scholarly journals Eu Law as Private International Law? Reconceptualising the Country-of-Origin Principle as Vested-Rights Theory

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Michaels
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Origin Principle

Non-Contractual Obligations

2019 ◽  
pp. 244-277
Author(s):  
Adrian Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations

This chapter discusses the law on non-contractual obligations. On Exit Day, and unless any further legislative provision is made, the provisions of EU law set out in the Rome II Regulation, Regulation 864/2007, will be retained as the law of the United Kingdom. The adjustments necessary to allow the Rome II Regulation to operate as English private international law are made by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019 No 834: these adjustments are of no substantial importance. It follows that it is possible to refer in this chapter to the Rome II Regulation without needing to draw attention to its status as EU legislation (as it was prior to Exit Day) or as retained EU legislation (as it is on and after Exit Day).

scholarly journals INTERNET CASES IN EU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW—DEVELOPING A COHERENT APPROACH

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lutzi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Information Society ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Internet Communication ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Rome I ◽  
The Eu

AbstractInternet communication has long been known to pose a challenge to private international law and its reliance on geographical connecting factors. This article looks at the problem from the perspective of EU private international law and argues that the way in which it has been accommodated by Regulations Brussels I, Rome I, and II conflicts with some of its central paradigms. It advances an alternative approach that would generally submit claims against information society service providers established in the EU to the jurisdiction and substantive laws of their ‘country of origin’ but make certain exceptions for private persons and consumers. The article argues that implementing such an approach would require little legislative change, be more faithful to the particularities of internet communication, and give greater effect to the central paradigms of EU private international law.

scholarly journals Pojęcie współmałżonka w prawie unijnym – uwagi na tle orzeczenia w sprawie Coman (C‑673/16)

Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(66)) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Ewa Kamarad
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

The Term ‘Spouse’ in EU Law – Comments on the Judgment in the Coman Case (C‑ 673‑16) The paper concerns the judgment of 5 June 2018 issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Coman case (C‑673‑16), in which the Court for the first time defined the term ‘spouse’ for the purpose of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It discusses the consequences of the judgement and its relation to the traditional mechanisms of private international law and the EU principle of mutual recognition.

scholarly journals Kwalifikacja w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym Unii Europejskiej. Od kwalifikacji autonomicznej ku… kwalifikacji według kolizyjnej legis fori?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Pacuła
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Functional Characterization ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Eu

The terms ‘characterization’ (‘classification’) and ‘exercise of characterization’ refer in particular to the efforts made to determine which conflict of law rule — and in the sense presented in this paper, also rule on jurisdiction — which is part of the law of the forum State, should be applied to the circumstances of a particular case. In relation to the norms of private international law of the European Union, the triumph of an autonomous characterization at first sight seems undeniable. The term autonomous characterization (in principle — ‘autonomous interpretation’, the case law usually does not distinguish between exercise of characterization and exercise of interpretation) has been referred to over the last fifty years in order to describe the vast majority of operations of interpretation undertaken in relation to the norms of EU private international law. The contemporary concept of characterization in private law of the European Union, although consistently referred to as ‘autonomous’, does not fully meet the criteria thereof. The papers argues that while the starting point was the autonomous characterization in its pure form (stage one), over time it partially gave way to the place of characterization according to the EU law-oriented legis fori (stage two), and finally it was enriched with new elements which gave it the form of a specific functional characterization (stage three). It is not so much about the consistency of the results of the exercises of characterization with the universal understanding of certain concepts. Exercises of characterization are carried out through the prism of their effects, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the norms of EU law (effet utile) other than rules on conflict of laws and on jurisdiction.

Contractual Obligations

2019 ◽  
pp. 195-243
Author(s):  
Adrian Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

This chapter discusses the law on contractual obligations. On Exit Day, and unless any further legislative provision is made, the provisions of EU law set out in the Rome I Regulation, Regulation 593/2008, will be retained as the law of the United Kingdom. The adjustments necessary to allow the Rome I Regulation to operate as English private international law are made by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019 No 834: these adjustments are of no substantial importance. It follows that it is possible to refer in this chapter to the Rome I Regulation without needing to draw attention to its status as EU legislation (as it was prior to Exit Day) or as retained EU legislation (as it is on and after Exit Day).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document