Monthly Archives: November 2013

The European Private Sector to Steer Development in Africa

European Development Days AgendaWhether to give priority to the economic development of the private sector or to focus the attention, i.e. the international assistance, on the development of the public sector in developing countries has always been one of the dilemmas of the development agenda. There is a growing consensus that priority should be given to the private sector but at the same time attention should be devoted to the development of the capacity of the public sector to regulate and enforce corruption-free policies. Yet, a proper development strategy needs both pillars – public and private investment – to be strengthened and enhanced.

The involvement of European and American private sector is increasing and businesses from the developed world come out with more and more funds and project for development. Continue reading

Europe: Avoiding a Second Lost Decade #5BEBC

5BEBC_logo

Fifth Bruges European Business Conference
“Europe: Avoiding a Second Lost Decade”
PRE-ELECTORAL DEBATE OVER DIVERGING VISIONS FOR EUROPE

SAVE-THE-DATE: 27 March 2014, College of Europe, Dijver 9 – 11, Bruges Continue reading

An end to libel tourism in the UK? The High Court in Subotic and Karpov. Abuse principles sink jurisdiction.

gavc law - geert van calster

Two interesting cases in the High Court on libel tourism, Subotic and Karpov (both held 14 October 2013). The relevance to English libel law is set out by Robert Renfree and by Paul Dacam. Here I just wanted to flag the jurisdictional issues under the Brussels regime.

In Subotic, a Serbian national living in Switzerland, Dingemans J accepted English jurisdiction in principle although it is not entirely clear on what basis. Domicile of the defendant at the time of the initiation of the claim was alleged by claimant to have been England. However defendant disputed such domicile, referring to inferred addresses having been a left-over of earlier study in the UK (but adding complaints about his wife and children’s address in London having been found, whence the dispute on domicile was not entirely clear). Counsel for the defendant also referred to his client having shied away, for costs reasons…

View original post 410 more words

Be careful what you ask for. A first review of the WTO EU seals Panel.

gavc law - geert van calster

After leaks, the Panel’s ruling in EU Seals is finally out. As it was only released this afternoon, I have not as yet had time to read it thoroughly. However diagonal reading reveals that by and large the regime was found to qualify for the public morals exception under the GATT Agreement (and not to be more trade restrictive than necessary to protect same under the TBT Agreement) however the pro Inuit exceptions have proven to be the Regulation’s Achiless heel. As I have suggested in the past in other areas, this may well mean that the EU has no choice but to resort to stricter rules, leaving out the exceptions.

Further analysis and post later in the week hopefully.

Geert.

 

 

View original post

The Supreme Court considers ‘sharp practice’ vs torpedoes in The Alexandros

gavc law - geert van calster

In the case of the Alexandros T, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the impact on UK proceedings, opened in response to proceedings in Greece, in a dispute in which the insurers of the ship were under the impression that things had been settled following earlier proceedings in England.

On 3 May 2006 the vessel Alexandros T sank and became a total loss 300 miles south of Port Elizabeth, with considerable loss of life. Her owners were Starlight Shipping Company (“Starlight”). They made a claim against their insurers, who denied liability on the basis that the vessel was unseaworthy with the privity of the assured, namely Starlight. The insurers also said that Starlight had failed properly to report and repair damage to the vessel. Suits and countersuits followed, in England, on the basis of an exclusive jurisdictional clause in the insurance agreements. On 13 December 2007, the 2006…

View original post 1,196 more words

Do single internet transactions lead to multiple jurisdictions for consumer contracts? The ECJ in Maletic

gavc law - geert van calster

In Case C-478/12 Maletic, plaintiffs (the Maletics) are domiciled in Bludesch (Austria), which lies within the jurisdiction of the Bezirksgericht Bludenz (District Court, Bludenz, Austria). They had booked and paid for themselves, as private individuals, a package holiday to Egypt on the website of lastminute.com. On its website, lastminute.com, a company whose registered office is in Munich (Germany), stated that it acted as the travel agent and that the trip would be operated by TUI, which has its registered office in Vienna (Austria). The booking was made for a particular hotel, the name of which was correctly communicated to TUI by lastminute.com, however the former had mismanaged the booking. Upon their arrival in Egypt, the Maletics discovered the mix-up, stayed at the hotel which they had intended, and subsequently sued for the recovery of the extra costs. They brought an action before the Bezirksgericht Bludenz seeking payment from lastminute.com…

View original post 561 more words

Qualification, lex fori and adoption from Morocco. Belgian court sinks the kafala ship.

gavc law - geert van calster

Update November 2015: in December 2014, the ECtHR held in CHBIHI LOUDOUDI that the ECHR did not come to the rescue under either Article 8 or 14. For a similar case, see SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section [2015] EWCA Civ 1109, reviewed here and (update 20 April 2017) here (following UKSC appeal). Human rights law arguments in that case seem to have fallen down the wayside, though.

In March 2013 (only brought to media attention recently), the Court of Appeal at Gent reversed a decision by a lower court which had granted an adoption ‘light’ of a Moroccan child by a Belgian couple. In line with Belgian conflicts law (Article 68 WIPR), whether the adopted consents (typically: via its parents or a guardian) is subject to the law of the child’s habitual residence immediately prior to its transfer for adoption (or simply its habitual residence…

View original post 388 more words