scholarly journals El Derecho internacional privado de la Unión Europea frente a las acciones por daños anticompetitivos = European Union Private International Law in front of antitrust damages actions

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca ◽  
Javier Carrascosa González

Resumen: Este trabajo muestra cómo el TJUE y los tribunales nacionales de los Estados miem­bros de la UE aplican los Reglamento Bruselas I-bis y Roma II a las acciones de daños por infracción del Derecho antitrust europeo. Este trabajo subraya algunas de las dificultades que está encontrado la aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia: la frecuente inoperancia de los foros de sumisión, la peculiar interpretación del forum delicti commissi, las sorpresas derivadas del forum connexitatis y las soluciones contrapuestas a las cuestiones de legitimación procesal activa y pasiva (como, por ejemplo, la responsabilidad de la sociedad matriz por el comportamiento de sus filiales).Palabras clave: acciones para la indemnización de daños anticompetitivos, acciones autónomas, acciones de seguimiento, acciones declarativas negativas, acciones Torpedo, competencia judicial inter­nacional, daños, defensa basada en la repercusión de sobrecostes, Derecho antitrust, Derecho aplicable, Derecho europeo de la competencia, efecto paraguas, passing-on, Unión Europea.Abstract: This essay shows how the CJEU and the national courts of the EU Member States apply the Brussels I-bis and Rome II Regulations to actions for damages for infringement of European anti­trust law. This paper highlights some of the difficulties encountered in the private application of Euro­pean competition law: the frequent inoperativeness of the submission forums, the peculiar interpretation of the forum delicti commissi, the surprises derived from the forum connexitatis and the opposing solu­tions to the issues of active and passive legal standing (as, for example, the responsibility of the parent company for the behavior of its subsidiaries).Keywords: Antitrust damages actions, Stand-alone actions, Follow-on actions, negative declara­tory actions, Torpedo actions, Jurisdiction, Damages (Torts), passing-on defence, Antitrust Law, Appli­cable Law, European Competition Law, umbrella effect, European Union.

Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Burcu Yüksel

This chapter draws on the findings of an EU-funded project titled (‘Cross-Border Litigation in Europe: Private International Law Legislative Framework, National Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (EUPILLAR) and discusses concerns over the lack of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the key EU Private International Law Regulations (Brussels I Regulation, Brussels IIa Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, Maintenance Regulation) across the EU Member States. The chapter provides examples of differing interpretations and applications of the same EU private international law rules in the EU through examples from various EU Member States, analyses the reasons behind the non-uniform interpretation and application, and suggests specific ways to rectify these problems.


Author(s):  
Marek Świerczyński

Disputes arising from international data breaches can be complex. Despite the introduction of new, unified EU regulation on the protection of personal data (GDPR), the European Union failed to amend the Rome II Regulation on the applicable law to non-contractual liability and to extend its scope to the infringements of privacy. GDPR only contains provisions on international civil procedure. However, there are no supplementing conflict-of-law rules. In order to determine the applicable law national courts have to apply divergent and dispersed national codifications of private international law. The aim of this study is to propose an optimal conflict-of-law model for determining the applicable law in case of infringement of the GDPR’s privacy regime.


Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 509-513
Author(s):  
Iris Goldner Lang

If global migration law “includes all levels of the law,” then the European Union represents the most developed instance of the interplay of national, regional, and international law. Migration law in the European Union involves the interaction of EU Member States’ national laws, EU regional law, and international law. This complex interchange of different migratory legal regimes is the consequence of diverse, and sometimes conflicting, objectives and interests of the Union and its Member States, and the nature of EU law itself. This essay explores the impact of these three levels of the law on the four migratory regulatory categories—EU citizens, “desirable” third-country nationals, asylum seekers, and all other third-country nationals—and the three objectives associated with these categories. The predominance of one legal regime over another varies depending on the regulatory category of migrants and the objectives associated therewith. While describing the existing legal systems, the essay outlines their attributes and shortcomings, the most prominent being: a clear rift between the rights granted to EU citizens and to third-country nationals; EU Member States’ determination to reserve to their respective national territories a high level of national control over labor migration; and significant deficiencies of the EU asylum law which were brought to the surface by the recent refugee influx into the EU.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1177-1202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Konstadinides

European Union law must be interpreted and its scope delimited, to the extent possible, consistent with the relevant rules of international law. Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that “the EU shall uphold and promote … the strict observance and the development of international law.” A similar legal commitment can be found in the constitutions of most EU Member States, which in some cases is about delegation of powers, whilst in others it concerns the achievement of global objectives. Article 3(5) of the TEU is also reminiscent of the judicial canon laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Charming Betsy regarding the affirmation of international norms by the Congress. The Charming Betsy doctrine of statutory construction requires national legislation (an American statute) to be construed so as not to raise conflict with international law where possible.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Andrés Rodríguez Benot

Resumen: Desde el 29 de enero de 2019 la mayoría de los países de la UE aplica los Reglamentos 2016/1103 y 2016/1104, de 24 de junio de 2016, sobre los aspectos de Derecho internacional privado de los regímenes matrimoniales y de los efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registradas, respectivamente. Se trata de dos textos extensos y complejos que ofrecen una regulación global o de conjunto de los as­pectos de esta materia en supuestos que impliquen repercusión transfronteriza.Palabras clave: Régimen económico matrimonial,e Efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registra­das. Reglamentos de la UE 2016/1103 y 2016/1104.Abstract: Since 29th January 2019 most of EU Member States apply Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 concerning Private International Law in matters of matrimonial property regimes and in mat­ters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, respectively. Both are long and complex texts that govern comprehensively all issues of those matters having cross-border implications.Keywords: Matrimonial property regimes. Property consequences of registered partnerships. EU Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104.


Author(s):  
Sylwia Majkowska-Szulc

Brexit is a unique phenomenon as no Member State has ever expressed the will to leave the European Union. Never before had the in-depth impact of a Member State withdrawal been analysed. The issue has started to be analysed after the referendum in which the British voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The topic of the potential consequences of Brexit in the field of private international law concerns, inter alia, national jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, specific procedures of EU uniform law, judicial cooperation between Member States or the functioning of the e-Justice Portal and dynamic forms. Before a given Member State withdraws from the EU, interested parties should have been informed, inter alia, of how pending proceedings will be conducted starting with the withdrawal day, what about proceedings initiated at the date of withdrawal or later on, and what about the rulings of the courts of the applicant state covered by the exequatur procedure before the withdrawal. Therefore, the primary purpose of the article is to determine the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK in the field of private international law. An additional aim of this paper is to better prepare natural and legal persons for the new post-Brexit reality. European integration has brought Europe peace and prosperity and enabled unprecedented cooperation in all areas of common interest. Following the withdrawal decision, the state and its citizens cease to benefit from the acquis communautaire. In fact, the United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. As far as private international law is concerned, the United Kingdom has become a third country. Subsequently, on 1 February 2020 a transition period has started and it aims to provide more time for citizens and businesses to adapt. The negotiations on the future partnership between the EU and the UK has started in March 2020, but they were postponed due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is sometimes compared to love that has passed away, but former lovers must continue to meet from time to time to manage certain common affaires. The analysis of the topic leads to the conclusion that, in fact, Brexit is a unique phenomenon that has no added value.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 241-252
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Pacuła

On 12 September 2019, the premises of the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Silesia in Katowice (Poland) witnessed one of such events, which will arguably go down in history of private international law in Poland. On that day, the University hosted an international conference on the Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (“the Succession Regulation”), and on the various issues relating to the succession matters within the European area of freedom, security and justice.


Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(66)) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Ewa Kamarad

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-560
Author(s):  
Martin Senftl

This paper takes the entry into force of the Singapore Convention on Mediation on 12 September 2020 as an opportunity to reconsider whether the European Union has reached its once ambitious goal to create a balanced relationship between mediation and litigation in cross-border disputes. After a brief overview of the current legal framework for cross-border mediation in the EU in the first section, the meaning of the concept of a balanced relationship and its implications for the regulation of mediation in cross-border disputes are analysed. Starting with the observation that the use of cross-border mediation is still very limited, this second section argues that attempts to establish a balanced relationship in quantitative terms are misguided. Instead of attempting to correct alleged decision deficits by the parties to a dispute, the paper emphasises the regulatory responsibility of European legislators to create a level playing field for different cross-border dispute resolution mechanisms. In this respect, the third section identifies the surprising absence of private international law rules in the EU’s mediation framework as a structural disadvantage of mediation, as compared to litigation and arbitration. The last part of the paper examines in detail the interaction between mediation and the Brussels Ia Regulation to provide specific examples of legal obstacles to cross-border mediation and potential ways to overcome them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document