IC2BE-project
- Frankrijk en Luxemburg
- Voor Frankrijk en Luxemburg (ook) interviews, rechtspraakanalyse
etc.
14 November 2019
1
3. www.mpi.lu
Verordeningen in Frankrijk en Luxemburg: “what’s
new?”
Enerzijds … (Frankrijk: niets/niet zoveel nieuws onder de
zon – met een “maar”)
Anderzijds … (Luxemburg: EPO en ESCP!)
(Hierna:
EEO: EET (Europese executoriale titel)
EPO: EBB (Europees betalingsbevel)
ESCP: EGV (Europese geringe vorderingen)
EAPO: ECBB (Europees bevel conservatoir beslag op bankrekeningen))
14 November 2019
2
4. www.mpi.lu
I. Enerzijds Frankrijk
I. Enerzijds Frankrijk: niet (veel) nieuws onder de zon,
“business as usual” (met een “maar”)
EAPO: (meest recente, “jongste” van 4) nauwelijks nog
EEO: (“oudste” van 4)
weerstand en aarzeling, “niet-betwist”!? (cfr.
Ned.),
praktijk: probleem aanvaarden/begrijpen
moet/moest in land herkomst, Cfr. rechtspraak, inclusief Cour
Cass. (cfr. ook over EPO)
14 November 2019
3
5. www.mpi.lu
EPO: “usual problems” (cfr. Ned.: kwestie door wie
“service”)
ESCP:
niet gekend, niet veel toegepast, zelfs niet
in metropolen waar veel grensoverschrijdende
rechtsverhoudingen,
als al toegepast soms zoals nationale bv.
bijna automatisch mondelinge behandeling
(met “usual problems” taal etc.)
14 November 2019
4
6. www.mpi.lu
Opmerking: kwestie vertrouwdheid etc. ESCP en EPO -
issue centralisatie – online; in Frankrijk op komst voor wat
betreft EPO! (Recente wet: art. 27 Loi nr 2019-222 (mars
2019) betreffende centralisatie van EPO op nationaal
niveau)
(niet voor wat betreft ESCP)
(cfr Ned.)
Tot zover niets heel bijzonders Frankrijk
“Maar”: Wel, Frankrijk, praktijk notarissen EEO!
14 November 2019
5
7. www.mpi.lu
II. Anderzijds Luxemburg
EAPO:
(cfr. Ned.) niet echt nood aan want voor eisers
goedwerkende snelle gemakkelijke nationale procedure (met
kwestie moeilijkheid invulling eisen die in nationaal recht niet
gekend), advocaten niet riskeren welzijn cliënten
(cfr. Ned.) wel aantrekkelijkheid voor eiser
informatiemechanisme banken
(EEO) (niet veel speciaal)
14 November 2019
6
8. www.mpi.lu
EPO en ESCP wel speciaal, bijzonder
toegepast!
Atypisch – “laboratorium”
Reden!? Rechter: “nodig en nuttig”. Lux
cosmopolitisch, veel grensarbeiders. Heel veel al vanzelf
grensoverschrijdend.
14 November 2019
7
9. www.mpi.lu
ESCP in Luxemburg
ESCP: (vergelijk Ned.) vaak door (Lux)
professionals/organisaties tegen non-professionals buiten Lux
– door hen “ontdekt” – welkom instrument
(cfr. praktijk bv. Lux. advocaten tegen cliënten woonachtig in
Duitsland/België/Frankrijk, onbetaalde facturen – Ned. 1 “marginal” case
lawyer fees -, diensten verricht in Lux., …)
ESCP in Lux: mogelijk in Lux?
