Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  habitual residence
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides no fixed definition of its central term of habitual residence of a child. Recently, in Monasky v. Taglieri the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the determination of an abducted child’s habitual residence, resolved a split among circuit courts regarding the focus of habitual residence inquiry as to whether habitual residence should be determined using objective evidence of the child’s perspective, subjective evidence of parental intent and established the new “totalityof-the-circumstances” standard of review. As this is quite a different position as compared to the position of the Polish Supreme Court who decided that the intentions of caregiving parents are not relevant considerations in determining a child’s habitual residence, this article analyses recent US developments arguing that the Polish Supreme Court position should be changed.
EN
The jurisdiction provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 650/2012 is ancillary to the jurisdiction regulated in Articles 4-11 of the Regulation. It covers only the declarations described in this provision. Their content is determined by the law applicable to succession. Jurisdiction under Article 13, on the other hand, does not cover the consequences of the silence of a candidate for an heir. The effects of the waiver of the succession are assessed according to the provisions of the law applicable to succession even if the waiver occurred within the jurisdiction of Article 13 of the Regulation. In the case before the CJEU, the Bremen court of succession held that since it had not been served with the original document containing the waiver of the succession with an official translation into German within the deadline set by the law application to succession (Section 1944(3) BGB), there had been no effective waiver of the succession. Responding to the preliminary questions of the German court of second instance, the CJEU correctly stated that in the case of waiver of the succession in the state, in which the waiving heir has his or her habitual residence, it is sufficient to comply with the form requirements provided for by the law of the state in which that declaration is made, without a necessity to comply with the requirements of the lex successionis. On the basis of legis processualis, the German court of succession could have requested that translation into German of the documents drawn up in Dutch is submitted. On the same basis, it could also have demanded the submission of the originals of the above documents. However, it incorrectly held that these acts must be completed within the time limit for waiver of succession provided for in the legis successionis. It is also clear that the failure of the heir waiving the succession to comply with the instruction contained in the last sentence of recital 32 of the Regulation (paragraph 74) regarding the obligation to give notice of waiver, does not render the waiver invalid. It seems desirable in future, however, to explicitly include in the Regulation the obligation to notify the court of succession of the waiver, in the country of habitual residence of the waiving heir.
EN
In a world like today’s one, with communication, trade and the increasing cross-border travels, the issue of the conflict of laws appears in every aspect of the private law. It is important that every member of the legal community understands the conflict of laws. This is important especially for judges, because they are the ones who should solve cross-border disputes submitted to them, which affect the personal lives of individuals and their businesses. Judges are precisely those who, with their work, should increase the confidence of the parties and the public, both within the community of their country and in other countries. However, in a broader view, not only lawyers but all legal subjects must have general knowledge in this field in order to perform effective agreements. Thus, through this article we aim to shed light on the regulation of private legal relations that are characterized by a foreign element, presenting innovations brought by Law No. 10426 ‘On Private International Law’ which entered into force on 02.06.2011.
EN
The article discusses issues that are fundamental to shaping the future of private international law: the phenomenon of migration and the so-called multicentricity of creation and application of law. The subject matter of the discussion is the evolution of Savigny’s classical paradigm of private international law as an “arbitrator” between the legal systems of nation states. Modern migrations are characterized by multidirectional population flows and decreasing stability of links between a person and a specific territory; in turn, multicentricity entails the obligation to constantly reconcile various legal rules coming from various law-making centres. The author does not question the advantages of Karl Friedrich von Savigny’s concept, but considers it necessary to reconcile it with the increasingly complicated and eclectic structure of private international law in the first half of the 21st century. The concept of the so-called sovereignty of an individual – an increased importance of individual values at the expense of collective, nation-wide or general public values – causes significant confusion about the concept of “conflict-of-law justice” based on the idea of a “spatially better” law, that is, the closest connection between law and a particular case. Such a specific concept, when confronted with increasingly complex legal structures of today’s world, is experiencing a significant crisis. The term “law of conflict” ceases to be reserved for private international law only, just as conflicts of laws cease to arise only at cross-border level. The solution might consist in turning back to the doctrine of natural law and thus departing from a strictly positivist vision of conflict-law as a finite set of simple rules used to attribute relations to relevant national law systems. Although international private law will certainly not forget about von Savigny, we can assume that it no longer belongs to his legacy.
EN
The gloss endorses the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union presented in the judgment issued in case C-644/20, in which the CJEU recognized – for the purposes of determining the law applicable in a cross-border maintenance case – the habitual residence of the child (pursuant to Article 3 of the Protocol Hague of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations) the country to which the child has been abducted despite a judgment ordering the return of the child under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Court, bearing in mind the best interests of the child, recognized the need to take into account the current environment in which the child currently resides in the context of assessing the real needs of the maintenance creditor. Thus, the CJEU did not adopt the concept contained in Regulation 2201/2003, according to which the jurisdictional connecting factor based on the child’s habitual residence, in principle, cannot be linked to the country to which the child was wrongfully removed or retained.
