emmanuel guinchard

This article offers a commentary on, and not of, the French Supreme Court for private matters decision to welcome the Mareva injunction in France. This writing enjoyed some success. For ex., it seems to have strongly inspired G. Cuniberti, « Le principe de territorialité des voies d’exécution », JDI 2008, p. 963, spec. at 982 where the author, in sharp contrast with his PhD. position (see the published version: “Les mesures conservatoires portant sur des biens situés à l’étranger”, LGDJ, 2000, n° 60), now believes that the main source of regulation regarding enforcement of judgements in cross-border cases does not originate in public international law (a position I have expressed in 1998 and developed in this 2005 article). Moreover, some of the arguments developed in his article are similar to the ones you can find in my article. Compare E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 22 : « chez Mme Devoize, les exemples d’opérations matérielles d’exécution concernent exclusivement les cas d’arrestation, d’enlèvement ou de tentative d’enlèvement» and. G. Cuniberti, « Le principe… », n° 19 : « Lorsqu’ils envisagent l’intervention d’autorités à l’étranger, ces auteurs discutent exclusivement des hypothèses d’enlèvement de personnes à l’étranger » ; E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 19 : « Tout au plus [le droit international public] constitue-t-il une limite dans le cadre de laquelle une réglementation du droit international privé de l’exécution peut être conçue, non cette réglementation elle-même » and G. Cuniberti, « Le principe…», n° 53 : « surtout, le droit international public ne fixe qu’un seuil, en deçà duquel il n’est pas permis de descendre » ; E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 21 : « comment peut-on transposer un raisonnement destiné d’abord voire exclusivement à éviter l’emploi de la force brute entre Etats, à une branche du droit qui régit des relations entre particuliers et où, aujourd’hui, la contrainte physique représente l’exception » and G. Cuniberti, « Le principe… », n° 13 : « La territorialité de la contrainte matérielle est un principe incontestable en droit international. Toutefois, il est douteux qu’il soit d’une grande pertinence en matière de voies d’exécution, tant il est vrai que l’exécution civile ou commerciale ne fait qu’exceptionnellement recours à des autorités policières ou militaires ».

This article is divided in three parts. The first part is on the structural relationship between Article 6 ECHR and private international law. The second part is on the impact of Article 6 ECHR on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. It elaborates on a previous academic writing, where I was the first one, to my knowledge, to raise the idea that the right to enforcement of judgments on the ground of Art. 6 ECHR as construed by the leading 1997 Hornsby case could also apply to foreign judgments (E. Guinchard, La conception française de la territorialité de l’exécution, mémoire DEA, Paris II, 1998, no 55— publically available at the Cujas library in Paris). It is now standard ECtHR case-law (e.g. ECtHR, 3rd May 2011, req. no 56759/08, paragraph 89).  The third part is on jurisdiction.

Full reference: Procès equitable (Article 6 CESDH) et droit international privé, in International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third States, A. Nuyts and N. Watté (editors), Bruylant (Belgium), 2005, p. 199

The article seeks to address the following question: does the maintenance creditor really benefit from a more favorable treatment than other creditors in cross-border cases? Paradoxically, the International Conventions solely dedicated to the recovery of maintenance debts appear often less efficient than the European instruments available to any creditor. The 2005 European Commission's Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations tries to address the issue, (notably) by abolishing the exequatur and regulating enforcement stricto sensu. Years after the drafting (2005) and publication (January 2006) of this article, the 2005 proposal became, after some substantial amendments, Regulation 4/2009, which came into force in mid-2011.

This article offers a detailed and critical analysis of the 2004 proposal creating an European Order for Payment. It was finalised in mid-2005 but only published in mid-2006. At my request I was allowed to write a short addendum in March 2006 following the political agreement on what is now Regulation 1896/2006.

Full reference: Considérations générales sur les saisies spéciales en Common Law : l‟exemple du droit anglais, in "Les saisies spéciales‟, Y. Desdevises (ed.), Editions Juridiques et Techniques, March 2009, p.13.
The paper was originally presented in Nantes in early 2008.

This is one of the chronicles on European Civil Justice I regularly publish in the Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen (Dalloz, Paris), the French equivalent of the Common Market Law Review. More specifically, it appeared in the last issue (no 4) of year 2011. Generally, these chronicles are drafted in collaboration with my colleague Professor M. Douchy-Oudot. Exceptionnaly, I drafted this one alone. It deals with the proposal for a European Account Preservation Order, the ambitious and controversial training programme of the European Commission for legal professionals, and the abolition of the nationality requirement for latin notaries in favor of European Citizenship

This contribution is part of a book on European Civil Justice. It argues that, from the perspective of European Civil Justice / Private International Law, the official promotion of private enforcement of competition law at the EU level is in reality both timid and selective. As the November 2014 Directive does not deal with private international legal issues, the situation has not changed dramatically, despite some recent cases (e.g. the CDC case from the Court of Justice earlier this year). The contribution was finalised in December 2011 and published in early February 2012.

Full reference: Le règlement des petits litiges: un premier bilan plutôt décevant, in Un recouvrement de créances sans frontières ?, Jérôme Attard, Michel Dupuis, Maxence Laugier, Vincent Sagaert, and Denis Voinot (ed.), Larcier, 2013, at 65.
This article was first presented at a conference in Lille (France) in the first semester of 2012 and published in January 2013. It was sent to the European Commission as part of its March-June 2013 public consultation preceding the drafting of its proposal on the reform of the EOP and ESCP and several of its suggestions are to be found in the Commission's proposal or in the agreement between the MEPs and the Latvian Presidency of the Council on 23rd June 2015,

Full reference: GUINCHARD, E, "¿hacia una reforma falsamente técnica del reglamento sobre el proceso europeo de escasa cuantía y superficial del reglamento sobre el proceso monitorio europeo?", AEDIPr (Anuario Español de Derecho internacional privado), t. XIII (2013), October 2014, pp. 279–308.

Please find attached the second chronicle on European Civil Justice published in the Revue trimestrielle de droit européen in 2014 (October - December 2014). The chronicle is published with the agreement of the publisher Dalloz and my co-writer Professor Egéa. I drafted the part presenting the (then) latest codification of private international law in the world (Argentina, October 2014) and the OHADAC project in the light of European rules, as well as the part offering a commentary of the (then) very recently adopted European Account Preservation Order. V. Egéa focused on the legal practitioners and the increased attention they attract.

This is the first edition of the 2016 European Civil Justice chronicle of the Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen. In this issue, published over the summer, I critically analyse Regulation (UE) 2015/2421 amending the European Small Claims Procedure and the European Order for Payment. The chronicle also offers a commentary by V. Egéa of CJEU, 6 October 2015, C-404/14, Marie Matouskova as well as an analysis of CJEU 19 November 2015, C-455/15, P. and B. The chronicle is made available with the consent of Dalloz. Several of the previous chronicles may be found on https://northumbria.academia.edu/emmanuelguinchard

The 1st book on Brussels I bis, the key regulation on International Litigation in civil and commercial matters in Europe starting January 2015, has been published in June 2014. It offers a detailed commentary of the new provisions. It also studies their impact on the other EU Regulations and beyond (i.e. Lugano II). The potential impact on Brussels I bis of the accession of the EU to the ECHR is also considered, as well as the English practice of anti-suit injunctions. Finally, in a (very early, it is true) preparation for a Brussels I ter regulation, the questions which unfortunately have not been addressed by Brussels I bis are considered (the redrafting or abolition of article 7-1 Brussels I bis; the theory of ‘abus de droit’).

The authors: Aude Berthe, Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Fanny Cornette, Cécile De Boe, Marie-Christine de Lambertye- Autrand, Mélina Douchy-Oudot, Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck, Vincent Egéa, Aude Fiorini, Stéphanie Francq, Pietro Franzina, Sandrine Giroud, Fernando Gascón Inchausti, Niklaus Meier, François Mélin, Séverine Menétrey, Cyril Nourissat, Guillaume Payan, Jean-Baptiste Racine, Rodrigo Rodriguez et Laurence Usunier.

The aim of this recently published book (September 2014) is to offer a comprehensive treatment of the service of documents. Therefore, it covers both domestic and cross-border matters (EU Regulation, Hague Convention, Bilateral Conventions and French Private International Law), both principles (European Convention of Human Rights requirements for example) and techniques (including electronic ones), etc. It includes several annexes including a hopefully useful spreadsheet listing the applicable instrument by country.

The authors are practioners or academics:
M. Chardon, M. Douchy-Oudot, S. Gensollen, E. Guinchard, D. Litvinski and B. Menut

More details may be found on LexisNexis website: http://boutique.lexisnexis.fr/jcshop3/376902/Transmission_signification_ou_notification_des_actes.htm

Edited book on the new EU Judiciary, together with a comparative analysis and prospective developments. Authors are Marie-Pierre Granger, Albertina Albors-Llorens, Paolo Biavati, Kieran Bradley, Laure Clément-Wilz, Francesco Contini, Gerard Conway, Laurent Coutron, Henri de Waele, Mattias Derlén, Waltraud Hakenberg, Jean-Paul Jacqué, Georgia Koutsoukou, James Lee, Marie-Luce Paris, Felix Ronkes Agerbeek, Ingve Björn Stjerna, Imola Streho, Konstanze von Papp, Bertrand Wägenbaur.