國際私法英文案例

英文案例:1.案例——反致RENVOIDenneyv.Denney(Royde-Smith)TSSala1:21May1999Applicationofarenvoiofreturninamatterofsuccession

1.Appealallowed-CityofToulouseonlytrusteesordoneesofArtCollection

AfterconsideringtheevidencesubmittedonownershipofthecollectionofModernArtinToulouse,theSupremeCourtconcludedthattheCityeitherheldthecollectionastrustees,becausethepredecessorintitlehadhandeditoverinthatcondition,orasdonees,onthebasisofacceptingthedonationmadebythetestamentaryheir.TheCourtallowedthegroundsoftheappealagainsttherulingoftheProvincialCourtofAppeal,becausetheconditionsthatwouldrequiretheCityofToulousetobecalledtothecasewerenotpresent.

(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds3

2.Renvoicanonlybeappliedunderlimitedconditions

Inconsideringthequestionofwhichmateriallawshouldapplytothesuccessionofthedeceased.apurelyliteralapplicationofArticle12.2oftheCivilCodewouldleadtothesolutionarguedintheclaim.HowevercurrentdevelopmentsofInternationalPrivateLawinvolveaveryprecisetreatmentofrenvoiinwhichitisnotacceptedorrejectedindiscriminately,butisappliedflexiblyandsubjecttoconditionsandlimitations.

(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds4)3.ClaimbyDenneyChildrenrejectedonfourgrounds

TheclaimwasrejectedandtherulingofFirstInstancewasrevokedonfourgrounds.Firstly,thattheapplicationofrenvoiinthiscasewould

becontrarytotheprincipleofunityofsuccession;secondly,itwouldmakeunenforceabletheguidingprincipleofEnglishLawoffreedomtotestate;thirdly,thatitwouldnotleadtoaharmonyofsolutions;andfourthly,thatitwouldnotproducegreaterjusticeforthoseinvolved.

(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds4)4.EarlierrulingbyProvincialAppealCourtoncostsoverturned

TheorderoftheProvincialAppealCourtinBadajoz,orderingthecostsatfirstinstanceandoftheappealtobepaidbytheDenneychildren,wasoverturned.Becauseofthelegalcomplexityofthelitigiousmatter,thedoctrinalattitudesinvolved,includingthelegalprecedentsoftheEnglishCourtsandtheSupremeCourt’slackofcaselawonthesubject,nospecialordersforcostsweremaderegardingcostsforthefirstinstance,theappealclaimortheappealbeforetheSupremeCourt.

(SeejudgmentLegalGrounds5.)

2.案例——(非方便法院)ForumNonConveniensinFlorida

ByDanielTDoyleofRumberger,Kirk&CaldwellPAKinneySystem,Inc.v.TheContinentalInsuranceCo.

