Un acte de naissance établi aux Comores ne peut pas produire effet en France s’il n’est pas légalisé par le consul de France aux Comores ou par le consul des Comores en France.
Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, 27 mars 2017
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 2, 28 mars 2017
Cour d'appel de Cayenne, chambre sociale, 28 novembre 2016
Copropriété
Copropriété
Cour d'appel de Douai, 4e Chambre, 14 février 2017
Cour d'appel de Metz, Chambre des Appels Correctionnels, 29 mars 2017
Tribunal de grande instance/d'instance de Créteil, 10e correctionnelle, 02 octobre 2017
Tribunal d'instance de Paris, Vème, 11 octobre 2017
Hard to believe, but true: The Encyclopedia of Private International Law, published by Edward Elgar and edited by Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute Hamburg), Franco Ferrari (NYU Law School), Pedro de Miguel Asensio (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) and me, has finally been released end of September. Bringing together more than 180 authors from 57 countries the Encyclopedia sheds light on the current state of Private International Law around the globe and provides insights into how the discipline has been affected by globalization and increased regional integration over the last decades.
The Encyclopedia is available both in print and via Elgaronline and consists of four volumes. The first two volumes describe topical aspects of Private International Law in form of 247 alphabetically sorted entries. The third volume describes the Private International Law regimes of 80 countries in form of national reports. The fourth volume contains a collection of national codifications and provisions of Private International Law in English translation. More information is available here and here.
I take the opportunity to thank everybody who has helped to make the Encyclopedia come true, notably the authors and translators (many of them editors or readers of this blog), my fellow editors, my team at the University of Jena and last but not least the team over at Edward Elgar!
Should you be interested in receiving a review copy please send an email to reviews@e-elgar.co.uk.
When the ‘Bolkestein’ Directive on the free movement of services was eventually adopted some years back, some of us referred to it as the ‘hairdressers’ Directive (no disrespect): the scope of application was so narrowed down that few professions seemed still to be covered by it. Similarly, the EU’s Succession Regulation Member States wanted to ensure that the recognition and enforcement of rules on succession /estate would not upset national property law on rules held dear, such as numerus clausus. The Regulation to that effect excludes from its scope of application ‘the nature of rights in rem; and any recording in a register of rights in immoveable or moveable property, including the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to record such rights in a register.’
In C-218/16 Kubicka the Court of Justice held last week. Ms Kubicka wishes to include in her will a legacy ‘by vindication’, which is allowed by Polish law, in favour of her husband, concerning her share of ownership of the jointly-owned immovable property in Frankfurt an der Oder. She wishes to leave the remainder of the assets that comprise her estate in accordance with the statutory order of inheritance, whereby her husband and children would inherit it in equal shares. She expressly ruled out recourse to an ordinary legacy (legacy ‘by damnation’), as provided for by Article 968 of the Civil Code, since such a legacy would entail difficulties in relation to the representation of her minor children, who will inherit, as well as additional costs. A notary’s assistant refused to draw up a will containing the legacy ‘by vindication’ stipulated by Aleksandra Kubicka on the ground that creation of a will containing such a legacy is contrary to German legislation and case-law relating to rights in rem and land registration.
In the present case, both the legacy ‘by vindication’, provided for by Polish law and the legacy ‘by damnation’, provided for by German law, constitute methods of transfer of ownership of an asset, namely a right in rem that is recognised in both of the legal systems concerned. Therefore, the direct transfer of a property right by means of a legacy ‘by vindication’ concerns only the arrangement by which that right in rem is transferred at the time of the testator’s death. It is not covered by the exception.
Member States and practitioners who suggested an interpretation of the exception beyond its limited scope, were therefore rebuffed. That is a good thing. Property law often for no apparent reason is considered immune from conflict of laws, both in terms of jurisdiction and applicable law. The CJEU’s judgment in Kubicka puts a hold to too wide an interpretation of the rei sitae exception.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 6, Heading 6.2.2.1.
La délivrance d’un visa n’est pas de droit. L’accueil en France des personnels civils localement recrutés pour aider l’armée française en Afghanistan dépend d’orientations générales qui ne peuvent être invoquées par les intéressés à l’appui d’un recours contentieux.
Etat civil - Protection des droits de la personne
Bourse
Santé publique - Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux - Union européenne
Santé publique - Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux –
Union européenne
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer