Antonio Leandro, A First Critical Appraisal of The New European Insolvency Regulation, in Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 2016, pp. 215-251.

Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings has been recasted by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015. The revision aims to bring the current Regulation up to date in relation to the process that EU commenced towards a new approach on insolvency and business failure, which stresses the role of rescue and restructuring as crucial means to give the debtor a second chance. All the resulting amendments naturally are conceived of with a view to strengthen the efficiency in a cross-border insolvency administration, without overlooking rights and interests of creditors and third parties. This contribution provides a first critical overview of the main revision’s novelties so as to assess whether and to what extent Regulation 2015/848 may reach the objectives targeted by the EU legislator.

4 novembre 2016 – The Services Market: EU and Global Challenges – Reflections on the Completion of a EU Services Market – Milano, Università Bocconi.

Welcome Address: Mario Monti

First Session – The Notion of Services: the role of the Court of Justice
Chair: Stefano Liebman
Keynote Speech: Christopher Vajda
Discussants: Andrea Biondi; Marina Tavassi

Second Session – A Single Market for Services: does it work and what is left to be done?
Chair: Paola Mariani
Keynote Speech: Irmfried Schwimann
Discussants: Manlio Frigo; Yane Svetiev.

Massimo V. Benedettelli, Five Lay Commandments for the EU Private International Law of Companies, in Yearbook of Private International Law, 2015/2016, p. 209-251.

While praising European company law as a “cornerstone of the internal market”, the EU institutions have devoted limited attention to issues of competent jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition of judgments which necessarily arise when companies carry out their business on a cross-border basis. This is a paradox, especially if one considers that in this area the EU often follows a policy of “minimal harmonization” of the laws of the Member States and that this policy leads to the co-existence of a variety of different rules and institutions directly or indirectly impinging on the regulation of companies, thus to possible conflicts of jurisdictions and/or laws. The European Court of Justice’s “Centros doctrine” fills this gap only partially: this is due not only to the inherent limits of its case-law origin, but also to various hidden assumptions and corollaries on which it appears to be grounded and which still need to be unearthed. Hence, time has come for a better coordination of the legal systems of the Member States in the field of company law, possibly through the enactment of an ad hoc instrument. To be properly carried out, however, such coordination requires a preliminary clarification of what the EU private international law of companies really is and how it should be handled at the current stage of the European integration. This article tries to contribute to such clarification by proposing five main guidelines, in the form of “commandments” for the European legislator, courts and practitioners. It is submitted that, first, one should understand the different scope of the three legal disciplines (EU law, private international law and company law) which interact in this field so as to assess when and to what extent the lack of coordination of the Member States’ domestic laws may affect the achievement of the objectives pursued by the EU. As a second analytical step, the impact that the EU constitutional principles of subsidiarity and proportionality may have on the scope of the relevant regulatory powers of the EU and of the Member States should be determined. Third, the issue of “characterization” should be addressed so that the boundaries of company law vis-à-vis neighbouring disciplines (capital markets law, insolvency law, contract law, tort law) are fixed throughout the entire EU legal space in a uniform and consistent way. Fourth, the Member States’ legal systems should be coordinated on the basis of the “jurisdictional approach” method (which de facto inspires the ECJ in Centros and its progenies) by granting a role of prominence to the Member State under the laws of which a company has been incorporated. Fifth, any residual conflict which may still arise among different Member States in the regulation of a given company should be resolved, in principle, by respecting the will of the parties to the corporate contract and the rights “to incorporate” and “to re-incorporate” which they enjoy under EU law. In the author’s opinion, an EU private international law of companies developed on the basis of these guidelines not only would achieve a fair balance between the needs of the integration and the Member States’ sovereignty, but would also create a framework for a European “market of company law” where a “virtuous” forum and law shopping could be performed in a predictable and regulated way.

Il 4 ottobre 2016 il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato, in sede di esame preliminare, i decreti attuativi della legge 20 maggio 2016 n. 76, recante la regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze.

Con uno di questi decreti il Governo si appresta ad esercitare la delega contemplata al comma 28, lett. b), della legge, che prefigura la “modifica” e il “riordino” delle “norme in materia di diritto internazionale privato, prevedendo l’applicazione della disciplina dell’unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso regolata dalle leggi italiane alle coppie formate da persone dello stesso sesso che abbiano contratto all’estero matrimonio, unione civile o altro istituto analogo”.

Il testo del decreto, attualmente all’esame delle Commissioni Giustizia di Camera e Senato, è disponibile a questo indirizzo.

Il Gruppo di interesse SIDI sul diritto internazionale privato e processuale intende promuovere un confronto sulle soluzioni prospettate dal decreto, I membri del Gruppo, e in generale fra gli studiosi e i pratici che si occupano della disciplina, sono invitati a pubblicare un commento a questo post per svolgere considerazioni, condividere dubbi, avanzare soluzioni alternative.

Il forum è coordinato e moderato da Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (f1.marongiubuonaiuti@unimc.it).

14 ottobre 2016 – Cross border family litigation in Europe: the Brussels IIbis recast – Milano, Università Statale

Welcoming addresses: Gianluca Vago (Rector of the University of Milan), Laura Ammannati (Director of the Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies).

Brussels IIbis recast – The Commission’s proposal – Chair: Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan) – Speakers: Joanna Serdynska (European Commission), Anatol Dutta (Universität Regensburg).

Round Table –  The Commission’s Proposal: exchange of views among judges, practitioners
and academics – Participants: Giuseppe Buffone (Milan Court), Monica Velletti (Rome Court), Suzanne Todd (Whiters LPP), Cinzia Calabrese (President of AIAF Lombardia), Carlo Rimini (University of Milan), Ilaria Viarengo (University of Milan).

