Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

The ECJ deals with an unprecedented case in its jurisprudence: the eventual applicability of Regulation 1215/2012, of December 12 (Brussels I bis) to a dispute regarding an employment contract where the labor provision has not been executed, for reasons attributable to the employer. Despite the absence of such effective execution, the ECJ determines that the forums of international jurisdiction contained in the Brussels I bis Regulation are fully and exclusively applicable to the litigation, since it is a case that meets its criteria of material and personal application. The consequence of the applicability of Brussels I bis Regulation is the displacement of the States rules of international judicial competence, due to the provisions of its articles 4.5 and 5. Consequently, it is not possible to activate state forums -even when they may be more beneficial to the worker-, since the community rules on judicial jurisdiction in this matter are not only special, but also exhaustive.

La competencia judicial internacional en materia de compraventa internacional es una cuestión que puede revestir gran interés, pero también puede presentar dificultades. Es importante determinar el papel que desempeña cada uno de los sujetos intervinientes en la relación contractual, pues en función de qué sea quién se aplicarán unos criterios u otros para atribuir competencia a los tribunales de un Estado o al de otro. Además, el realizar la contratación a través de Internet puede inducir a pensar que el asunto es complejo, pero nada más lejos de la realidad. Las tecnologías avanzan, pero, en muchos casos, los supuestos jurídicos que se plantean son bien conocidos y las normas a aplicar son las usuales.

La determinación caso a caso de la residencia habitual del menor como foro de competencia judicial internacional es una cuestión no exenta de dificultades. El método de concreción del criterio dota de notable flexibilidad al sistema para que pueda ajustarse a las circunstancias específicas del caso. Sin embargo, la adaptabilidad del concepto también dificulta la tarea del operador jurídico y provoca cierta inseguridad jurídica. La localización de la residencia habitual requiere una detenida ponderación de las circunstancias fácticas propias de cada caso.

Il presente lavoro analizza le implicazioni internazionalprivatistiche del principio dell’unità economica nell’ambito del diritto della concorrenza dell’Unione europea. Prendendo spunto dalla sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea nel caso Sumal, viene analizzata la rilevanza del principio nel private enforcement. Quindi si verificano gli effetti dell’applicazione del regolamento n. 1215/2012 e del regolamento n. 864/2007 agli illeciti antitrust con implicazioni transfrontaliere per sottolinearne, in conclusione, il favor che il principio dell’unità economica implicitamente realizza nei confronti dei danneggiati, in particolare dei consumatori o degli utilizzatori finali.  

An EU citizen, originally from Estonia and residing in Austria, renounces her nationality of origin in order to acquire that of her State of residence. The resignation is effective and despite the Austrian authorities guaranteeing naturalization, they end up considering that the interested party has incurred in administrative infractions that constitute a legal reason for not granting nationality. Specifically, the applicant had been sanctioned for not affixing the technical vehicle inspection control badge to her car and for driving under the influence of alcohol. As a consequence, it is doomed to a situation of involuntary statelessness, considered by the CJEU incompatible with the principle of proportionality that must inspire any state measure that affects the nationality of a member country, and therefore, the fundamental status of citizen of the Union.

La sentencia del TJUE objeto de comentario acepta que, en principio, una sentencia judicial dictada “en los términos” de un laudo arbitral (judgment entered in terms of the award) pueda constituir una resolución judicial a los efectos de la aplicación del artículo 45.1 c/ del Reglamento Bruselas I refundido. Lo anterior condicionado a que tal sentencia reúna una serie de requisitos. Estos requisitos conforman y se aprecian en una suerte de test de equiparación respecto de una resolución “genuinamente europea” y se concretan en lo que el TJUE ha dado en calificar como “dos reglas fundamentales” del Reglamento: el efecto relativo del convenio arbitral y la litispendencia.

The Spanish High Court confirms Spanish Jurisdiction and application on Spanish law an international divorce and maintenance obligations due to the claimant habitual residence in Spain. Interaction between European Regulations, The Hague Protocol on Maintenance Obligations, 23 November 2007, and Spanish (catalan) private law render this Judgement a very special one.

The extraterritorial effectiveness of foreign judgments is a matter of major importance in Private International Law. This paper presents the legal regime established in the Peruvian Law, making constant reference to its jurisprudential application in terms of recognition of foreign divorce decrees. Although legislative efforts aimed at simplifying the processing of the judicial process are verified, the norm analysis and its application by the jurisprudence reveal certain lags and contradictions that could endanger the principle of effective judicial protection.

El entramado de varios instrumentos jurídicos para abordar la misma materia puede suscitar confusión en la práctica de cuál debe ser el de aplicación, así como también su posible aplicación simultánea. Esto sucede en la materia de contratos de transporte internacional de pasajeros por aire. Sin embargo, la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) ha establecido varios criterios para interpretar la compatibilidad de todos estos instrumentos jurídicos, en particular, sobre los posibles problemas procesales que el instrumento jurídico especial por razón de la materia aparentemente no regule y que los de corte general si regulan. En el Auto que se comenta, existen varias cuestiones importantes que merecen de análisis, como la falta o no de regulación de la sumisión tácita en los instrumentos especiales y el control de la competencia. Por otra parte, se discute la compatibilidad de los instrumentos especiales, cuando el pasajero-demandante invoca las acciones del Reglamento 261/2004 de forma simultánea a las comprendidas en el Convenio de Montreal 1999.

Considering that the international child abduction has increased nowadays, as it results from the Romanian case law, we have decided to study this part of the new Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation No. 1111/2019”). For this purpose, we shall also outline the differences between the Regulation No. 1111/2019 and the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation No. 2201/2003”), which shall be repealed by the Regulation No. 1111/2019 from the 1st of August 2022. The international child abduction is included in the title of a regulation for the first time. As well, a special chapter related to the international child abduction was inserted – Chapter III, articles 22-29. This amendment included by the Regulation No. 1111/2019 is not only useful, but also natural, given that the issue of the international child abduction is a complete separate issue from the parental responsibility and the exercise of this responsibility. The new Regulation No. 1111/2019 provides clarifications in relation to the period when the seised court must give its decision, in article 24, entitled Expeditious court proceedings. In accordance with the legal provisions of both the Regulation No. 1111/2019 and the 1980 Hague Convention, for ordering the return of a child the following conditions must be met: (i) there has been a breach of the rights of custody, (ii) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, (iii) the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention in the state where the return is requested, (iv) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child had not consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention, (v) no exception provided by articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention applies.