News

In a decision of May 8, 2018 (CJEU May 8, 2018, aff C-82/16) the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that applications for family reunification must be examined even if the non-European citizen, member of the family of an EU citizen, received a "ban on entry into the territory”

In the facts

Several non-European citizens residing in Belgium had received a decision to return to their country, accompanied by a ban on entry into Belgium. This ban was issued for reasons of danger to public order.

Subsequently, they had applied for a residence permit from the Belgian Government in their capacity, for some, as descendants of a Belgian national, for others as parents of a Belgian child, and for and finally, legal cohabiting partner engaged in a stable relationship with a Belgian national. These qualities generate a relationship of dependency that can allow the grant of family reunification. But the Belgian authorities have not taken their request into consideration, prioritizing the entry ban, which can only be removed if a cancellation request is made from abroad.

However, the Aliens Litigation Council found that these people were well established in Belgium. Thus, it asked the Court of Justice of the European Union what it should do with these contentious cases.

The decision of the Court

The Court states that it is a special situation. The persons in question would have to leave the territory of the Union to request an application for the annulment of the entry ban in Belgium.

In addition, the family dependency of the non-EU citizen with an EU citizen would force this EU citizen to leave the EU territory for an indefinite period. This fact could "compromise the useful effect of Union citizenship".

In conclusion, the reasons of public policy which justified a referral decision cannot lead to an automatic refusal to grant family reunification. The services must examine if the person presents "a real, current and sufficiently serious threat to public order" and take into consideration all the circumstances, the best interests of the child and the fundamental rights.

The Global Justice Network (GJN), a group of international lawyers, of which Maître Kokkinos is an active member, meets this summer in Athens at a major conference to discuss current international legal issues.

This "network" was initiated in 2007 by the firm Lieff Cabrazer Heimann and Bernstein, LLP (LCHB) and gathers together lawyers from around the world with the aim of sharing values and ideas on cross-border legal questions.

This meeting begins with a moment of sharing on Thursday, May 24th, 2018 at a cocktail party at the cafe Benaki Museum in Athens. The Friday morning is devoted to a series of interventions on recent and varied topics such as:

1. Environmental litigation and more particularly "disputes over climate change", discussion moderated by Mr. Vicki Maniati and Melissa J. Simms;

2. Aerotoxis syndrome related to exposure to toxic fumes in airplanes, presented by Bert Luyten (Antwerp, Belgium) & BCV Lex (Bordeaux, France);

3. The opioid crisis and the resulting litigation, by Nigel Taylor and Vicki Maniatis.

After lunch will be discussed other topics and more particularly the various disputes across Europe, animated by Melissa Ferrari. Panel members are Tom Goodhead (England & Wales), David (Czech Republic), Antoinette Chin (Netherlands), Carlos VILLA.

After, a "Round table discussion" is planned to discuss the ongoing legal actions of the GJN (migrant workers and human rights, "Norman Atlantic", Pharmaceutical, litigation financier, vaccines, Victims of terrorism attacks...) The main speakers are Marco Bona and Constantin Kokkinos.

At the end of the day, Stefano Bertone and Melissa Ferraris will talk about the "Truck Cartel Follow-on" and the damage related to it, as well as the involvement of the GJN in this case.

The documentary "Pakistan Factory Fire" will be presented by Forensic Architecture, followed by discussion and possible opportunities for project financing.

The productive day will conclude with a cocktail and dinner at the Acropolis Museum Restaurant.

The members of the GNJ Executive Committee will regroup for a final meeting on Saturday morning. This final exchange will make it possible to establish the assessment of the various progress already made and the next steps to be taken.

Although the collaboration between the various lawyers is daily and ongoing, this conference is an additional way for them to meet and discuss the pending and forthcoming litigations.

For more information: http://globaljusticenetwork.com/

The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“The Court”) on 7 March 2018 handled numerous complex cases (Cases C-274/16, c-447/16 and C-448/16) dealing with the same subject: the compensation of passengers for the delay of a flight and the competent jurisdiction in the case of a dispute appears between the passenger and the airline responsible for the delay.

In all three judgments, the Court pronounces the same decision: The airline which has carried out the first segment of a connecting flight, in a Member State, may be attacked before the courts of the final destination in another Member State. This is the case when the individual flights have been booked for the entire flight and the significant delay on arrival is due to an incident that took place on the first of the flights.

One of the cases concerns passengers who booked connecting flights from Spain to Germany with a German airline (Air Berlin). These reservations covered all entire plane ride. In that judgment, the Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Brussels 1 Regulation does not require the conclusion of a contract between two persons, but it presupposes the existence of a legal obligation freely granted by one person to another and on which the plaintiff's action is based. (CJEU 28 January 2015, Case C-375/13, paragraph 39). Article 3 (5) of Regulation No 261/2004 states that “where an effective air carrier has not entered into a contract with the passenger and he is fulfilling obligations under the regulations, he shall be deemed to act on behalf of the person who entered into the contract with the passenger concerned”.

