Securitisation law: EU and US disclosure regulations

Providing key guidance on the process of securitisation, this comprehensive title explains in detail exactly what practitioners need to know. Featuring the most up-to-date commentary, Securitisation Law and Practice cuts through this complicated process using practical aids such as flow charts and checklists. The book also contains discussion on the latest case law (including case studies) and critical legal issues. The book also features: (1) Analysis of the recent securities regulations regarding asset-backed securities disclosures in the US and EU, providing an understanding of the differences in regulatory reporting requirements between jurisdictions. (2) Discussion of the various types of asset-backed structures that have been created over the last 30 years. (3) Analysis of the major legal decisions in the US and EU regarding securitisation transactions, including such cases as Enron, Parmalat and the recent sub-prime problem.

L’intérêt de l’enfant : notion polymorphe susceptible d’instrumentalisation ou de détournement : l’exemple de l’avant-projet de Loi modifiant le Code civil et d’autres dispositions législatives en matière d’adoption et d’autorité parentale

L’intérêt de l’enfant est une notion « polymorphe » dont les tenants et aboutissants sont difficiles à cerner. A priori, nous postulions que son caractère polymorphe en permet l’instrumentalisation, les acteurs sociaux cherchant, par la représentation qu’ils s’en font, à défendre leurs intérêts. Notre mémoire prend d’ailleurs à partie l’exemple de l’avant-projet de Loi modifiant le Code civil et d’autres dispositions législatives en matière d’adoption et d’autorité parentale. Dans notre premier titre, il convenait ainsi de dresser l’historique de l’intérêt de l’enfant en tant que notion variablement évolutive, de sa réception en jurisprudence et dans les lois québécoises portant sur l’adoption, à son incorporation en droit commun, à la suite de l’abrogation du concept de puissance paternelle. Nous en avons également identifié les fondements, au travers du droit anglais, du droit international, des Chartes et du droit naturel. Les éléments de définition du concept étant multiples, nous avons enfin cherché à le conceptualiser, à en dégager les bases légales et à effectuer l’analyse doctrinale et jurisprudentielle de ses critères. Puis, afin de démontrer nos prémisses, nous avons examiné, dans notre seconde partie, les discours de quelques 23 intervenants dans le cadre des consultations menées par la Commission des institutions sur l’avant-projet de loi susdit. En somme, alors que les chercheurs universitaires ont une position ne cherchant pas à insister sur une dimension de l’intérêt de l’enfant convergeant vers leur mission, les propos des ordres professionnels, des groupes de pression et des organismes para-gouvernementaux sont, en revanche, à l’effet contraire.

Redefining the outer boundaries of EU Law: the Zambrano, McCarthy and Dereci trilogy

In its three recent rulings in the cases of Zambrano, McCarthy, and Dereci, the Court appears to have been determined to redefine the external boundaries of EU law, in cases involving the family reunification rights of Union citizens.These three judgments can be read as an indication that for Article 20 TFEU to apply, there is no longer a requirement of a cross-border element on the facts of the case, and that it is sufficient if the contested national measure has the effect of ‘depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance’ of their rights (the ‘Zambrano principle’).The cases can, at the same time, also be read as a confirmation that the free movement provisions do – still – require a cross-border element and, in particular, the exercise of inter-State movement, in order to apply. Though the result in these cases has not been entirely unexpected, especially in the aftermath of the Rottmann ruling, it is rather problematic in that, although it is obvious that the Court wishes to redraw the line dividing the national and EU spheres of competence, it does not make it entirely clear where this line now lies and leaves many essential questions unanswered, which will obviously require some time to be resolved. EU lawyers are consequently, once more, left with having to decipher as best as they can the real intentions of the Court in this new line of case-law, which has been further complicated by the fact that what the Court seems to have given with one hand in Zambrano (and before that in Rottmann), has taken it back to a large extent through its rulings in McCarthy and Dereci, which appear to confine the former two cases to their own exceptional facts.6 Moreover, the ‘reverse discrimination Pandora’s box’, the opening of which appears to have been the real target of these references, remains untouched: instead of providing a direct solution to this problem, the Court has chosen to – once again – broaden the scope of the Treaty provisions in order to include within it as many situations as possible and, thus, prevent the emergence of this type of differential treatment on a case-by-case basis.As will be explained, nonetheless, this is by no means an appropriate solution to the reverse discrimination conundrum.

A new parenthood paradigm for twenty-first century family law in England and Wales?

