Title pages and contents

The paper examines the fundamental issues regarding the interests in private international law. The goal of the present investigation is to attempt an answer to the question whose interests does the conflict-of-laws rules (narrowly understood) protect. This question is discussed in particular in reference to the theory created in the German doctrine by G. Kegel and developed by his follower K. Schurig. The paper systematizes the conflict-of-laws interests, giving the Polish law examples of the solutions that incorporate them. To be conscious that these interests exist and how they are allocated is necessary, both when drafting and enacting private international law legislation, as well as at the time of its application.

The paper is devoted to the admissibility of recognition and enforcement of a judgment of a foreign court, the subject matter of which is recognition or declaration of enforcement of a judgment from yet another state (judgment on judgment). The issue is discussed in particular with reference to the public policy exception which constitutes a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments, both under Polish domestic law (the Code of civil procedure) and European law (Brussels I bis Regulation). It remains controversial whether the judgments on judgments should be recognized, thus benefiting from the so called “parallel entitlement”. The article takes a comparative approach, examining solutions adopted by various legal systems and analysing arguments for and against recognition of such decisions. The author takes the position that they should not be recognized (and that their enforceability should not be declared) in Poland, both under the Code of civil procedure (as with respect to judgments originating from non-EU states), as well as under EU legislation, in particular Brussels I bis Regulation. It is advocated that the concept of a “parallel entitlement” should be rejected.

The claims are rights in personam but the assignment of claims has a hybrid nature. Abolishing the “nomina ossibus inhaerent” rule has increased commercial significance of the assignment of claims. However, the contemporary legal situation
leaves parties with great legal uncertainty, as to the question under which circumstances does the cross — borders assignment is valid. A recent judgment of the CJEU of 9 October 2019 (C — 548/18) in case BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg has augmented this uncertainty. The Luxemburg Court ruled that: “Article 14 of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees”. In this situation, one would highly welcome an attempt to establish a new set of conflict of laws rules relating to the law applicable to third — parties effects of the assignment of claims. This attempt has recently been made by the European Commission in its Report “on the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over the right of another person”, dated 29 September 2016. In the present article, the author reviews the most important propositions formulated in the conflicts’ doctrine through the “lens” of the international insolvency law. Multiply provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) — despite many judgments of the CJEU in this area — also lack certainty. Insolvency is a foreseeable risk, but without clear rules concerning the third parties’ effects of the assignment of claims, it may become unenforceable for the creditors of the assignor.

In the Western culture there is a widespread belief that marriage should be contracted only by freely expressed will. Hence, marriages concluded at an early age are considered unacceptable. Entering into marriage by children has a negative impact on their education, physical and mental health, as well as their socioeconomic position. For this reason, such practices are incompatible with human rights. Therefore, European countries are trying to counteract them, which results in taking specific legislative actions. The intensification of these activities is particularly evident in the last decade, which is mainly caused by the increased migration to Europe from countries belonging to other cultural circles. Child marriages, being a phenomenon strongly embedded in culture, have become one of the areas where there are frictions between the majority, which in principle determines the shape of legal regulations, and minorities who, on the one hand, want to live in European countries, but also want to preserve the traditions that are cultivated in their countries of origin.

The changes in law considering child marriages are undertaken in realm of substantive law as well as conflict of laws rules. In the second case, the states introduce specific public policy clauses referring to child marriages. The paper aims at describing and evaluating those changes in law, especially from the point of view of private international law.

The article is aimed at determining the relevance of the flag state (regarding vessels) and the country of registration (regarding aircrafts) principles for the purpose of the application of territorial connecting factors (the place of the event giving rise to damage (place of acting) and the place where the damage occurred (place of damage)) employed by article 7(2) of the Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis Regulation) providing a special jurisdiction rule in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict and by article 4(1) of the Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II Regulation) specifying the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or delict. The flag state and the country of registration principles could be taken into account when circumstances constituting the event giving rise to damage or the damage itself are situated on board of a vessel navigating in or an aircraft flying through the areas outside the sovereignty of any state (in particular the High Seas). The reference to the flag state or the country of registration instead of the sovereignty in order to identify the member state whose courts have jurisdiction pursuant to article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation or the state
whose law is applicable according to article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation may also be possible in cases when the determination of the place where the event giving rise to damage occurred or where the damage occurred is difficult or even when the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law identified based on the sovereignty over the area where the vessel navigated or the aircraft flew at the moment when the event giving rise to damage occurred or damage occurred does not materialise the closest connection principle.

In international trade, it is essential to determine the scope of the law applicable to property rights, i.e. the law applicable to the assessment of rights in rem. Article 41 of the Polish Private International Law Act uses the connecting factor of the situs rei. The competence of legis rei sitae regarding rights in rem should not be challenged when the subject of rights in rem is tangible property. If, however, the subject of rights in rem is not a tangible object but in a claim or other type of a right, then there is an urgent need to seek other ways of establishing the law applicable to the formation of such rights. In addition, there is a recurrent problem with the proper delimitation with the laws applicable to other issues, i.e. the determination of the law applicable to the assessment of the effectiveness of the acquisition of a limited right in rem, and the question of the so-called adaptation and qualification.

The purpose of the present study is to determine the law applicable to the establishment of limited property rights. Using the dogmatic-legal, comparative and complementary historical methods, the provisions of Article 41 of the Private International Law Act are evaluated, and conclusions are drawn de lege ferenda.

The article raises issues concerning legal basis for the application of the overriding mandatory rules. In the Polish doctrine there are two opposing concepts in terms of explanation of the legal grounds for application of overriding mandatory rules. Both theories do not have a universal dimension, in the sense that they do not sufficiently explain the basis for the application of domestic as well as foreign overriding mandatory rules, being part of lex causae or coming from a third state. The article presents arguments for and against the possibility of deriving the legal grounds for application of the overriding mandatory rules, with reference to submissions made to that effect in literature. The author makes also an attempt to formulate a concept complementary to the concept of an integrated conflict-of-law rule with the substantive law rule, boiling down to the assumption that the basis for application of overriding mandatory rule is a second degree conflict of laws rule allowing to apply a first degree conflict of laws rule integrated with the substantive rule.

Judgment of the CJEU of 12 February 2015 in case Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (C‑396/13)

This paper aims to comment an important ruling concerning the Posted Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC). In the judgement C-396/13 (Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna), the European Court of Justice provided
its pro-worker’s interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the scope of the "minimum pay rate". The second issue raised by the European Court of Justice was the assignability of pay claims governed by Polish law based on Art 14 (2) of Rome I Regulation and prohibited under that law. In commented judgement, the Court admitted the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships in light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accepted the trade union’s right to represent the posted workers.