ABSTRACT

-Full issue available in PDF. Copies can be ordered from Docdel at Sweet & Maxwell's Yorkshire Offices. Email docdel@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk

Chronicle of Private International Law Applied to Business

Author: Yasmine LAHLOU & Marina MATOUSEKOVA

Type: Article : News

ref: 62007813-831

N0:6 of 2007

Pages: 813-831

The European Parliament and Counsel adopted, on 11 July 2007, the EC Regulation (« Rome II ») on the law applicable to non contractual obligations, and the EC Regulation N° 861/2007 instituting a European procedure for small claims, which will enter into force in January 2009.

The French Supreme Court had to resolve various conflicts of laws related to life insurance contracts, employment contracts and sales. It had to rule on the limits of the court’s duty in the application of foreign law and on the validity of a State’s waiver to its jurisdictional immunity. Finally, in two cases rendered on the same day, it confirmed the non exclusive nature of the jurisdiction privilege of French defendants contained in article 15 of the French civil code and extended such solution to the privilege of article 14 based on claimants’ French citizenship.

In community law, the ECJ held that the action for compensation brought by the assigns of the war victims of a Contracting State against another Contracting State for the acts perpetrated by its armed forces is outside the scope of the Brussels Convention. In the field of international sales of goods, it specified the interpretation to be given to Article 5.1.b of EC Regulation 44/2001 in case of plurality of the places of delivery of the goods. The French Supreme Court ruled on jurisdiction in the fields of acts of unfair competition committed via internet (Article 5.3) and of employment contracts (Article 19), as well as on jurisdiction in presence of a jurisdiction clause (Article 23). It stated the limits to the implementation of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 on derivative jurisdiction. The High Court finally ruled on the compatibility of the ex parte procedure to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a decision rendered by another Contracting State with Article 6 of the ECHR and recalled the enforcement judge’s prohibition to control the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin.