The most recent subject of the Dutch Journal on Non-public Worldwide Legislation (NIPR) has been revealed.
EDITORIAL
M.H. ten Wolde / p. 626-628
ARTICLES
A. Mens, De kwalificatie en de rechtsgevolgen van de erkenning van een kafala op grond van het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht/ p. 628-649
Summary
This text focuses on the qualification and authorized penalties of recognising a kafala underneath Dutch non-public worldwide legislation. A kafala is a toddler safety measure underneath Islamic legislation, which entails an obligation to look after, shield, elevate, and help a toddler, however with none implications for lineage or inheritance rights. The principle conclusion is {that a} kafala usually constitutes each a guardianship and a upkeep choice. Consequently, the popularity of a overseas kafala within the Netherlands basically entails the popularity of each the guardian’s (kafil) authority over the kid (makful) and the popularity of the guardian’s upkeep obligation in the direction of the kid.
B. van Houtert, The Anti-SLAPP Directive within the context of EU and Dutch non-public worldwide legislation: enhancements and (remaining) challenges to guard SLAPP targets / p. 651-673
Summary
Whereas the scope of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is broad, this paper argues that the standards of ‘manifestly unfounded claims’ and the ‘most important objective of deterrence of public participation’ might problem the safety of SLAPP targets. The Actual Madrid ruling ought to nonetheless play an essential guiding position in all Member States; the authorized certainty and safety for SLAPP targets will enhance by making use of by analogy the components of the Actual Madrid ruling established by the CJEU to evaluate whether or not there’s a manifest breach of the correct to freedom of expression. Though the Anti-SLAPP Directive offers varied procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, it doesn’t forestall SLAPP targets from being abusively sued in a number of Member States on the premise of on-line infringements of character rights or copyrights. The recast of the Brussels Ibis and Rome II ought to alleviate this unfavorable impact of the mosaic strategy by adopting the ‘directed actions’ strategy.Whereas the general public coverage exception in Dutch PIL already has quite a lot of potential to refuse the popularity and enforcement of third-country judgments involving a SLAPP, the grounds in Article 16 Anti-SLAPP Directive present authorized certainty, and certain have a deterrent impact on claimants exterior the EU. As EU and Dutch PIL usually don’t present a venue for SLAPP targets to hunt compensation for the harm and prices incurred relating to the third-country proceedings initiated by the SLAPP claimant domiciled exterior the EU, the venue offered by Article 17(1) Anti-SLAPP Directive improves the entry to Member State courts for SLAPP targets domiciled within the EU. Nevertheless, though Articles 15 and 17 Anti-SLAPP Directive intention to facilitate redress for SLAPP victims, the re-sulting Member State judgments might not be efficient in case these are usually not recognised and enforced by third states. Therefore, worldwide cooperation is essential to fight SLAPPs worldwide.
V. Van Den Eeckhout, Rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie inzake internationaal privaatrecht anno 2024. Enkele beschouwingen over de aanwezigheid, de relevantie en de positie van internationaal privaatrecht in de rechtspraak van het Hof. Een proces van inpassing? Over de gangmakersfunctie van het ipr / p. 675-693
Summary
With the rise within the variety of European rules on Non-public Worldwide Legislation, growing consideration has been paid by students to problems with consistency between totally different non-public worldwide legislation regimes. The foregoing additionally contains consideration to the place of the Court docket of Justice of the European Union with regard to (un)harmonised interpretation when answering preliminary questions on the interpretation of these regimes.This contribution examines various present developments in regards to the ‘PIL case legislation’ of the Court docket, considered from the angle of consistency, albeit in a broad sense: it examines points of judgments of the Court docket that lend themselves to highlighting varied sides and dimensions of consistency. As a matter of reality, present case legislation and developments invite those that want to take note of problems with consistency relating to the Court docket’s PIL case legislation to undertake a broad perspective and, whereas discussing points of consistency, to focus on factors of consideration relating to the presence, the relevance and the place of PIL within the Court docket’s case legislation, going together with problems with ‘becoming in’ of case legislation.The paper features a dialogue of points of, i.a., C-267/19 and C-323/19 (joined circumstances Parking and Interplastics), C-774/22 (FTI Touristik), C-230/21 (X v. Belgische Staat, Refugiee mineure mariee), C-600/23 (Royal Soccer Membership Seraing), C-347/18 (Salvoni) and C-568/20 (H Restricted).
M.H. ten Wolde, Oude Nederlandse partiële rechtskeuzes en het overgangsrecht van artikel 83(2) Erfrechtverordening / p. 695-702
Summary
On 9 September 2021, the ECJ dominated in case C-277/20 (UM) that Article 83(2) of the Regulation on succession doesn’t apply to a alternative of legislation made in an settlement as to succession in respect of a specific asset of the property. Such a alternative of legislation doesn’t concern the succession within the property as an entire and due to this fact falls exterior the scope of the stated provision, the Court docket acknowledged. The query arises whether or not such partial selections of legislation made earlier than 17 August 2015 have been voided with the CJEU’s ruling now that they likewise concern solely sure property and never the property as an entire.
CASE NOTE
B. Schmitz, Artikel 6 lid 2 Rome I-Verordening en het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof. Bundesgerichtshof 15 mei 2024 – VIII ZR 226/22 (Teakbomen) / p. 703-709
Summary
The German Federal Court docket of Justice (BGH) has dominated in its current choice that Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation accommodates the preferential legislation strategy. In its reasoning, the courtroom particularly refers to 3 current CJEU judgements to help this view. Nevertheless, this case observe argues that these CJEU judgements are usually not a legitimate foundation for such reasoning. As a substitute, the BGH ought to have turned to Article 8 Rome I Regulation and its case legislation to use the Gruber Logistics ruling by analogy.
LATEST PHDS
B. Schmitz, Rethinking the patron battle rule – Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation and social gathering autonomy in mild of ideas, effectivity, and harmonisation (dissertation, College of Groningen, 2024) (Abstract) / p. 711-714
BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT
M.H. ten Wolde, guide announcement: Chr. von Bar, O.L. Knöfel, U. Magnus, H.-P. Mansel and A. Wudarski (eds.), Gedächtnisschrift für Peter Mankowski [A Commemorative Volume for Peter Mankowski], Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2024, XIV + 1208 p. / p. 715-717