There are few other areas in family law where incongruence between the legal and social positions is as evident as that concerning parenthood. Recent cases involving lesbian couples and known sperm donors serve to highlight the increasing tension between the respective roles of biology, intention and functional parenting in the attribution of legal parental status. As both legislative and case-law developments have shown, intention is central in some circumstances, but not in others. The main claim of this paper is that this ad hoc approach leads to incoherent and unsatisfactory law: instead of striving to identify a status, what we are really looking to do is to identify the people who assume responsibility for a child. Drawing upon recent case-law, this paper explores how a conceptual reform of the law could result in a principled framework which would place formally recognised intention at the heart of parental status in order to reconnect legal duty with social reality for as many children and parents as possible. Moreover, it would ensure that parental status would not be dictated by the mode of conception of the child (natural or assisted). The analysis identifies the objectives of reform before proposing a new model which, while recognising the social importance of the biological parentage link, would reserve legal status for functional parenthood.

From harmonisation to better, smart and fit food law

As the European Union (EU) approaches its 60th anniversary, it is worth assessing progress towards a key objective – the abolition of barriers to the marketing of food in the EU. Food has always created particular problems for the EU as national differences in diets, culture and geography make standardisation impossible. Early attempts focussed on direct measures to harmonise requirements or, later, to create an ‘internal market’. Subsequently a changed emphasis brought about the need to focus more clearly on the harmonisation of food safety. More widely, the recent recognition that too much legislation can itself create barriers has led legislators to attempt to consider more carefully the impact of their efforts. This paper reflects on the various stages in the creation of harmonised food controls and considers how case law has impacted the process. Today there are still differences and complete barrier-free trade seems some way off.

English Contract Law and the Great War: the development of a doctrine of frustration

This article examines changes that occurred in English contract law as a result of the demands made upon Great Britain by the Great War. The focus is on the development of the doctrine of frustration in English law. In particular, it is argued that the development of the doctrine of frustration was fashioned from internal legal forces in the form of both existing case law and emergency legislation in response to the demands placed upon the nation by a global war. The way in which the doctrine of frustration developed during the Great War arose as a direct result of the way in which Britain chose to meet the logistical demands created by the way it fought the Great War.

Legal presumptions in national tax systems (Italy and Belgium) and in EU law

The thesis deals with the concept of presumptions, and in particular of legal presumptions, in the context of national tax systems (Italy and Belgium) and EU law. The purpose was to investigate the concept of legal presumption under a twofold comparative perspective. After having provided a general overview of the common core concept of presumption in the European context, an insight in the national approach to legal presumptions was given by examining two different national experiences, namely the Italian and Belgian tax systems. At this stage, the Constitutional framework and some of the most interesting and relevant at EU level presumptive measures were explored, with a view to underlining possible divergences and common grounds. The concept of (national) legal presumption was then investigated in the context of EU law, with the attempt to systematize under a uniform perspective a matter which has been traditionally dealt with either from the merely national point of view or, at EU level, through a fragmented form. In this instance, the EU law relevant framework and the most significant EUCJ case-law, in particular in the field of customs duties, VAT, on the issue of the repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law and in the area of direct taxation, were examined so as to construe the overall EU approach to national legal presumptions. This was done with the finality of determining if and to what extent a common analytical framework may be identified, from which were extracted certain criteria governing the compatibility of national legal presumptions with EU law.

Carbon-related Border Adjustment and WTO Law

By expounding the legal foundations of border tax adjustments in international trade regulation, this book lays out the scope and limitations within which border carbon adjustments need to operate. The author examines the extent to which countries can lawfully impose border adjustment measures in relation to the carbon footprint of products on importation and exportation. In doing so, she provides a thorough analysis of the provisions of the WTO Agreement applicable to border carbon adjustments, offers a comprehensive review of relevant case law and engages with the extensive literature on the subject. Given the probability of conflict with non-discrimination rules of the GATT and uncertainty over justification of different designs of carbon-related border adjustment schemes under the exceptions of GATT Article XX, the book argues for a negotiated solution and discusses the possibility of the use of border carbon adjustments under preferential trade agreements.

Perpetual Conflict or Compromise? The Cost of Domestic Legitimacy in the Realm of Women's Human Rights: A Case Study on the Right to an Abortion

With its turbulent and volatile legal evolution, the right to an abortion in the United States still remains a highly contested issue and has developed into one of the most divisive topics within modern legal discourse. By deconstructing the political underpinnings and legal rationale of the right to an abortion through a systematic case law analysis, I will demonstrate that this right has been incrementally destabilized. This instability embedded in abortion jurisprudence has been primarily produced by a combination of textual ambiguity in the case law and judicial ambivalence regarding this complex area of law. In addition, I argue that the use of the largely discredited substantive due process doctrine to ground this contentious right has also contributed to the lack of legal stability. I assert that when these elements culminate in the realm of reproductive privacy the right to terminate a pregnancy becomes increasingly unstable and contested.

