مسائل فرعی در حقوق بین الملل خصوصی اتحادیه اروپا
  •   آرشیو : نسخه پاییز 1399 - جلد اول
  •   نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
  •   کد پذیرش : 12694
  •   موضوع : حقوق خصوصی
  • نویسنده/گان : سکینه اسدزاده
  •   کلید واژه : مسائل فرعی، قانون مقر دادگاه، قانون سبب، إحاله.
  •   مراجع :
    [1] Regulation EC No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome J), [2008] OJ L177/6
    [2] Regulation EC No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome I), [2007] OJ 199/40.
    [3] Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), [2001] OJ L12/1.
    [4] Recital 7 of Rome I and II.
    [5] Arts 20 and 21 of Rome I and Arts 24 and 26 of Rome II.
    [6] CC Bernitt, Die Ankniipfung von Vorfragen im Europdischen Kollisionsrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2010);
    [7] A Junker, “Vor Art 1 Verordnung (EG) Nr 864/2007” in FR Sacker and R Rixecker (eds), Miinchener Kommentar zum BGB X (CH Beck, 2010), paras 35-37;
    [8] J Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2006) § 32 IV 2a, b; V, 226ff;
    [9] D Solomon, “Die Ankniipfung von Vorfragen im Europiischen Internationalen Privatrecht” in J Bernreuther et al (eds), Festschrift fiir Ulrich Spellenberg (Sellier, 2010), 355, 367-68, 370;
    [10] HJ Sonnenberger, “Randbemerkungen zum Allgemeinen ‘Teil eines europiisierten IPR” in D Baetge et al (eds), Die richtige Ordnung: Festschrift fiir Fan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag (Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 227;
    [11] HJ Sonnenberger, “Grenzen der Verweisung durch europaisches internationales Privatrecht” [2011] Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (LPRax) 325, 330 (cited as Sonnenberger 2).
    [12] K Schurig, “Die Struktur des kollisionsrechtlichen Vorfragenproblems” in H-J Musielak and K Schurig (eds), Festschrift fiir Gerhard Kegel zum 75 Geburtstag (Kohlhammer, 1987), 549, 550.
    [13] AE Gotlieb, “The Incidental Question Revisited — ‘Theory and Practice in the Conflict of Laws” (1977) 26 International G@ Comparative Law Quarterly 734, 755-56;
    [14] G Kegel and K Schurig, Internationales Privatrecht (GH Beck, 2004), § 9 IL 2, 382;
    [15] W Wengler, “§ 8 Die ‘Technik des internationalen Privatrechts” in Mitglieder des Bundesgerichtshofs (eds), Reichsgerich- tsraite-Kommentar, Bd VI Internationales Privatrecht (Walter de Gruyter, 1981), n 37b, 806.
    [16] H-P Mansel, “Zum Verhaltnis von Vorfrage und Substitution” in D Baetge et al (eds), Die richtige Ordnung: Festschrift fiir Fan Kropholler zum 70 Geburtstag (Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 353, 361.
    [17] Kropholler, supra n 5, § 32 IV 1 (S 225); C von Bar,Internationales Privatrecht, Band 1, Allgemeine Lehren (CH Beck, 1987), § 3 no 155.
    [18] Case C-334/00 Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH [HWS] [2002] I-ECR 7357 [23];
    [19] Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne SA ua v Spliethoff’s Bevrachting- skantoor BV et al. [1998] I-ECR 6311 [15]. Gf
    [20] Case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde et al v Master of the Vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan et al [1999] I-ECR 6307 [13].
    [21] Art 345 ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ex-Art 295 TEC); Art 167(5) ‘TFEU (ex-Art 151(5) TEC).
    [22] A Goucha Soares, “The Principle of Conferred Powers and the Division of Powers between the European Community and the Member States” (2001) 57 Liverpool Law Review 23, 76-78. In Case C-210/06 Cartesio Oktaté és Szolgdltaté bt [2008] I-ECR 9664 [110] the CJEU left to national law the determination of connecting factors on the incorporation of a company.
