Friday, April 29, 2005

Acórdão St. Paul Dairy Industries do TJCE, de 28 de Abril de 2005

Pode ler-se no DIP EXTENSO o texto do acórdão de ontem do Tribunal de Justiça, que se debruçou sobre o conceito de medidas provisórias ou cautelares, previstas no artigo 24º da Convenção de Bruxelas.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

European Order for Payment Procedure: solely to cross-border disputes

Pending the European Parliament's opinion, the Council held a general discussion on this proposal for a Regulation so that proceedings could continue within the preparatory subordinate bodies.
The purpose of the proposal is to create a European order for payment procedure that will enable creditors to collect pecuniary claims of a specific amount as swiftly and as simply as possible.
In the light of the discussion, the Presidency noted that:
• on the matter of whether the Regulation should be confined to cross-border situations or be applied also to national order for payment procedures, a very great majority of delegations took the view that the European order for payment procedure should be confined solely to cross-border disputes;
• as to whether or not supporting documents were to be produced when submitting the application, the Council reached broad agreement on the requirement that in the European order for payment application the applicant should always give a brief description of at least one means of evidence to support his claim. In addition, the relevant supporting documents or copies thereof should be attached to the application if the Member State of origin so required, as indicated in a communication from that State;
• a large majority of delegations thought that the court should issue a European order for payment while informing the defendant of the claim and of his right to oppose it within a period of one month. At the end of that period, and after verification, the court of the Member State of origin could issue an enforceable order for payment;
• all delegations considered that it should be possible for a European order for payment issued to become enforceable in the other Member States of the European Union without any intermediate procedure, i.e. without any declaration of enforceability being required in the Member State of enforcement provided that the procedural guarantees were sufficient.
The swift recovery of outstanding debts whose justification is not called into question is of
paramount importance for economic operators in the European Union and for the proper
functioning of the internal market. A legal framework that does not guarantee a creditor access to the rapid settlement of uncontested claims may afford bad debtors a certain degree of impunity and thus provide an incentive to withhold payments intentionally to their own advantage. Late payments are a major reason for insolvency threatening the survival of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, and resulting in numerous job losses. The need to engage in lengthy, cumbersome and costly court proceedings even for the collection of uncontested debts inevitably exacerbates those detrimental economic effects.
All the Member States are trying to tackle the issue of mass recovery of uncontested claims through their courts from their national perspectives within the framework of their procedural systems and traditions. Not surprisingly, the solutions that have been devised differ widely, both in their technical nature and in their rate of success. In some Member States, judgments by default, special summary proceedings within the structure of ordinary civil procedure or even provisional measures that are quasi-definitive as in practice main proceedings hardly ever ensue are the principal procedural instruments to cope with uncontested claims.
In most Member States, however, a specific payment order procedure has proved to be a
particularly valuable tool to ensure the rapid and cost-effective collection of claims that are not the subject of a legal controversy.
The payment order procedures available in the Member States vary considerably with regard to such crucial aspects as the scope of application, the attribution of competence to issue an order or the formal and substantive requirements for obtaining a favourable decision. In spite of these discrepancies between the existing models of legislation, all of them share certain distinctive features that can serve as elements of a definition of a payment order procedure.
On 22 March 2004 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure. The proposal is subject to the codecision procedure. The European Parliament has not yet delivered its opinion at first reading.

2652nd Council meeting
– Justice and Home Affairs –
Luxembourg, 14 April 2005

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

International adoption: U.S. Department of State

A page with lots of information on international adoption.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Journal of Private International Law: first issue

April 2005


· Editorial

· The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Union: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?

· Ignored No More: Renvoi and International Torts Litigated in Australia

· Substance and Procedure in Private International Law

· The Eclipse of Private International Law Principle? The Judicial Process, Interpretation and the Dominance of Legislation in the Modern Era

· Sanctity of Dispute Resolution Clauses: Strategic Coherence of the Brussels System

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Foreign and International Law Sources on the Internet: An Annotated Guide (Cornell)

A huge and updated research guide. Most of all, it explains the content of each site. It is provided by Cornell Law Library.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Omissão do Direito Internacional Privado: um Acórdão da Relação de Coimbra

Felizmente, é agora vez menos frequente a tendência de alguma jurisprudência portuguesa para omitir a natureza jurídico-internacional na resolução de questões de direito privado. Este é um dos exemplos mais recentes. Nunca é demais sublinhar que, em situações relevantemente conexionadas com mais de uma ordem jurídica, não pode omitir-se a questão da determinação do direito aplicável através do direito de conflitos. É que, no sistema português, cabe ao tribunal, oficiosamente, essa determinação, bem como a eventual aplicação do direito estrangeiro, cuja aplicabilidade não depende de alegação e prova pelas partes.

Friday, April 01, 2005

International Forum on e-Notarization and e-Apostilles

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the International Union of Latin Notaries (IULN) are jointly organising an International Forum on e-Notarization and e-Apostilles. This Forum will be hosted by the National Notary Association of the United States of America (NNA) and will be held on 30 and 31 May 2005 in Las Vegas (Bally’s), Nevada, USA.
The goals of the Forum may be summarised as follows:
1. Conducting a representative international survey of technologies for e-Notarization currently available or in the process of being developed;
2. Assessment of these technologies, in particular with respect to their possible relevance for e-Apostilles;
3. Legal analysis of the impact of these technologies on the Apostille Convention. In particular: do electronic public documents, in particular notarial acts and official certificates, fall within the scope of the Convention? Does the current framework of the Convention allow for issuance and circulation of e-Apostilles?
The Special Commission of October / November 2003 on the Practical Operation of the Apostille, Evidence and Service Conventions had identified four stages in the issuing of an Apostille in respect of which the application of modern technology might be considered. It also recommended that “States party and the Permanent Bureau should work towards the development of techniques for the generation of electronic Apostilles” (Recommendation No 24). This Forum initiative is thus held with a view to beginning action in line with this Recommendation.
Envisaged program

Source: Hague Conference on PIL page.