Closing remarks: Stefania Bariatti.

13 ottobre 2016 – Le successioni internazionali in Europa – Roma, Università La Sapienza.

The Faculty of Law of the University “La Sapienza” of Rome will host a German-Italian-Spanish conference on Thursday, 13th October 2016, on International Successions in Europe. The conference has been convened for the presentation of the volume The EU Succession Regulation: a Commentary, edited by Alfonso-Luís Calvo Caravaca (University “Carlos III” of Madrid), Angelo Davì (University of Rome “La Sapienza”) and Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne), published by Cambridge University Press, 2016. The volume is the product of a research project on The Europeanization of Private International Law of Successions financed through the European Commission’s Civil Justice Programme.

Welcome addresses: Prof. Enrico del Prato (Director, Department of Legal Sciences, University “La Sapienza”); Prof. Paolo Ridola (Dean, Faculty of Law, University “La Sapienza”); Prof. Angelo Davì (University “La Sapienza”).

First Session. Chair: Prof. Ugo Villani (University of Bari, President of SIDI-ISIL – Italian Society for International Law) – Prof. Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia): La residenza abituale e la clausola di eccezione (Habitual Residence and Exception Clause); Prof. Cristina Campiglio (University of Pavia): La facoltà di scelta del diritto applicabile (Choice of the Applicable Law by the Testator); Prof. Erik Jayme (University of Heidelberg): Metodi classici e nuove norme di conflitto: il regolamento relativo alle successioni (Traditional Methods and New Conflict Rules: the EU Regulation Concerning Succession); Prof. Claudio Consolo (University “La Sapienza”): Il coordinamento tra le giurisdizioni (Coordination between Jurisdictions).

Second Session. Chair: Prof. Sergio Maria Carbone (University of Genova) – Prof. Peter Kindler (University of Munich): I patti successori (Agreements as to Succession);

Round Table: The European Certificate of Succession – Introduction: Prof. Claudio Consolo (University “La Sapienza”); Participants: Dr. Ana Fernández Tresguerres (Notary in Madrid); Dr. Paolo Pasqualis (Notary in Portogruaro); Dr. Fabian Wall (Notary in Ludwigshafen).

Concluding remarks: Prof. Sergio Maria Carbone (University of Genova).

Ottobre e dicembre 2016 – Ciclo di seminari tenuti da Christian Kohler (Europa-Institut, Univ. Saarbrücken) presso l’Università di Padova.

October 4 – External competences of the EU in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters; October 18 – Recognition of judgments between mutual trust and protection of fundamental rights; November 8 – Child abduction: Tensions between the 1980 Hague Convention and Regulation Brussels IIa. The recast proposed by the Commission; November 22 – Foundations and limits of party autonomy for contractual and non-contractual obligations; December 6 – Data protection and European Private International Law; December 20 – Party autonomy in matters of family and succession law.

Informazioni: visiting2016@giuri.unipd.it

14 ottobre 2016 – La scelta del diritto applicabile ai contratti commerciali internazionali ad opera delle parti: tendenze e prospettive – Roma, La Sapienza

Presiede: Enrico del Prato (Univ. La Sapienza).

Relazioni: The 2015 Hague Principles and the Mandatory Requirement of a Local Language in International Commercial Contracts (Marta Pertegás, Univ. Antwerp, First Secretary HCCH); Le Model Clauses per la scelta dei Principi UNIDROIT dei contratti commerciali internazionali (Anna Veneziano, Univ. Teramo, Segretario Generale Aggiunto UNIDROIT); Tribunali arbitrali e diritto applicabile al contratto: scelte delle parti e scelte degli arbitri (Maria Beatrice Deli, Univ. Molise – Segretario Generale AIA); Il diritto applicabile ai contratti internazionali: riflessioni dopo l’adozione dei Principi dell’Aja (Alessandra Zanobetti, Univ. Bologna).

Conclusioni: Guido Alpa.

Pietro Franzina, La scelta tacita della legge applicabile al contratto secondo il regolamento Roma I, in Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 2016, 2, p. 221-239.

In base all’art. 3, par. 1, del regolamento (CE) n. 593/2008 del 17 giugno 2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (Roma I), la scelta della legge regolatrice del contratto, compiuta dalle parti, può essere espressa o risultare con chiarezza dalle disposizioni del contratto o dalle circostanze del caso. Lo scritto esamina le principali questioni suscitate dalla electio iuris tacita in materia di contratti. Dopo aver chiarito che la scelta tacita contemplata dal regolamento va tenuta distinta dalla scelta ipotetica, cioè dalla scelta che le parti avrebbero plausibilmente posto in essere se avessero concluso fra loro un accordo a questo proposito, l’articolo passa ad affrontare il problema della funzione della norma del regolamento concernente la scelta tacita. Tale norma, si osserva, non concerne la validità formale del negozio di scelta (che costituisce l’oggetto dell’art. 11 del regolamento, in virtù del richiamo di cui all’art. 3, par. 5), quanto piuttosto la prova dell’esistenza e del contenuto di tale negozio. L’attenzione si sposta quindi sugli indizi che l’interprete può legittimamente porre a fondamento del ragionamento suscettibile di condurlo ad affermare l’esistenza di una scelta tacita (le “disposizioni del contratto” e le “circostanze del caso”) e sul metro di valutazione che egli deve utilizzare nell’apprezzare tali indizi.

Il testo integrale dell’articolo è disponibile a questo indirizzo.