PL
Glosa wyraża aprobatę do stanowiska Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej przedstawionego w wyroku wydanym w sprawie C-644/20, w którym TSUE uznał – na potrzeby ustalenia prawa właściwego w sprawie alimentacyjnej o charakterze transgranicznym – za miejsce zwykłego pobytu dziecka (na podstawie art. 3 Protokołu haskiego z 23.11.2007 r. o prawie właściwym dla zobowiązań alimentacyjnych) państwo, do którego dziecko zostało uprowadzone, pomimo wydania wyroku nakazującego powrót dziecka na podstawie Konwencji haskiej z 25.10.1980 r. dotyczącej cywilnych aspektów uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę. Trybunał, mając na uwadze dobro dziecka, uznał konieczność uwzględnienia aktualnego środowiska, w którym dziecko aktualnie przebywa w kontekście oceny realnych potrzeb wierzyciela alimentacyjnego. Tym samym TSUE nie przejął koncepcji zawartej w rozporządzeniu 2201/2003, zgodnie z którą łącznik jurysdykcyjny oparty na miejscu zwykłego pobytu dziecka co do zasady nie może być powiązany z państwem, do którego dziecko zostało bezprawnie uprowadzone lub w którym zostało zatrzymane.
EN
This article is about the effects of abolition of the compulsory registration and some other records in civil proceedings. Replacement of the existing law on the population register and identity cards by two bills which refer to this issue carries the risk of difficulties in the effective search those people who take an active part in civil proceedings. This applies both to the defendants as well as witnesses. The proposed solutions are designed to facilitate the search for bodies of civil procedure, as well as the introduction of systemic solutions, in order to strengthen the legal culture in the Polish legal system.
EN
The aim of this article is to analyse the importance and conception of habitual residence especially in the European private international law. In the regulations of European private international law, habitual residence appears as a connecting factor determining applicable law as well as a criterion determining international jurisdiction of courts. Habitual residence of other natural persons (not acting in the course of their business activity) is not defined in European private international law. The interpretation of the concept of habitual residence is autonomous. A uniform conception of habitual residence within the framework of European private international law exists as regards the basic characteristics of this institute. Habitual residence constitutes factual relationship to a particular place and must be determined on the basis of an assessment of all circumstances of each case. Habitual residence represents the centre of a person’s vital interests. However, in determining habitual residence, account must be taken to the specifics of the regulation in question, to the governed legal relationships as well as to the legal status of a person concerned. The physical presence of a person in the given state is necessary for the existence of habitual residence. However, the mere physical presence in a particular state is not enough. Integration in the social environment must also be present. The intention of a person to reside in the given state for a long time and to establish a permanent or usual centre of vital interests there is not a necessary or decisive condition for establishing habitual residence. Given the nature of habitual residence, a situation should not arise where a person does not have any habitual residence. For purpose of the rules of European private international law, it is always necessary to determine only one habitual residence of a person concerned.
CS
Cílem článku je analýza významu a pojetí obvyklého pobytu především v evropském mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním. V předpisech evropského mezinárodního práva soukromého a procesního figuruje obvyklý pobyt jako hraniční určovatel i jako kritérium pro určení mezinárodní příslušnosti soudů. Obvyklý pobyt ostatních fyzických osob (nejednajících při výkonu podnikatelské činnosti) není v rámci evropského mezinárodního práva soukromého a procesního definován. Výklad pojmu obvyklý pobyt je autonomní. O jednotné koncepci obvyklého pobytu v rámci evropského mezinárodního práva soukromého a procesního lze hovořit, pokud jde o základní charakteristiku tohoto institutu. Obvyklý pobyt představuje faktický vztah k určitému místu a musí být určen na základě posouzení všech konkrétních skutkových okolností v každém jednotlivém případě. Obvyklý pobyt má představovat centrum životních zájmů osoby. Při určování obvyklého pobytu je však třeba vzít v potaz specifika příslušné právní úpravy, upravených právních poměrů a postavení dotčené osoby. Pro existenci obvyklého pobytu je nezbytná fyzická přítomnost osoby v daném státě. Pouhá fyzická přítomnost v určitém státě nestačí. Musí být přítomna i integrace v rámci sociálního prostředí. Úmysl osoby v daném státě dlouhodobě pobývat a zřídit si tam trvalé či obvyklé centrum zájmů není nezbytnou či rozhodující podmínkou pro založení obvyklého pobytu. S ohledem na povahu obvyklého pobytu by neměla nastat situace, kdy osoba obvyklý pobyt nemá. Pro účely předpisů evropského mezinárodního práva soukromého a procesního je třeba určit vždy právě jeden obvyklý pobyt.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu jest zagadnienie wykorzystania łącznika zwykłego poby¬tu w normach kolizyjnych oraz normach jurysdykcyjnych dla spraw z zakresu prawa rodzinnego, których uczestnikiem jest dziecko. Regulacja kolizyjna tych spraw jest zawarta w przeważającej części w umowach międzynarodowych oraz w rozporządze¬niach unijnych. W pierwszej części artykułu przedstawiono regulację kolizyjną objętą wybranymi umowami międzynarodowymi przygotowanymi w ramach Haskiej Konfe¬rencji Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego oraz aktami prawa unijnego. Dalsza część obejmuje rozważania na temat znaczenia pojęcia „miejsce zwykłego pobytu”, w tym okoliczności, które należy uwzględnić przy jego ustalaniu. Przedstawione akty nie za¬wierają definicji pojęcia, stanowisko w tej kwestii zostało zatem wypracowane przez doktrynę oraz orzecznictwo. Ostatnim poruszanym zagadnieniem jest relacja łączników zwykłego pobytu oraz zamieszkania w krajowych normach kolizyjnych i jurysdykcyj¬nych. Ustawodawca polski zdecydował się bowiem na wprowadzenie łącznika zwykłego pobytu do norm krajowych przy jednoczesnym pozostawieniu łącznika zamieszkania.