Minors’ Access to Contraceptive Services

Over the past 30 years, states have expanded minors’ authority to consent to health care, including care related to sexual activity. This trend reflects U.S. Supreme Court rulings extending the constitutional right to privacy to a minor’s decision to obtain contraceptives and concluding that rights do not “come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority.” It also reflects the recognition that while parental involvement is desirable, many minors will remain sexually active but not seek services if they have to tell their parents. As a result, confidentiality is vital to ensuring minors’ access to contraceptive services. Even when a state has no relevant policy or case law, physicians may commonly provide medical care to a mature minor without parental consent, particularly if the state allows a minor to consent to related health services.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

Talking with the “pouvoir constituant” in times of constitutional reform: The European Court of Justice on Private Applicants’ Access to Justice. Research Paper in Law 3/2003

[From the Introduction]. European lawyers, at least those dealing predominantly with institutional matters, are living particularly interesting times since the setting-up of the “European Convention on the Future of Europe” in December 2001.1 As the Convention’s mandate, spelled out in rather broad terms in the European Council’s declaration of Laeken,2 is potentially unlimited, and as the future constitution of the European Union (EU) will be ultimately adopted by the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), there appears to be a great possibility to clarify, to simplify and also to reform many of the more controversial elements in the European legal construction. The present debate on the future of the European constitution also highlights the relationship between the pouvoir constituant3 and the European Courts, the Court of Justice (ECJ) and its Court of First Instance (CFI), who have to interpret the basic rules and principles of the EU.4 In that light, the present article will focus on a classic theme of the Court’s case law: the relationship between judges and pouvoir constituant. In the EU, this relationship has traditionally been marked by the ECJ’s role as driving force in the “constitutionalisation” of the EC Treaties – which has, to a large extent, been accepted and even codified by the Member States in subsequent treaty revisions. However, since 1994, the ECJ appears to be more reluctant to act as a “law-maker.”5 The recent judgment in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA)6 – an important decision by which the ECJ refused to liberalize individuals’ access to the Community Courts – is also interesting in this context. UPA may be seen as another proof of judicial restraint - or even as indicator of the beginning of a new phase in the “constitutional dialogue” between the ECJ and the “Masters of the Treaties.”

Meeting Competition: Why it is not an Abuse under Article 82. Research Papers in Law, 3/2004.

Introduction. Meeting competition occurs when an undertaking lowers its prices in response to the entry of a competitor. Despite accepting that meeting competition can be compatible with Article 82, the Commission2 and the Court of justice3 have repeatedly condemned the practice due to the modalities of implementation or “particular circumstances”.4 However, existing precedent on the subject remains obscurely reasoned and contradictory, such that it is at the present time impossible to give clear advice to undertakings on the circumstances in which meeting competition is compatible with Article 82. Not only is such legal uncertainty in itself damaging but, in so far as it discourages meeting competition, it appears to us to be harmful to competition. As concerns the latter point, it will be seen that some of the most powerful arguments against prohibiting meeting competition are based on the counterproductive nature of the remedies. The present article does not, however, aim to propose a simple solution to distinguish abusive and non-abusive meeting competition.5 Nor does the article aim to give a comprehensive overview of the existing case law in this area.6 Instead, it takes a more economic approach and aims to lay out in a (brief but) systematic fashion the competitive concerns that might potentially be raised by the practice of meeting competition and in doing so to try to identify the main flaws in the Court and Commission’s approach.

The EU essential facilities doctrine. Research Papers in Law, 6/2006

Introduction. The essential facilities doctrine may be seen as the ‘extra weight’ which is put onto the balance, in order to give precedence to the maintenance of competition over the complete contractual freedom of undertakings controlling an important and unique facility. The main purpose of the doctrine is to impose upon such ‘dominant’ undertakings the duty to negotiate and/or give access to the facility, against a reasonable fee, to other undertakings, which cannot pursue their own activity (and therefore will perish) without access to such a facility. This very simple description of the content of the doctrine underlines its limitations: through the imposition of a duty to negotiate or contractual obligations, the rule tends to compensate for the weaknesses of the competitive structure of a market, which are due to the existence of some essential facility. In other words, the doctrine does not by itself provide a definitive solution to the lack of competition, but tends to contractually maintain or even create some competition.1 The doctrine of essential facilities originates in the US antitrust case law of the Circuit and District Courts, but has never been officially acknowledged by the Supreme Court. It has been further developed and hotly debated by scholars in the US, both from a legal and from an economic viewpoint. In the EU, the essential facilities doctrine was openly introduced by the Commission during the early 1990s, but has received only limited and indirect support by the Court of First Instance (the CFI) and the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). It also indirectly inspired the legislation concerning the deregulation of traditional ‘natural’ monopolies. The judicial origin of the doctrine, combined with the hesitant application by the appeal courts, both in the US and the EU, cast uncertainty not only on the precise scope of the doctrine, but also on the issue of its very existence. These questions receive a particular light within the EU context, where the doctrine is called upon to play a different role from its US counterpart. In order to address the above issues, we will first pretend that an EU essential facility doctrine does indeed exist and we shall try to identify the scope and content thereof, through its main applications (Section 1). Subsequently, we will try to answer the question whether such a doctrine should exist at all in the EU (Section 2).

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).