Tribunale di Bologna — Italy. Whereas trade in goods between Member States should be carried on under conditions which are similar to those of a single market, and this necessitates approximation of the durettiva systems of the Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; whereas in this regard the rules concerning conflict of laws do not, in the matter of commercial representation, remove the inconsistencies referred to above, nor would they even if they were made uniform, and accordingly the proposed harmonization is necessary notwithstanding the existence of those rules. It is therefore left to the Member States to require entry in the appropriate register if they consider it expedient so to diretfiva in order to satisfy certain administrative needs. Would you like to keep them?

Author:Zululabar Brataxe
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):2 March 2005
PDF File Size:10.48 Mb
ePub File Size:8.59 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Corporate Finance Lab. Specifically, the Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law imposes a duty of vigilance on large companies to prevent serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and serious environmental damage in their supply chain. In a previous post , I discussed the concept of supply chain liability.

As I pointed out there, the concept had not been defined by law makers yet. The French legislature has now attempted to operationalize the concept through new legislation. View original post 1, more words. The title of this post is a result of my confusion on the state of various suits against Chiquita, on alleged collusion in or perpetration of human rights abuses in Columbia.

Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami. Except my limited knowledge of jurisdictional levels in the US leaves me in doubt where the link is between these two developments US readers please assist if you can. At any rate, the ruling reviewed here is a textbook example of forum non conveniens motion dismissed, nota bene and a great source for a comparative conflicts class. Such as I teach at Monash The Frogmore group specialises in real estate investment and management in the UK and each of the Companies owns a shopping centre located at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire, Belle Vale in Liverpool and Knowle in Bristol respectively.

Marshall DJ held with reference to the familiar precedents of Eurofood and Interedil, both featuring heavily in my earlier postings on COMI, but also to Northsea Base Investments in which Birss J paid particular attention to the largest shareholders. Of note is that this reference to the largest shareholders does not entail and indeed is not so constructed in either Northsea Base or Frogmore that these get the pick of what COMI might entail. Under the Advisory Agreement which was itself governed by English law and had an English exclusive jurisdiction clause FREPIM was to take on full responsibility for providing a very large range of services to the Companies, including day-to-day management of the Shopping Centres and dealing with their financing, accounting, marketing and formulation of their business strategy.

These actions were not just limited commercial activities but included the types of function that one would expect a head office to discharge. In their day-to-day dealings with third parties regarding expenditure these offices are given as the address for invoices.

Under the Facility Agreement the Shareholder is the service agent for the Companies. In the case of the Nationwide Debentures, they have express reference to the power to appoint administrators under the Act. FREPIM took over the day-to-day contact with Nationwide as well as providing Nationwide with various pieces of information such as quarterly compliance packs and accounts for borrowers and did so from London. FREPIM also accepted that the management of the relationship between the Companies and Nationwide had been carried out by [the group treasurer] and the Chairman of the Frogmore group, who was also based in London.

And that COMI determination always depends on a basket of criteria. Handbook of EU private international law, 2nd ed. The working group now has a February draft out.

The project nota bene has even increased in relevance given Brexit. However my main point of concern remains: the absence of Wally: some type of institutional redress which will assist courts in the interpretation of the Convention.

Article 23 now calls for uniform interpretation, and there will, one assumes, be a report accompanying its adoption. Judging by the size of commentaries on the EU mirror, Brussels I Recast, this could turn out to be a very sizeable report indeed.

However without a court system ensuring uniformity of application, the Convention in my view will risk being a dead duck in the water. It operates a tea plantation there. Plaintiffs were employed, or lived there, and were the victims of ethnic violence carried out by armed criminals on the Plantation after the Presidential election in Kenya in I believe she is right. Instead the High Court threw out the case on the basis that the claims, prima facie on deciding jurisdiction, the Court does not review the substantial merits of the case; a thin line to cross had no merit.

Three issues had to be decided:. A leading English law case on the test for the duty of care. The relevance of English law on this issues comes about as a result of Kenyan law following the same Caparo test: as I have noted elsewhere, it is not without discussion that lex fori should apply to this test of attributability.

Laing J held that the Caparo criteria were not fulfilled. The events were not as such foreseeable in particular: a general breakdown in law and order. Importantly, with respect to the holding company and as helpfully summarised by Herbert Smith :. This became somewhat irrelevant but the High Court ruled they were not. This, under the common law of conflicts, was a matter of lex causae: Kenyan law, and requiring Kenyan expert input. Not English law, as the lex fori. The case, like Okpabi, is subject to appeal however it is clear that the English courts are not willing to pick up the baton of court of prefered resort for CSR type cases against mother companies.