ESCP bevoegdheidsgronden Brussel 1
bis, inclusief (strikt) consumentenbegrip Brussel 1 bis
– vaak mogelijk artikel 7 lid 1 Brussel 1 bis
in procedures tegen non-professionals gevestigd buiten Lux
(vaak bv. ook artikel 7 lid 2 Brussel 1 bis)
14 November 2019
8
10. www.mpi.lu
ESCP in Lux kan ook aantrekkelijk zijn, mede
in verhouding tot andere regimes:
EPO: rem artikel 6, 2 EPO (ruime(re)
bescherming consument-verweerder in EPO – althans zo
bekeken, cfr. verder over EPO controle etc.),
bijzondere nationaal-Lux procedure
(“OPA”): probleem verweerder moet domicilie hebben in Lux,
als dan “gemakkelijke” procedure in Lux
wil: ESCP!?
14 November 2019
9
11. www.mpi.lu
(cfr. In verhouding tot Brussel 1 bis : ESCP geen
weigeringsgrond achteraf schending bevoegdheidsregels
consument, als consument)
(ESCP zo bekeken “uitgeklede versie” Brussel 1 bis; verschil mogelijk door
eiser niet per se strategisch gebruikt maar alleszins wel resultaat dat
verschil)
wel (nuance): Lux. rechters zelf toetsen wel zelf
als verweerder (al dan niet consument) niet “verschijnt” (veel
uitspraken in die zin met toepassing artikel 28 Brussel 1 bis);
in die zin dus niet zo gemakkelijk want toetsen wel
bevoegdheid
(preciese maniér waarop: mogelijk wel als vrij liberaal te bestempelen voor wat betreft bepaalde types
rechtsverhoudingen)
14 November 2019
10
12. www.mpi.lu
factor aantrekking alleszins (hoe
gemakkelijk/moeilijk Lux rechters ook): geen gerechtskosten
Lux (en rechters vertrouwd procedures) (= ook factor
aantrekking consumenten)
ESCP in Lux gebruikt ook door
consumenten??
Wel degelijk ook ruimer dan hogergenoemde
zaken tégen non-professionals (mogelijk katalysator-effect van
hogergenoemde zaken?) – “consumenten” (non-
professionals) zelf soms ook als eisers
14 November 2019
11
13. www.mpi.lu
consumenten “usual problems” (met voor wat betreft Lux.
kwestie dat Engels niet officieel aanvaard) maar ook
“successen” (soms met hulp Centre Européen des
Consommateurs (contactpunt Lux)):
* tegen vliegtuigmaatschappijen
(cfr. Ned. – enkele keer in Lux ook EPO-procedure hiervoor)
* “gebruik” ESCP als “dreiging”
ESCP dus gebruikt in Luxemburg – cfr.
Europese wetgever: verbeteren “access to justice” - zij
het zeker niet alleen gebruikt door consumenten
14 November 2019
12
14. www.mpi.lu
EPO in Luxemburg
EPO: mogelijke rem artikel 6, 2 EPO (ruimer begrip
“consument”!? Alleszins absolute regel: geen forumkeuze)
Problematiek algemeen EPO (beperkte)
controlemechanismen en sancties. Maar Luxemburg: vrij streng
gecontroleerd
Cfr. Lux vrij streng documenten (geen
“voordeel” eiser als gebruik Europese procedure versus
nationale procedure)
“Streng”: mag wel? Hoe streng mag/moet zijn?
14 November 2019
13
15. www.mpi.lu
“En attendant Bondora”
Hangende zaak Bondora C-453/18 en C-494/18
(Opinie 31 oktober 2019)
Specifiek consumentenbescherming Richtlijn 93/13 oneerlijke
bedingen consumentencontracten, specifiek Spanje,
maar interessant ruimer over wat wanneer mag
vragen/controleren, mede gegeven de beleidsobjectieven van de
verordening – in wezen in vraag gesteld, rechten eisers -
verweerder
14 November 2019
14
16. www.mpi.lu
Meer:
- PowerPoints Frankrijk en Luxemburg 27 september 2019
- PowerPoint Rechtspraak Hof van Justitie Antwerpen 21
November 2019
- Final Conference Antwerp:
https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/projects/ic2be/final-conference/
14 November 2019
15