The current European perspective on the exequatur of U.S. punitive damages: opening the gate but keeping a guard

Global trade and intercontinental tourism are on the rise in today’s world. This, in turn, leads to more cross-border law suits. Inevitably, jurisdictions will be confronted with legal concepts that are unknown in the host forum. This contribution investigates whether, and to what extent, punitive damages judgments originating in the United States can be enforced against the assets of a defendant in a number of selected Member States of the EU. More specifically, the article explores the possibilities of enforcing American punitive damages judgments in five EU countries, namely Germany, Italy, Spain, France and England. This comparative analysis reveals that the case law in these selected countries is relatively divergent as to the stance adopted towards foreign punitive damages, resulting in different degrees of acceptance of this legal remedy

The rise of self-driving cars : is the private international law framework for non-contractual obligations posing a bump in the road?

This article focusses on some implications related to the commercialisation of self-driving or autonomous cars. Such vehicles are no longer a mere futuristic idea. They could soon be available on the market. Society in general and the applicable rules in particular will undergo a transformation following the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Despite the many benefits, self-driving cars also pose several challenges. These do not only relate to technical aspects but also to the influence of the autonomisation of traffic on infrastructure and employment in different sectors. More importantly, several legal challenges will need to be addressed as well before society will be able to fully enjoy the benefits of self-driving cars. The question as to who should be held liable for damage caused by self-driving car has already been addressed in academia. Less attention has been devoted to the relationship between autonomous vehicles and the existing private international law rules in the European Union. Although the application of the current jurisdictional and conflict of laws rules does not present problems, the membership of some EU Member States of the 1971 Hague Traffic Accidents Convention and/or the 1973 Hague Products Liability Convention impedes the harmonisation of conflict of laws rules in non-contractual matters as envisaged by the Rome II Regulation. In cases concerning liability arising from traffic accidents and in product liability cases, different Member States courts sometimes apply a different national law. This reduces foreseeability and legal certainty

Liability in the medical sector : the ‘breast-taking’ consequences of the poly implant prothese case

The article deals with the liability of third-party certifiers in the medical sector and especially focuses on the role of TuV Rheinland in the recent Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) breast implant case. The aim of the contribution is twofold. Firstly, it provides an overview of the different challenges that courts face when having to decide on the liability of certifiers of medical devices towards third parties. These, for instance, relate to the strict conditions under which certifiers can incur third-party liability under national law. Whether product certifiers can be held liable depends on the jurisdiction where the claims have been filed. Therefore, the PIP breast implant case is also interesting from a private international law perspective. Third-party certifiers can be sued before the courts of their domicile. Whether they can be brought before courts in other Member States depends inter alia on the interpretation of the place of the damaging event and the place of the damage. The difficulty to pinpoint these locations not only emerges in the field of jurisdiction but also manifests itself within the search for the applicable law as identical connecting factors are employed in that area of private international law. Secondly, the article examines the decisions that have been issued by national courts in the PIP breast implant case. Rulings in France and Germany denied compensation for patients who purchased the defective breast implants. The PIP case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It thus remains to be seen what stance the ECJ will take and especially what the consequences might be for certifiers in the medical sector. Based on the analysis of these decisions, the contribution puts forth a number of reasons why the threat of liability seems the most effective way to guarantee that third-party certifiers issue accurate and reliable certificates. This in turn ensures that only safe medical devices are placed on the European market and safeguards the health of consumers. Future scandals with medical devices might in this way be prevented

EU member states’ Courts versus U.S.punitive damages awards for physical harm in football : an attempt at defining best practice

A