It means that different insolvency courts open separate proceedings for each insolvent group member, with the appointment — in many cases — of several insolvency practitioners. This approach has its benefits in terms of legal certainty, but it overlooks the wider picture of the group. It is, in fact, not suitable for the group restructuring or the sale of the group business as a going concern. In the case of more applications, a priority rule applies or, when not possible, the application made by the company with the highest number of employees in the previous financial year prevails.

This should avoid the occurrence of frictions, inefficiencies and information asymmetries, which could endanger an optimal result. However, if the creditors are not persuaded and vote in favour of the arrangements contained in the group plan, but the practitioner does not adapt accordingly the insolvency plan at the level of individual proceeding, he may risk to be held liable for damages.

Except for the first point on procedural consolidation, which is positively considered by the prevailing literature in the case of an integrated group as a tool to simplify the going-concern sale of the business or the global group-wide restructuring, the new German rules resemble closely the ones recently adopted in the Recast Insolvency Regulation.

The latter, in fact, were proposed by the German delegations within the European Parliament and the Council. Also at the European level, a group coordination proceeding has been introduced in order to facilitate the group restructuring, even though the participation of various practitioners is not binding and rests on a voluntary basis see Articles 61 et seq. This solution has been the object of different evaluations, mostly skeptical. Indeed, it seems that the introduction of a coordination proceeding will not make a significant difference in the practice of group insolvencies.

This agreement contained an English choice of law clause and required any dispute to be resolved by way of arbitration in the International Chamber of Commerce ICC. Microsoft became the assignee of these rights following its purchase of parts of Nokia in and therefore could bring claims in contract against Sony Corporation and claims in tort against the other three Defendants.

Sony Corporation is a subsidiary of Sony Europe Limited: it is the anchor defendant in this case: none of the corporations other than Sony Europe are domiciled in the EU. Therefore proceedings against all defendants were stayed in favour of ICC arbitration subject to English law.

Microsoft had anticipated such finding by suggesting such finding may be incompatible with EU law: its contention was that the operation of the Brussels I Regulation Recast must permit the effective protection of rights derived from competition law, including private law rights of action for infringement, these being rights accorded by EU law, and that an arbitration clause which caused the fragmentation of such rights of action was, for that reason, in breach of EU law at The jurisdictional regime as noted leads to a need to sue in various jurisdictions.

Fraus omnia corrumpit fraud corrupts all; alternatively formulated as ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not easily applied in conflict of laws. See an earlier post here. Pula Parking, a company owned by the town of Pula Croatia , carries out, pursuant to a decision of the mayor of that town, the administration, supervision, maintenance and cleaning of the public parking spaces, the collection of parking fees and other related tasks. Does the Brussels I recast apply at all?

In casu, it would seem the national court is asked to confirm that the parking debt claimed by Pula Parking is not coupled with any penalties that may be considered to result from a public authority act of Pula Parking and is not of a punitive nature but constitutes, therefore, mere consideration for a service provided.

Brussels I applies. European private international law, second ed. Chapter 6, Heading 6. Mutatis mutandis therefore the case has implications for most other EU private international law instruments, which employ similar terms. The AG had suggested that whether these conditions are fulfilled is for the national courts to assess.

The Court itself referred to a number of classic principles for the interpretation of EU private international law: autonomous interpretation; mutual trust; legitimate expectations. It then reformulated but essentially suggests similar criteria as its AG: for a finding to be qualified as a judgment, it must have been delivered in court proceedings offering guarantees of independence and impartiality and of compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem at In the Croatian procedure at issue, the notary issues an authentic instrument which, if it is challenged as to its content, is moved up the pecking order to court proceedings.

Aller au contenu principal. Identifiant S'inscrire. Help, I am going bananas. US courts and Chiquita. Handbook of European Private international law, 2nd ed. Not the Muppet show. The High Court pushes head office approach. Not by nature pessimistic. But probably realistic. Three issues had to be decided: i By reference to what law should the claim be decided? This was agreed as being Kenyan law. Handbook of European Private International Law, 2nd ed. Microsoft Nokia v Sony.

This battery keeps on going: relatively of arbitration clauses; cartel claims contractual? A great case, extensively argued. Tele2 Netherlands e.


EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

OJ L , In force. Avis juridique important. Le misure di armonizzazione prescritte nella presente direttiva si applicano alle disposizioni legislative, regolamentari ed amministrative degli Stati membri che regolano i rapporti tra gli agenti commerciali ed i loro preponenti. Il preponente deve inoltre informare l'agente commerciale entro un termine ragionevole, dell'accettazione o del rifiuto e della mancata esecuzione di un affare procuratogli. In mancanza di tali usi, l'agente commerciale ha diritto a una retribuzione ragionevole che tenga conto di tutti gli elementi connessi con l'operazione. Tutti gli elementi della retribuzione che variono secondo il numero o il valore degli affari sono considerati come costituenti una provvigione ai sensi della presente direttiva.


Flux européens



Agrégateur de flux




Related Articles