BETA

Activities of Francesco Enrico SPERONI related to 2011/0060(CNS)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships PDF (510 KB) DOC (832 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2011/0060(CNS)
Documents: PDF(510 KB) DOC(832 KB)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (13)

Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) To facilitate the partners' management of their property, the law of the Member State where the partnership was registered will apply to all the partners' property, even if this law is not the law of an EU Member State, but only if it complies with the public policy and coercive principles of the State in which it is to be applied.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) Considerations of public interest may, in exceptional circumstances,and conflict with coercive principles of the Member States may justify the courts of the Member Stalattesr invoking overriding mandatory provisions which must be complied with in order to safeguard the political, social or economic organisation of those States. Similarly, in exceptional circumstancesere this is permitted under national law. Similarly, the courts of the Member States should be allowed to set aside the foreign law in a given case where its application would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) However, the courts must not be able to invoke overriding mandatory provisions or public policy as exceptions in order to set aside the law of another Member State or to refuse to recognise or enforce a decision, an authentic instrument, a legal transaction or a European Certificate of Succession drawn up in another Member State where application of such an exception would be contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 21, which prohibits all forms of discrimination. Nor may these courts set aside the law applicable to registered partnerships merely on the grounds that the public policy of the forum does not recognise registered partnerships.Deleted
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b
(b) 'registered partnership': regime governing the shared life of two or more people which is provided for in law and is registered by an official authority;
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point b - paragraph 1 a (new)
legislative provisions of individual Member States that permit forms of registered partnerships between persons of the same sex shall not be applied in Member States which, for reasons of public policy, make no provision for, or prohibit, such partnerships;
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
The law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships is the law of the State in which the partnership was registered, only if it complies with the public policy and coercive principles of the State in which it is to be applied.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The application of a ruleprovision of the law determinsignated by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy and constitutional principles of the forum.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A court of a Member State may declare that it is not competent to decide on the application of the laws of the State of registration where they are in conflict with the public policy and the constitutional principles of the State in which their application has been requested. In that case the competent court shall be that of the State of registration, but its decisions shall not take effect in the State which has not recognised its own competence.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The application of a rule of the law determined by this Regulation, which provides for the option of registering same-sex partnerships and which governs them, shall be deemed contrary to the public policy of the forum where the legal system of the latter makes no provision for, or prohibits, such partnerships.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – point a
(a) such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed;
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Authentic instruments drawn up in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States, unless their validity is disputed in accordance with the applicable law, and provided such recognition is not manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Articles [43 and 44] of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 may refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30
Court settlements that are enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be recognised and declared enforceable in another Member State at the request of any interested party under the same conditions as authentic instruments. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article [42 or 44] of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 may refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the court settlement is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed.
2012/09/25
Committee: JURI