Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Realização extra-legal do Direito: uma decisão espanhola

Pode ler-se em Incursões a notícia do El Pais relativa a um caso de responsabilidade civil: o tribunal afastou a norma aparentemente aplicável (que estabelece o modo de determinação da indemnização por morte devida aos avós da vítima), aplicando outra (que prevê o modo de fixar tal indemnização a favor dos pais), invocando o artigo 4.1 do Código Civil, que dispõe:

Procederá la aplicación analógica de las normas cuando éstas no contemplen un supuesto específico, pero regulen otro semejante entre los que se aprecie identidad de razón.




Monday, November 29, 2004

Jurisdiction Clauses on Consumer Contracts within the European Union

No Oxford University Comparative Law Forum pode consultar-se o artigo
Restrictions on Jurisdiction Clauses in Consumer Contracts within the European Union (2003), de Beatriz Añoveros Terradas (da Universidade de Tarragona).

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Posição do Grupo Europeu de DIP sobre a proposta de Directiva sobre serviços no mercado interno

Position of the European Group for Private International Law on the draft directive of the European Parliament and the Council on services in the internal market

1.
The adoption of the country of origin principle in the draft directive appears to be based on the premise that a lessening of the disparities between the laws of different Member States would significantly favour trade and investment in the area of services. But it is clearly desirable, instead of adopting a general solution, to determine on a case-by-case basis the existence of significant hindrances to the freedom to provide services. In addition, we must have regard to the internal consistency of the Community legal system, something which constitutes an important aspect of legal certainty. The supposed advantages of a political solution based on the law of origin principle must be balanced against the undesirable results which that principle could entail in the area of services, since the application of this principle requires, in the first place, the harmonization, or at least a sufficient degree of equivalence, of the substantive laws in conflict. Consequently, the wide area to which the draft will apply, together with the very limited number of provisions it contains on the harmonization of substantive law, makes it impossible to accept that the above-mentioned requirement has been fulfilled.
2
In fact, in the area that has not been harmonized, as well as in those cases in which Community directives have not been completely transposed, the application of the law of the country of origin of the provider of the service will necessarily result in distortions of the market in each Member State. Having regard to the differences in law and commercial practices, consumers and local businessmen will be exposed to a multitude of different legal regimes according to the origin of the provider of the services. In particular, the exclusion of consumer contracts “to the extent that the provisions governing them are not completely harmonized at Community level” (Article 17(21)) is very vague and risks exposing consumers to the law of the country of origin in areas in which harmonization has not been completely put into effect in the Member States. Likewise, there is a risk that, despite the exceptions provided, employment contracts will be governed by the law of the State of origin of the provider of the services, something that could lead to “social dumping” to the disadvantage of employees in the country in which the work is carried out.
3
The draft directive appears to accept that choice-of-law rules do not constitute a hindrance to the cross-border performance of services in particular areas (specified in Article 17), while it modifies the rules presently applicable in certain other areas by introducing the country of origin principle, without there being any plausible reason for this difference of approach. The danger is particularly evident in the case of tort liability, to the extent that the law of the country of origin of the service provider would be applied: one thinks in particular of unfair competition, environmental pollution, defamation and privacy, as well as medical malpractice and services concerned with biotechnology. In these areas, the differences in the solutions adopted by different Member States are vast. In such cases, there is no reason to apply without limit just the law of the country of origin. Moreover, one cannot imagine that different tort systems could be permitted to operate together in the territory of one Member State, depending on the country of origin of the performer of the service. The country of origin principle could lead businessmen to incorporate their companies in the States with the lowest standards of protection and then to “export” those standards to other States. Particularly in the case of tort liability and the protection of employees, this result would be extremely negative for the European market in that it could lead to a “race to the bottom”.
4
Choice-of-law rules that exist at present or are in the process of development (“Rome I” and “Rome II”) ensure a harmonious division of legislative competence which gives due regard to the interests both of the providers of services and of consumers. These provisions, by reason of their uniformity, would not constitute a hindrance or an obstacle preventing businesses from offering their services across frontiers of the internal market.
5
In conclusion, the application of the country of origin principle gives rise to very serious difficulties with regard to choice of law in relations between Member States. The European Group for Private International Law proposes that it should be limited to the regulation of the activities of the provider of the service, but should not apply to obligations in either contract or tort resulting from those activities.

23 November 2004

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Transnational Civil Procedure

Espera-se ainda para este ano o resultado dos trabalhos conjuntos do UNIDROIT e do American Law Institute relativo aos Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure. Os Draft Principles, com comentários dos Professores G. C. Hazard, Jr., R. Stürner, M. Taruffo e A. Gidi podem ser lidos aqui.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Ainda o caso Gutnick

Pode consultar-se aqui uma síntese do caso Gutnick, anteriormente referido . A versão integral da decisão australiana está aqui.

Direito Europeu dos Contratos: que futuro?

Veja-se a COMUNICAÇÃO DA COMISSÃO AO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU E AO CONSELHO, sobre "O direito europeu dos contratos e a revisão do acervo: o caminho a seguir". Para a Comissão, o futuro passa pela elaboração de um "Quadro comum de referência". Veja-se o que poderá este ser na parte final da Comunicação.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Link do dia: DIP na Organização dos Estados Americanos

É pouco conhecida na Europa a actividade da Organização dos Estados Americanos no campo do DIP. Mas essa actividade é de grande relevância. Destaque para a Convenção Inter-Americana sobre as Regras Gerais de DIP.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS 2004

Pode encontrar-se nesta página não apenas a versão em diferentes línguas da nova edição (2004) dos Principles mas também um interessante artigo de M.J. Bonell sobre o assunto (publicado na Uniform Law Review).

