Source: https://www.iprax.de/en/contents/earlier-issues/2019-Issue-02.php
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 00:51:29
Document Index: 367801114

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 40', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 40']

Content IPRax-Issue 2/2019 (March 2019)
European conflict of laws 2018: Final Spurt! 85
This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from January 2018 until December 2018. It provides an overview of newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article treats current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.
Lis pendens of a complaint seeking to join a civil claim for damages to criminal proceedings before the investigating magistrate (EuGH, S. 147) 120
Case C-523/14 raised the issue whether a complaint seeking to join a civil claim for damages to criminal proceedings before the investigating magistrate is lis pendens in respect of subsequent proceedings brought in another Member State involving the same cause of action. The ECJ held at the outset that such a complaint falls within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant. On the point of lis pendens the ECJ ruled that under Art. 27(1) of the Regulation proceedings are brought when the complaint seeking to join the civil action has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed. The Court further held that according to Article 30 of the Regulation, where the complaint seeking to join a civil action is initiated by lodging a document which need not, under the applicable national law, be served before that lodging, the relevant time for holding the investigating magistrate to be seised is the time when the complaint was lodged. The author approves the ECJ’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 44/2001. However, he considers that the rule which gives jurisdiction to the court seised of criminal proceedings to rule on a civil claim for damages deserves criticism. That rule is an alien element within the Brussels-Lugano system which favours the plaintiff whereas the defendant may be sued in exorbitant jurisdictions and cannot oppose the recognition and enforcement of the civil judgment given by the criminal court.
S. Kurth:
Determining the habitual residence of a testator who alternately lived in two states (OLG Hamm, S. 151) 123
Marriages of Minors - Against the Legislative Furore (BGH, S. 152, OLG Oldenburg, S. 160, AG Frankenthal, S. 161 und AG Nordhorn, S. 162) 127
C. Benicke:
The need for Adaptation (Anpassung) to cure deficiencies in the protection of the child’s financial interests caused by the parallel application of German inheritance law and English child custody law (OLG München, S. 162) 132
Multilocal Torts, Favor Laesi, and Renvoi (OLG Hamm, S. 165) 140
In the case of a multilocal tort, the defendant commits the tortious act in a state different from the state in which the claimant suffers the resulting injury. In such a scenario, identifying the applicable law can prove difficult. Under Art. 4 para. 1 Rome II Regulation, the defendant’s liability is determined by the law of the state in which the claimant was injured. By contrast, Art. 40 para. 1 sent. 1 EGBGB (Introductory Act to the German Civil Code) relies on the location of the defendant’s tortious act as the relevant connecting factor. The injured party, however, can demand the application of the law of the state where the injury was sustained according to Art. 40 para. 1 sent. 2 EGBGB. Since the codification of German international tort law in 1999, it has been in dispute whether in the case of a multilocal tort the references in Art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB encompass a foreign legal system’s conflict-of-laws rules or refer to foreign substantive law only. This case note, on the occasion of a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, critically evaluates the arguments for and against the acceptance of renvoi in this context. Contrary to the court, it argues in favour of a reference that includes foreign private international law. It is submitted that only this view can be reconciled with the general rule on renvoi laid down in Art. 4 EGBGB and with the absence of a strict notion of favor laesi in Art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB.
10 EuGH 22.10.2015 C-523/14 Lis pendens of a complaint seeking to join a civil claim for damages to criminal proceedings before the investigating magistrate [C. Kohler, p. 120] 147
11 OLG Hamm 2.1.2018 10 W 35/17 Determining the habitual residence of a testator who alternately lived in two states [S. Kurth, S. 123] 151
12, 13, 14, 15 BGH, OLG Oldenburg, AG Frankenthal, AG Nordhorn 14.11.2018, 18.4.2018, 15.2.2018, 29.1.2018 XII ZB 292/16, 13 UF 23/19, 71 F 268/17, 11 F 855/17 E1 Marriages of Minors - Against the Legislative Furore [D. Coester-Waltjen, S. 127] 152, 160, 161, 162
16 OLG München 10.2.2017 34 Wx 175/16 The need for Adaptation (Anpassung) to cure deficiencies in the protection of the child’s financial interests caused by the parallel application of German inheritance law and English child custody law [C. Benicke, S. 132] 162
17 OLG Hamm 3.5.2017 3 U 30/17 Multilocal Torts, Favor Laesi, and Renvoi [L. Rademacher, S. 140] 165
P. Hay:
Foreign Law as Fact in American Litigation – Foreign Government’s Interpretation of Its Own Law is Not Conclusive 169
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed unanimously that foreign law is to be treated as fact, not law, in federal civil litigation. In determining the content and in interpreting foreign law, the lower court may consider all relevant materials. The interpretation of the foreign government of its own law is to be received with respect under principles of comity, but it is not conclusive. The Court reversed and remanded an appellate court’s decision that had concluded that courts were “bound to defer” to the “reasonable” interpretation of the Chinese government of its own law. The Supreme Court ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 does not go this far, but continues to embody the traditional American fact-orientation with regard to foreign country law.
M. Stürner/A. Hemler:
Recognition of a French astreinte in California 170
The French astreinte is a private penalty payable to the creditor designed to bend the debtor’s will. In the case discussed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examines the enforceability of a French judgement condemning Californian editor Wofsy to pay an astreinte in favour of French publisher de Fontbrune. First, the Court of Appeals considers the determination of foreign law in accordance with Rule 44.1 FRCP, which permits the decision on foreign law using “any relevant material or source”, thus classifying it as “question of law”. Given this explicit departure from the question of fact doctrine, the Court of Appeals holds that the ascertaining of foreign law is permitted outside the pleading stage as well. Since foreign penal judgements are not enforceable under Californian law, the Panel also examines whether the astreinte is punitive in nature. In view of its characterisation as predominantly inter partes and its connection to the fulfilment of the debtor’s obligation, the Court of Appeals concludes that the enforcement of the astreinte in question cannot be denied.
M. Coester:
Grußwort zum 85. Geburtstag von Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger 176
Vergleichendes und Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht: Erfahrungen aus den Ländern portugiesischer Sprache – Jahrestagung der Deutsch-Lusitanischen Juristenvereinigung in Porto am 2. und 3.11.2018 177
J.H. Haas:
„The Export of American Values“ und der SPEECH Act 178
International Agreements 180
Publikation 180