The first domestic flights in Spain were made by the Spanish airline Air Nostrum which works for Air Berlin. During these flights, a delay occurred and the passengers missed their second flight to Germany and arrived at the final destination 4 hours late.The German courts have been seized by passengers to claim compensation from Air Nostrum under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation[1]. The German judges asked, to the CJEU, to clarify the ambiguous situation and indicate if the provisions of ‘’the Brussels I Regulation”[2] should be apply and if German Courts are competent to rule the dispute.Those provisions indicated that a defendant domiciled in another Member State may be summoned, in a contractual matter and more particularly in the case of supply of services, to the Court of the place where the services were or should have been provided.

In this case, Air Nostrum company must be considered as fulfilling voluntary obligations to passengers; these obligations are based on the air transport contract concluded between Air Berlin and the passengers. The passengers will be able to attack the Spanish company before the German jurisdiction.In another case, it is a Chinese airline which had concluded a contract of carriage including a Berlin-Beijing flight with correspondence in Brussels. The flight to Brussels could not be realized because of a refusal (not justified) of the company. The passenger made a claim for compensation before the German judge.The question is: Does the German Court have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the Chinese airline and the passenger?

According to the Brussels 1 Regulation: A person / company domiciled in a Member State may be summoned to another Member State, more specifically to the Member State in which the services were or should have been provided. In this case, the company had its headquarters in China and did not have any branches in the European Union. In this respect, the Court recalls that, if the defendant (in this case, Hainan Airlines) is not domiciled in the territory of a Member State, international jurisdiction is governed by the law of that Member State and not by the law of the Brussels I Regulation. That is to say, it is necessary to look what the national law of each country recommend in order to find the jurisdiction competent to resolve the dispute.

In conclusion, the Court of Justice of the European Union once again clarifies its case law in the area of "air" disputes. In the light of the Brussels 1 Regulation and this new case-law, the rules established are favorable to passengers and may be unfavorable to airlines. These companies will have to be attentive when they deal with so-called "correspondence" flights. If the companies make a mistake, they might have to defend themselves before a Court in another Member State and that would make their defence more complicated.

[1]Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or delay important of a flight.

In Switzerland, the first recast of the law of adoption took place in the 1970s.

Today, 40 years later, Switzerland decides to adopt new rules and adapt its right to the new social patterns. On 28 November 2017, the Federal Council accepted the review of the law of adoption. On July 5, this new entitlement on the 1^st January 2018 came into force.

The review of the aforesaid Law enshrines the desire to put the welfare of the child at the center of the adoption decision. This review takes into account the requirements of article 21 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child.

As a result, the provisions of the Civil Code have changed. The conditions of adoption and the rules on the secrecy of adoption are relaxed.

The change of this Act gives the possibility for people living in a registered partnership or concubinage, to adopt the child of their partner (Article 264c CC). This facility is accentuated by the easing of legal provisions. More specifically, the minimum age of adopters is now less restrictive, from 35 to 28 years.

Furthermore, the joint adoption (article 264a of the CC) is possible for the married couples, that they have been in a common household for at least 3 years (5 years according to the former legislation). It is important to note that the joint adoption of a third party is forbidden to same-sex couples as well as to cohabiting partners. The only adoption of a child that is allowed, is the one in case a couple has been living together for at least three years. Thus, the paradoxical situation persists for homosexuals, since they have the right to adopt a child as long as they are single, but they lose it once they enter into a registered partnership.

The second amendment concerns the secrecy of adoption. The question of the individual needs of the person concerned, whether it’s about the adopted person, the biological parents or the adoptive parents, still remains.

The interests of these protagonists are opposed. It is necessary to decide what is the most important between the interest of maintaining secrecy or the interest of obtaining information. While other countries have been practicing for several years the open adoption, a system that allows biological and adoptive parents to have information about each other, in Switzerland, only confidential adoption was authorized.

According to the previous article 268c CC, only the adopted person could obtain information on the identity of the biological parents. This right was based on another right: the right to know its origins, deducted from art. 10 Al 2 Cst.

The previous article 268c CC gave the unconditional right to the adopted child, to obtain the data relating to his biological parents, even if they (biological parents) are opposed to any personal contact.

The Civil Code only required that the biological parents were informed before communicating the requested data to the child (art 268c Al 2 CC).  The deduction from the previous art. 268 (c) CC, was that Swiss law reserved to the adopted child an absolute right to obtain information about his origins.

Now the biological parents will also be able to obtain information about their child, if he consents to it once he is an adult (new art. 268b al. 3). If the child is a minor, the consent of the adoptive parents will also be required (new art. 268B 2).

Consequently, it is interesting to note that the number of children adopted in Switzerland has been steadily declining in recent years. According to the figures of the federal statistical Office the number is four times lower than in 1980. For some specialists this decrease would be linked to an "improvement of child protection systems, family planning and the prevention of abandonment".  Moreover, international adoption becomes more complicated due to the ratification of Switzerland in 2003 of The Hague adoption Convention. Thus, the new provisions on adoption are likely to facilitate adoption procedures and increase the number of adopted in Switzerland.