Direito dos estrangeiros: soluções especiais para promoção da investigação científica na Europa?

O acesso à União Europeia de investigadores nacionais de terceiros Estados será privilegiado, se vier a ser aprovada a directiva em preparação, de acordo com a notícia seguinte:

22-11-04 Third-country nationals in the EU for scientific research - a draft directive
The EU Council of ministers reached a general, common approach on the draft directive on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for purposes of scientific research, which lays down the conditions for admission of third-country researchers to the member states for more than three months for the purposes of carrying out a research project under a hosting agreement with a research organisation.
Fonte: página da Comissão Europeia sobre a "área de liberdade, de segurança e de justiça".

Monday, November 22, 2004

STJ, 7-10-04: Revisão de sentença estrangeira; contraditório e igualdade das partes

Acórdão do STJ, de 7-10-04:
Revisão de sentença estrangeira; contraditório e igualdade das partes
Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça de 7-10-04
Fonte: página do ITIJ.
Relator:NEVES RIBEIRO
Processo:04B2879
Sumário:

1. O Tribunal requerido não pode censurar os termos processuais
seguidos pela lei do processo do Estado de origem.
2. Não basta que o opositor à revisão alegue que não foi respeitado no
Estado de origem, o principio da defesa ou da oportunidade do
contraditório.
É preciso que mostre alguma consistência probatória no que afirma, ainda
que ao Tribunal caiba a oficiosidade de conhecimento que resulta do artigo
1.101º do Código de Processo Civil, se tiver elementos de sindicância
correspondentes.
3. Uma decisão proferida a título incidental no processo de origem e que
declara não se verificar nulidade de citação nesse mesmo processo, donde
emerge a decisão a rever, não carece de revisão autónoma, como condição de
procedência do pedido de revisão da decisão emergente, proferida a título
principal no dito processo de origem.

Ver o texto do acórdão em dip extenso.

Rede Judiciária Europeia

A Rede Judiciária Europeia em matéria civil e comercial tem um site europeu e um site português (pioneiro na rede), com informação de grande utilidade sobre os sistemas de justiça dos países comunitários, especialmente quanto aos aspectos que mais relevam para as situações plurilocalizadas. Ver, quanto a textos legislativos, esta página.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Google Scholar

Uma nova ferramenta de pesquisa para o investigador!

Direito internacional privado no Conselho Europeu de Bruxelas (4-5/11/04)

De acordo com as "Conclusões da Presidência", a prioridade continua a ser o reconhecimento mútuo de decisões. No polémico campo do direito da família e das sucessões, parece haver uma opção clara: sim ao direito de conflitos unificado e a regras de competência e de reconhecimento de decisões uniformes, não, de princípio, a uma unificação do direito material. Por outras palavras, continuação da comunitarização do DIP, e nenhuma palavra sobre um futuro e eventual Código Civil Europeu. Ainda bem.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Nova página sobre o Direito da União Europeia

Não esquecer que a informação oficial sobre o Direito da União Europeia está desde o início de Novembro nesta página, que resulta da fusão entre a Eur-Lex e a base de dados CELEX.
O Jornal Oficial pode consultar-se aqui.

Regulamento Bruxelas I - alteração de anexos pelo Regulamento 1937/2004

Os anexos I a IV do Regulamento Bruxelas I (Reg. CE nº 44/2001 do Conselho, de 22 de Dezembro de 2000, sobre competência judiciária, reconhecimento e execução de decisões em matéria civil e comercial), foram alterados através do Regulamento (CE) nº 1937/2004 da Comissão, de 9 de Novembro de 2004.
Consultar aqui.


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

O caso Gutnick: competência internacional e a internet

Dow Jones Settles Precedent-Setting Internet Defamation Suit

Published: November 16, 2004 11:15 AM ET

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) In a low-key end to a groundbreaking case that extended the reach of Australia's libel laws to the world, Dow Jones & Co. has settled a defamation lawsuit launched against it by an Australian mining magnate.The case started after mining boss Joe Gutnick claimed that an October 2000 Barron's magazine article had portrayed him as a schemer given to stock scams, money laundering and fraud. The article was also published online.Dow Jones, which publishes The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Dow Jones Newswires, and several stock market indicators, argued that the case should have been heard in the United States, where libel rulings are regarded as more favorable to publishers, because the article originally was published there.But in a landmark ruling in December 2002, the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled that the case could be heard in Gutnick's home state of Victoria because people there could have read the article online.Scholars said the decision -- the first by a nation's top court to deal with alleged cross-border Internet defamation -- created a global precedent that could subject Internet publishers to lawsuits regardless of their geographical location.A settlement in the case emerged Friday following out-of-court mediation.Lawyers for Dow Jones issued a statement in Victoria Supreme Court saying Barron's never intended to suggest that Gutnick was a customer of Melbourne man Nachum Goldberg, who was jailed for tax evasion and money laundering."I was delighted to hear the statement being read out in court -- it was an outrageous allegation," Gutnick said.Dow Jones also agreed to pay Gutnick $137,500 in addition to $306,000 in legal fees.The settlement is not likely to affect the precedent already set, said University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who noted courts in the United Kingdom and Canada have already cited the Australian decision in asserting jurisdiction over other Internet defamation cases."The actual Gutnick dispute may be over, but its legacy will likely live on in the world of Internet law for many years to come," Geist said.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.