    [23] Lettre ouverte au Président de la République in (2006) La semaine juridique. Edition générale 2312;
    [24] P Kindler, “Vom Staatsangehérigkeits- zum Domizilprinzip: das kiindftige international Erbrecht der Europaischen Union” [2010] Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 44, 48.
    [25] Art 15 of Rome II. Against, see A Dickinson, The Rome I Regulation (Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2008), 3.11.
    [26] Rome I and Rome I, Art 12 of Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the Return of Cultural Objects Unlawfully Removed from the Territory of a Member State, [1993] OJ L74.
    [27] KF Kreuzer, “Was gehort in den All- gemeinen ‘Teil eines Europaischen Kollisionsrechts?” in B Jud et al (eds), Kollisionsrecht in der Europdéischen Union (Jan Sramek, 2008), 1, 55, 57.
    [28] Art 81(2) (f) TFEU in relation to civil procedure.
    [29] Implicitly in the judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof of 9 July 2009, no Xa ZR 19/08 in (2009) Neue Furistische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3371, 3373.
    [30] Eg 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated ver- sion), [1998] OJ C27/34.
    [31] Recital 6 of Rome I and Rome II.
    [32] Eg broad parts of competition law.
    [33] A Dutta, “Europaische Integration und nationals Privatrecht nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon: die Rolle des Internationalen Privatrechts” [2010] Ewropéische Zeitschrift Stir Wirtschafisrecht (EuZW) 530.
    [34] Art 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (“Directive on electronic commerce”), [2000] OJ L178/1 by AG Cruz Villalon on 29 March 2011 and by the Grand Chamber on 25 October 2011 in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Martinez, Martinez v Société MGN Limited; G De Baere, “‘Is ‘This a Conflict Rule Which I See Before Me?’ Looking for a Hidden Conflict Rule in the Principle of Origin as Implemented in Primary European Community Law and in the ‘Directive on Electronic Commerce” (2004) 11 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 287.
    [35] Case C-518/08 Fundacién Gala-Salvador Dalé et al v Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques (ADAGP) et al, judgment of 15 April 2010; (2010) 554 EuZW.
    [36] Case C-353/06 Grundkin-Paul [2008] ECR 1-7639; J Meeusen, “The Grunkin and Paul Judgment of the ECJ, or How to Strike a Delicate Balance between Conflict of Laws, Union Citizenship and Freedom of Movement in the EC” [2010] eitschrift fiir europdisches Privatrecht (CEuP) 189.
    [37] E Brédermann and H Iversen, Europdisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 1994), para 929.
    [38] Art 345 ‘TFEU (ex-Art 295 TEC).
    [39] J-J Kuipers, “Cartesio and Grunkin-Paul: Mutual Recognition as a Vested Rights Theory Based on Party Autonomy in Private Law” (2009) 2 European Journal of Legal Studies 80; Schurig, supra n 6, 577.
    [40] Article 1(2) to relationships having comparable effects to marriage and other family relationships should be interpreted in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the court is seized.”
    [41] M Wiirdinger, “Das Prinzip der Einheit der Schuldrechts- verordnungen im Europaischen Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht” (2011) 102 Rabels Keitschrift fiir auslindisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 75, 109.
    [42] R Lamont, “Evaluation European Values: ‘The EU’s Approach to European Private Inter- national Law” (2009) 5 Journal of Private International Law 371, 373.
    [43] Case C-168/08 Laszlo Hadadi |Hadady] 0 Csilla Marta Mesko, married Hadadi [Hadady] |2009| ECR 1-6871; (2009) 619 EuZw, 623 para 54.
    [44] D Hughes, “The Insolubility of Renvoi and its Confuences” (2010) 6 Journal of Private International Law 195, 224; K Siehr, “Paolo Picone, Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Kollisionsrecht und die Blockverweisung auf die ‘zusténdige Rechtsordnung’ im IPR” [2005] Praxts des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 155, 157.
    [45] P Mankowski, “Binnenmarkt-IPR” in J Basedow, J Drobnig et al (eds), Aufbruch nach Europa — 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut fiir Prvatrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 595, 614.
  •  صفحات : 97-111
  •   دانلود فایل ( 668.16 KB )