2 results
France
- from PART I - THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU MEMBER STATES
-
- By Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Dr., (now) Ma î tre de conférences, Panthé on-Assas (Paris II) University, France
- Edited by Anatol Dutta, Wolfgang Wurmnest
-
- Book:
- European Private International Law and Member State Treaties with Third States
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 12 November 2019
- Print publication:
- 31 July 2019, pp 141-148
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Identifying the treaties between France and third States which, under Article 75(1) of the European Succession Regulation, prevail over the Regulation is a task significantly more challenging than it might seem. Only one example stands out, the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions, but the case of this particular instrument is envisioned in the second part of Article 75(1). It can accordingly be excluded from this survey.
France is a party to the 1973 Washington Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will, but, as the name suggests, this convention does not contain choice-of-law rules, but rather a third model for testaments which has taken its place in substantive French law beside the holograph and notarial wills. It need not be addressed, nor do the various consular treaties which contain neither choice-of-law rules nor rules on jurisdiction. Similarly, the innumerable bilateral treaties on judicial cooperation which frequently cover recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments cannot interfere with the Regulation and will thus not be discussed.
Beyond these examples, the search for treaties that could be relevant is a process that almost irresistibly evokes a fumble in the dark. Nothing is mentioned, as far as France is concerned, in the Regulation commentaries as regards Article 75, not even in those that are written in French. The books or articles written with practitioners in mind are equally silent. This should perhaps not come as a surprise since, in the field of private international family law, the treaties France is party to do not cover succession matters.
Only one author has recently – albeit in a context unrelated to the European Succession Regulation – flagged international instruments that could perhaps be relevant. But whether they actually are relevant is far from clear. The main difficulty, which is addressed in the next section (section 2), stems from the fact that these treaties do not refer specifically to succession matters, but to what is known in French private international law as statut personnel, a pivotal concept which in the present context gives rise to considerable uncertainty.
Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Central Europe: Steady Progress
- from Part I - Formalising a Same-Sex Relationship: Marriage and Partnership
-
- By Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, University of Paris
- Edited by Katharina Boele-Woelki, Angelika Fuchs
-
- Book:
- Same-Sex Relationships and Beyond
- Published by:
- Intersentia
- Published online:
- 29 September 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 March 2017, pp 19-38
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
‘Central Europe’, for the purposes of the present chapter, is made up of Austria, the Benelux countries, France, Germany, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. At first glance, this area seems best characterised by the phrase ‘steady progress’ as far as same-sex couples are concerned: since the second ