Jura Falconis Conference 23 March 2018, 10 AM – 5:30 PM (College De Valk, Leuven)
In 2018 we celebrate the 50th year since the adoption of the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The 1968 attempt to facilitate the free movement of judgments in the EU, helped lay the foundations for the exciting developments in European private international law which have occurred since. Many of the outstanding issues in what is now the Brussels I Recast (also known as EEX-bis; or Brussels Ibis) continue to have an impact on other parts of European civil procedure.
Co-organised by Leuven Law’s Institute of Private International Law and Jura Falconis, KU Leuven’s student law review, this event will consider, capita selecta wise, the application and implications of the Convention and its successors. It will also discuss the future direction of EU private international law both for civil and commercial matters, and for issues outside of commercial litigation. At a time when in most Member States the majority of commercial transactions have some kind of international element, this is a timely refresher for practitioners, judges, students and scholars alike.
PROGRAM Continue reading “European Private International Law at 50. Celebrating and Contemplating EEX and its Successors”
“Capital Markets Union: breaking down barriers to cross-border investments and accelerating delivery”
The European Commission announced today proposals on (i) covered bonds, (ii) cross-border distribution of investment funds and (iii) the law applicable to cross-border transactions in claims and securities (press release).
The latter issue was dealt with in a previous post on this blog by Louis Coussée. The assignment of a claim refers to a situation where a creditor transfers the right to claim a debt to another person in exchange of a payment. This system is used by companies to obtain liquidity and access credit. At the moment, there is no legal certainty as to which national law applies when determining who owns a claim after it has been assigned in a cross-border case. The new rules proposed today clarify according to which law such disputes are resolved: as a general rule, the law of the country where creditors have their habitual residence would apply, regardless of which Member State’s courts or authorities examine the case.
The measures presented today, and the applicable to cross-border transactions in claims and securities.
The proposals will be presented by May 2018 in order to make it possible that legislation can be adopted before European Parliament elections in 2019.
More information is available from a Fact Sheet issued by the Commission.
A ‘hybrid mismatch’ in private law?
In a previous blogpost, we formulated some thoughts on the CJEU’s judgment in the Panayi Trust Case. We concluded that, for various reasons, it could reasonably be expected that trusts can indeed be considered to be ‘entities’ which can come under the scope of the freedom of establishment.
The importance of language
Apart from this conclusion, the different language versions of the CJEU’s judgment, and especially a comparison thereof, make for an interesting reading. Continue reading “Lost in translation? The case of ‘trust insolvency’”
A Notice to Stakeholders was recently published on the website of the European Commission, DG Justice and Consumers, regarding legal repercussions which need to considered (if and) when the United Kingdom becomes a third country.
As of the withdrawal date, UK incorporated companies will be(come) third country companies and therefore not automatically be recognised under Article 54 TFEU by the Member States. They may, however, be recognised in accordance with each Member State’s national law (private international law rules concerning companies and the subsequently applicable substantive company law), or international law treaties. Continue reading “Brexit and EU rules on company law”
Tom Vos in TRV-RPS over arrest Marco Tronchetti Provera
In een eerdere bijdrage op deze blog en later op Oxford Business Law Blog becommentarieerde Tom Vos (KU Leuven) het arrest Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA e.a. v. Consob van het Hof van Justitie. In de laatste editie van het TRV-RPS verscheen een uitgebreide en Nederlandstalige versie van deze bijdrage als noot onder het arrest.
In deze zaak had de Italiaanse toezichthouder, de Consob, besloten om de prijs van het verplicht openbaar bod te verhogen, omdat er sprake zou zijn van collusie tussen de bieder en één van de verkopende aandeelhouders. De bieders argumenteerden echter dat de toepasselijke Italiaanse bepalingen de Overnamerichtlijn schonden, en meer bepaald de voorwaarden van “welomlijnde omstandigheden” en “duidelijk omschreven criteria” voor prijsaanpassing bij verplicht bod. Het Hof van Justitie is de bieders echter niet gevolgd en oordeelde dat het Italiaans recht niet (per se) een schending is van de Overnamerichtlijn.
De auteur concludeert over dit arrest: Continue reading “De billijke prijs en prijsaanpassing bij verplicht openbaar bod”
CJEU holds freedom of establishment does not require pursuit of genuine economic activity
In yesterday’s preliminary ruling in C-106/16 Polbud, the CJEU held that freedom of establishment is applicable to the transfer of the registered office of a company: (1) formed in accordance with the law of one Member State, (2) to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, (3) even if there is no change in the location of the real head office of that company. Continue reading “Free Choice of Company Law: Another Brick Out of the Wall”
The transfer of the registered office of a company, when there is no change in the location of its real head office, falls within the scope of the freedom of establishment
The ECJ issued today its judgment in the Polbud-case (C‑106/16). This case has previously been discussed here and here. The ECJ holds that the transfer of the registered office of a company (to be understood: with a change of applicable company law) falls within the scope of the freedom of establishment protected, even when there is no change in the location of its real head office. Member States may not impose mandatory liquidation on companies that wish to transfer their registered office to another Member State. Continue reading “Polbud: ECJ further facilitates shopping for company law”