EN
The subject matter of the article is the issue of use of the connecting factor of the habitual residence in the conflict of law rules and in the rules establishing jurisdiction in the family law matters with participation of a child. Those rules are contained for the most part in international agreements and EU regulations. The first part of the article presents the regulation of conflict of law provisions in the selected international conven¬tions prepared by the Hague Conference on private international law and the EU legal acts. The next part includes the elaboration on the meaning of the terms „the place of habitual residence”, including the circumstances to be taken into account when deter¬mining habitual residence. The acts discussed do not contain a definition of the term, the position in this regard was therefore developed by the legal doctrine and jurisprudence. The last discussed issue is the relation between the connecting factors of the habitual residence and the domicile in the national conflict of law rules and the rules establishing jurisdiction. The polish legislator introduced habitual residence as a connecting factor into the national rules while leaving the connecting factor of the domicile.
PL
Przedmiotem opracowania jest analiza bardzo aktualnych, węzłowych kwestii unormowanych w rozporządzeniu Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 650/2012 z dnia 4 lipca 2012 r. w sprawie jurysdykcji, prawa właściwego, uznawania i wykonywania orzeczeń, przyjmowania i wykonywania dokumentów urzędowych dotyczących dziedziczenia oraz w sprawie ustanowienia europejskiego poświadczenia spadkowego (tzw. rozporządzenie „Rzym IV”). Wprowadzenie rozporządzenia wieńczy długoletnią dyskusję nad wspólnymi przepisami kolizyjnymi i jurysdykcyjnymi dla krajów Unii Europejskiej, jak również stanowi uzupełnienie dotychczasowych regulacji unijnych z zakresu prawa prywatnego międzynarodowego i procesowego, stąd też problemtyka związana z regulacjami zawartymi w rozporządzeniu w pełni zasługuje na przybliżenie i omówienie. W pracy poruszone zostały kwestie związane z prawem właściwym dla spraw spadkowych, ściśle łączące się z tematyką kolizyjną zagadnienie jurysdykcji krajowej oraz problematyka europejskiego poświadczenia spadkowego. Poddana pod wątpliwość została słuszność wprowadzonych regulacji i ich przydatność w kontekście zwiększenia bezpieczeństwa obrotu. Została także podjęta próba rozstrzygnięcia pojawiających się wątpliwości, czy to natury interpretacyjnej, czy też odnoszących się do celowości przyjętych rozwiązań. Rozważania zamykają wnioski płynące z przeprowadzonej analizy.
EN
Until quite recently all of the countries of the world have had different rules dealing with succession rights (that is the rules relating to inheritance whether testate or intestate). However since the creation of the Succession Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enfocement of authentic instruments in metters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession all that has changed for all of the member states of the European Union. The Regulation aims to harmonise the laws relating to succession throughout the European Union. Moreover the Regulation aims to facilitate the free movement of persons within th EU and also to promote the area of freedom, security and justice which is a primary goal of the EU. The regulation provides certainty as to which law applies. The regulation enables persons to make a choice of law of the country of their nationality to govern their succession. The general ruled applied in the Regulation is that the law applicable to the succession as a whole shall be the law of the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death unless the latter chose the law of the state to apply in accordance with Article 22. The paper focuses on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognitions and enforcement of decisions and Europewan Certificate of Succession covered by the Regulation. The paper is designed of deeply analyze the regulations contained in the Regulation. The authoress focuses on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognitions and enforcement of decisions and Europewan Certificate of Succession covered by the Regulation. The authoress analyses the topic of her research by exploiting the dogmatic method and that of comparative type.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.