The slides of my lectures at the University of Bergen (Faculty of Law)

I am very grateful to the Bergen University community, had a wonderful time at the university, the city was beautiful, the discussion was inspiring and I enjoyed my stay a lot. 

I attach the slides of my lectures below:

  • The slides of the first lecture (given for the Research Group in Competition & Market Law) about the connection between EU single market rules, non-discrimination of foreign companies and the new system of oligarchs (Nationalism vs. the single European market – the case of Hungary) can be accessed here.
  • The slides of the second one, a more general lecture (given for Project Group on Constitutional law and Democracy) about the changes of rule of law in Hungary and their connection with EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights (Constitutionalism, rule of law and the Hungarian phenomenon)  can be accessed here.

Please find my blog entry about the collection of related publications in these fields here, they can serve of interest to anyone who wants to know more abut Hungary’s position within the EU. I also added some more pictures of the university. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Found a nice article on the recognition of US judgments on punitive damages in Europe

by Istvan Csongor Nagy

The paper examines the recognition practice of US punitive awards in continental Europe from a comparative and critical perspective. After analysing the pros and cons of the recognition of punitive awards from a theoretical point of view, it presents and evaluates the judicial practice of the European (French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish and Swiss) national courts and the potential impact of the 2005 Hague Choice-of-Court Convention and the Rome II Regulation. The paper ends with the final conclusions containing a critical evaluation of the present judicial practice and a proposal for a comprehensive legal test for the recognition of punitive damages.

You find the article here

Justice and home affairs (Bel és igazságügy) – For my students

jáp

I recently noticed that TWO Hungarian language articles we wrote together with Balázs Horváthy can be found on the internet about the Lisbon Treaty and the system of justice and home agffairs. The articles can serve as general introduction into the topic as well as for a comprehensive analysis on the institutions and legal system of JHA after Lisbon.

You can reach them here or by cliking on the image above.

*  *  *

Észrevettem, hogy az intereneten elérhető KÉT írásunk a bel- és igazságügyi együttműködés Lisszaboni Szerződést követő rendszeréről.  A munkák itt, vagy fenti logóra klikkelve érhetőek el, és a Jog, Állam politika c. lapban jelentek meg. Előzőleg a Lamm Vanda emlékkötetben ugyanennek a kérdésnek egy hasonló ám máshogyan strukturált vizsgálatát végeztük el (ld. a list of publications részt ezen az oldalon).

Two new articles published – Yearbook of Private International Law & Külgazdaság

Recently, I published two new articles.

The first one, published in the Yearbook of Private International Law summarizes the different conflicting private international law provisions of the EU. It classifies the rules by making several subgroups in order to understand the attributes of different regulations/directives. In fact, it is similar to my former works, but instead of only finding the provisions, it tries to make groups and make some statements based on the findings.

yearbpic

For the table of contents, please click here.

You can find the article on ssrn here.

The second onepublished in the Hungarian journal Külgazdaság, was written in Hungarian together with Katalin Raffai from Pázmány Péter Catholic University (I am really happy to have a common article with her).  This is its abstract:

“Several new laws which deal with the international aspects of family law issues have been adopted in the European Union in the recent years. According to the statements of the European institutions, these rules are important in order to strengthen the background of the free movement of EU citizens. Numerous problems had to be solved, like the question of the law applicable in case of a divorce proceeding or the procedure of maintenance payments. The article summarizes the provisions of the most important legal sources, with special regard to the private international law aspects of such cases. Furthermore, it also deals with the basic differences between the related domestic substantive family law regimes.”

In Hungarian:

“Az Európai Unióban az elmúlt években több olyan jogszabály is elfogadásra került, amely családjogi kérdésekkel foglalkozik. E normák megalkotására a belső piac logikája miatt, az uniós polgárok szabad mozgásának biztosítása végett volt szükség. A szabad mozgás folyományaképpen rendezni kellett számos kérdést, így például, hogy a házasság felbontására milyen jogot alkalmazzanak, vagy a tartásdíjakat milyen keretek között kelljen fizetni. E szabályok nemzetközi magánjogi (más néven: nemzetközi kollíziós) normák, azaz azt határoznák meg, milyen eljárási rendben kell végrehajtani és végrehajtatni a tagállami anyagi jogi családjogi szabályokat, illetve részletesen leírják, mely állam jogát alapul véve kell eljárni. Az írás kimondottan az alkalmazandó jog megállapításával foglalkozik, ám röviden kitér az anyagi jogi háttérszabályokra is.”

You can find the article on my  SSRN profile here.

New article in Global Jurist: The Quest to Find a Law Applicable to Contracts in the European Union – A Summary of Fragmented Provisions

In the European Union Regulation No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the so called Rome I regulation) governs which law to apply to contracts containing international elements. With the continuing internalization of business activities, such rules have elementary importance. However, beside the unified rules of the regulation, numerous EU rules exist, which also have relevance. This is because of a provision in Rome I, which states that the regulation shall not prejudice the application or adoption of rules of the institutions of the EU which lay down rules concerning particular areas of contractual law. As an effect, several rules exist which override the provisions of Rome I. Thus, the present system of rules is fragmented, which may cause serious malfunctions in the legal practice. Most of these provisions can be found in consumer law directives, but other fields like employment law may also be of relevance. The article tries to collect these „hidden” provisions and analyse their effect on the Hungarian legal regime.

The article can be found here.

New Article in California International Law Journal

Tamas Dezso Czigler & Izolda Takacs: The  Law Applicable To Contracts In The European Union – A Competition Between Rome I Regulation, Other Sources of EU Law and Directive Law As Implemented. CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 20, No. 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2012, 21-53.

Calbar

In the early days then, there had been only fragmented and miscellaneous conflict-of-laws provisions in the acquis communautaire, focusing on specific areas. Most provisions were to be found in directives dealing with substantive law, i.e. the conflict-of-laws rules were merely extensions to the regulations in certain areas. Adopting such rules was common in the fields of consumer protection (i.e. consumer contract law) and insurance law. Numerous authors had criticized this earlier technique, which resulted in the disintegration of Community conflict-of-laws rules. There were indeed several disadvantages of the early approach. Firstly, the PIL body of law adopted for particular areas became opaque and convoluted. Secondly, in several cases the European legislator only provided a kind of “supra-collisional” rule, or to be more precise, a rule defending some provisions of Community law. That is to say, the Community PIL rules were only to be applied if doing otherwise, some substantive rules of EU/Community law would have been violated. This approach made the system unpredictable. Thirdly, the solutions for implementing these rules into MSs’ national statutes seem rather diverse and sometimes inconsistent with each other. Fourthly, EU/Community rules also disrupted existing and functioning national systems. This was the case for insurance law: EU/Community law reinvented effective national insurance law and in some places, rewrote the rules using ill-chosen constructs. Due to the above, the PIL aquis on insurance contracts became almost chaotic. Adopting regulations with a wider scope or the assembling of such regulations as was done in the Rome I Regulation can be considered to be a great leap forward, even if the methods of codification in the Regulation warrant some criticism. Last but not least, some “hidden” PIL rules were codified in directives: this made their application even more difficult, since the direct effect of directives not implemented by MSs is ambiguous.

The article can be downloaded here: CalBar_ILJ_Vol-20.1_v05