CaseNo.84-329(Florida,January25,1996)InKinneySystem,Inc.v.TheContinentalInsuranceCo.,theSupremeCourtofFloridaaddressedtheissueofforumnonconveniens.Simplyput,forumnonconveniensdetermineswhetherFloridaisthe"convenientforum"tohearthecaseatissue.TheCourtreviewedthefollowingcertifiedquestion:Isatrialcourtprecludedfromdismissinganactiononthebasisofforumnonconvenienswhereoneofthepartiesisaforeigncorporationthat:(a)isdoingbusinessinFlorida;(b)isregisteredtodobusinessinFlorida;(c)hasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinFlorida.Id.TheSupremeCourtansweredthequestioninthenegative.Thatis,courtscantransferacaseifcertainrequirementsaremet.ThisdecisionmayhaveadramaticimpactoninternationalcasesandthoseclaimswhereasubstantialamountoftheactsthatformabasisfortheclaimoccurredoutsideofFlorida.Previously,whereacorporationhaditsprincipalplaceofbusiness,orinsomecaseswherethecorporationwaslicensedtodobusiness(asinFlorida),thecasecouldnotbedismissedonforumnonconveniensgrounds.Thus,themerefactthatacorporationhaditsprincipalplaceofbusinessinFloridawasenoughtopreventthecasefromTheUCCJAalsoallowsastatetoexercisejurisdictiononthebasisofthechildrenhaving"significantconnections"withthatstate.Thus,undertheUCCJA,eventhoughstateAisthehomestate,stateBmightexerciseinitialjurisdictiononthebasisofsignificantconnections.ThePKPAintendedtoeliminatethispossibilitybymakingthe"homestate"theexclusivestatetoexerciseinitialjurisdictionnotwithstandingthatsomeotherstatehad"significantconnections."ThisisamajordistinctionbetweentheUCCJAandthePKPA.Theselawsarealsodesignedtoavoidforumshopping,jurisdictionalcompetition,andduplicativelitigation.Theyestablishaschemefordeterminingwhichcourtamongoneormorestatecourtshasjurisdiction,or,ifmorethanonehasjurisdiction,whichshouldclaimit.TheUCCJAandthePKPAarealsodesignedtofacilitateandpromotecommunicationamongcourtswhichhaveormayhaveconcurrentjurisdiction.Theyrequireallstatestohonorpriorcustodyorders.Acourtthatreceivesinformationonpossibleongoingcustodylitigationinanotherstateshouldcommunicatewiththeappropriatecourtinthatstate.ThelawactuallycallsforajudgeinstateAtocommunicatewithajudgeinstateB.TheJurisdictionalSchemeTheUCCJAprovidessubjectmatterjurisdictionandistheexclusivemethodofobtainingitinchildcustodycases.Subjectmatterjurisdictionisdeterminedbystatutorydefinition(e.g.,certainlengthofresidence)andmaynotbeconferredbyconsentoftheparties.Absenceofsubjectmatterjurisdictionmayberaisedbythetrialcourtorthepartiesatanystageoftheproceedings.TheUCCJAestablishesasystemofconcurrentandpotentiallyconflictingjurisdiction.Thebasesforjurisdictionarehierarchicalandcontinuingjurisdictionalwaysprevails.Homestatejurisdictionpredominatesoversignificantconnectionjurisdiction.Emergencyjurisdictionwilltrumpeitherofthosebases,butitistemporary.Finally,ifnostatehasjurisdictiononthebasisofUCCJAorPKPArules,thestateinwhichthechildandapartyaredomiciledmayclaimit.Thelaweliminatespotentiallyendlessproceduralcustodylitigationbyplacingthebasesofjurisdictionintheaforementioneddescendingpreferentialorderandbyprovidingforvirtuallyexclusivecontinuingjurisdictionintheoriginaldecreestate.Inaddition,toachievefairnessandcooperation,mechanismsforcommunicationandfordecliningjurisdictionwereincluded.ContinuingJurisdictionOnceacourtproperlyexercisesjurisdictioninachildcustodymatter,thatstateisdeemed"thedecreerenderingstate."Forexample,ifstateAwerethehomestateandthejudgeinstateAconferredwiththejudgeinstateBwhereaparentfiledafteronlyfourmonthsclaimingsignificantconnections,andthosejudgesdeterminedthatstateAshouldexerciseinitialjurisdiction,stateAwouldthenhaveahearingandrenderacustodydecree.AssumeoneparentcontinuestoresideinstateAwhiletheotherparentresidesinstateBwiththechildrenpursuanttostateA'sdecree.TwoyearslatertheparentinstateBwantstomodifythecustodyorvisitationschedule.Whathappens?StateBisnowthehomestateasthechildrenhavelivedtherefortwoyears.StateAisthedecreerenderingstateastheinitialandcurrentorderwasrenderedinstateA.OnlystateAhastherighttoexercisejurisdictioneventhoughstateBhashomestatejurisdictionbecausestateAenjoysthecontinuingjurisdictionofthedecreerenderingstate.Thus,stateBcannotproperlyexerciseitsjurisdictionunlessstateAspecificallydeclinestoexerciseitscontinuingjurisdiction.ContinuingJurisdictionintheInternationalArenaThedominanceofcontinuingjurisdictionalsoappliestointernationalcaseswhereacustodyorderhasbeenrenderedunderalawconsistentwiththeUCCJA.Forinstance,aCaliforniadecisiondecidedbyaCaliforniaFamilyCourtandaffirmedbytheAppellateCourtheldthattheCaliforniacourtshadjurisdiction,undertheUCCJA,todeterminethecustodyofaminorMexicannational.Theminor,althoughaMexicannational,hadresidedinCaliforniaforseveralyearswithherMexicannationalparents.TheCourtstatedthatoneoftheprimaryobjectivesoftheUCCJAisto"avoidthedisruptiontothelifeofachildinvolvedinrelitigationofcustodymatters...[O]nceacustodyorderisenteredbyacourtwithjurisdictionunder[theUCCJA],thatcourthascontinuingexclusivejurisdiction[whichprevailsoveranyotherbasis]."ThecourtalsoheldthatnotreatyorothersourceofinternationallawprecludesCaliforniacourtsfromclaimingjurisdictioninacaseproperlybrought.Californiawas"homestate"andthestate"withthemostsignificantconnection"totheparentsandtheminorchildandsubstantialevidencerelatingtotheminorchild'swell-being.SomecourtsconstruetheUCCJAtoapplyinternationallyonlywhenaforeigncustodyorderisatissue.OtherstatesapplythegeneralpoliciesandobjectivesoftheUCCJAtoallcustodyjurisdictiondisputes,includingthoseintheinternationalcontext.ChildAbductionSincethe1970s,theStateDepartmentsaysithasbeencontactedforhelpinabout11,000internationalchildabductionswhereaparentwasinvolved.TheJusticeDepartmentreportssome354,100casesofparentalabductionsayear,butfailstoidentifyhowmanyareinternational.TheStateDepartmentestimatesanaverageof400to500newinternationalcasesperyear,anumbercriticschargeisavastunderestimate.ArecentstudybytheAmericanBarAssociationCenteronChildrenandtheLawshowsthatin60percentofinternationalabductioncases,thechildrenareneverreturnedeventhoughtheirwhereaboutsareknown.Thisstudyshowsthatparentsspentanaverageof$33,500insearchandrecoveryoftheirchildren,andaquarterofleft-behindparentsspent$75,000ormore.UCCJAsection23providesthatthegeneralpoliciesofUCCJAextendtotheinternationalarena.TheprovisionsofUCCJArelatingtotherecognitionandenforcementofcustodydecreesofotherstatesapplytocustodydecreesanddecreesinvolvinglegalinstitutionssimilarinnaturetocustodyinstitutionsrenderedbyappropriateauthoritiesofothernationsifreasonablenoticeandopportunitytobeheardweregiventoallaffectedpersons.ThesamegoesforthegeneralpoliciesandobjectivesoftheUCCJAandthePKPA.Parentalkidnapingisafederalfelony,callingforuptothreeyearsimprisonment.Itisalsoafelonyinmoststates.Thefederalfelonyprovidesatleastthreeaffirmativedefenses:(1)custodyorvisitationawardtodefendantpursuanttoUCCJA;(2)flightfromapatternofdomesticviolence;and(3)defendanthadproperphysicalcustodyandfailedtoreturnthechildforreasonsbeyondhiscontrol.TheHagueConventionTheUCCJAandthePKPAarenottheonlylawsoninternationaljurisdictionoverchildcustody.In1980,theHagueConventionontheCivilAspectsofInternationalChildAbductionwasformedtocomplementourUCCJAandPKPAintheinternationalarena.TheHagueConventionisdifferentfromtheUCCJAandPKPAinthatitdoesnotcreaterecognitionandenforcementstandards,butdemandsthepromptrestorationofthecustodythatexistedbeforetheallegedabduction.TheUnitedStatesratifiedtheHagueConventionin1986.Itwentintoeffectin1988,upontheenactmentofitsenablinglegislation,theInternationalChildAbductionRemediesAct(ICARA).ThisActprovidesthatit"shallapplytoanychildwhowashabituallyresidentinacontractingstateimmediatelybeforeanybreachofcustodyoraccessrights."TheConvention'sstatedpurposeis"tosecurethepromptreturnofchildrenwrongfullyremovedtoorretainedinanyContractingState,"and"toensurethatrightsofcustodyandofaccessunderthelawofoneContractingTheremediesoftheHagueConventionmaybeinvokedwhentwothresholdissueshavebeensatisfiedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.First,themovingpartymustestablishthatheorshehadlawfulcustodyrightswhenthechildwaswrongfullyremovedorretained.Second,theremovalorrete