Search results

The present volume focuses on the jurisprudence of national, supranational and international jurisdictions (and quasi-juridictions) as regards the legal status of same-sex couples. Its aim is to explore the content, rationale, functioning and potential of the different jurisdictions' reasonings and their contribution to the strengthening of LGBTI rights (and duties). As a consequence, the book tries to convey the complexities and controversies that derive from the judicial recognition of same-sex couples across the world, taking always into account the relationship of the judiciary with the executive and the legislature and the related problems of legitimacy and democracy. The volume deals with this issue and considers it as a crucial test for modern democracies and contemporary societies

The well established rule that an overseas company that establishes a place of business in Great Britain and does not provide an address for service can be served with process at that place of business1 was thrown into confusion by the insertion into the 1985 Companies Act of several new provisions including a new section 694A(2) which provides that process may only be served on a branch "in respect of the carrying on of the business of the branch".2 The new rules did not purport to change the situation in relation to a place of business falling short of a branch, and thus created the anomaly that it was apparently easier to serve a place of business than a branch. The proper interpretation of these rules arose in Saab v. Saudi American Bank (Court of Appeal, 2 July 1999).3 Before the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, the new Civil Procedure Rules entered into force on 26 April 1999. Under Part 62(2):A company may be served by any method permitted under this Part as an alternative to the methods of service set out in—(a) section 725 of the Companies Act 1985 (service by leaving a document at or posting it to an authorised place);(b) section 695 of that Act (service on overseas companies); and(c) section 694A of that Act (service of documents on companies incorporated outside the UK and Gibraltar and having a branch in Great Britain).Under Part 6.5(6) where a party has not given an address for service, a document may be served on a company not registered in England and Wales at "any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction."

Tesis doctoral inédita leída en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Privado, Social y Económico, Área de Derecho Privado Internacional. Fecha de lectura: 25-09-2017 ; Esta tesis tiene embargado el acceso al texto completo hasta el 25-03-2019 ; The story of cross-border collective redress in the EU is a story of confusion and missed opportunities: on the one hand, collective redress mechanisms are heterogeneous and often lack efficiency. On the other hand, studies show that important obstacles refrain cross-border litigation, such as the costs of proceedings and language differences. Although the European institutions have attempted to regulate collective redress, the persistent lack of political consensus has delayed the enactment of a binding legislative act. In light of the above, the present research project offers a theoretical framework for the analysis of cross-border collective redress actions in the EU. Its goal is to offer an appropriate forum, which facilitates the start of those actions. This thesis is divided into two parts: the first one describes and analyses the structural and procedural aspects of collective redress mechanisms adopted by EU Member States. The second part then deals with jurisdictional questions generated by cross-border collective redress actions. The last Chapter of this work suggests the creation of a specific forum for collective redress through the reform of the European private international law rules on jurisdiction.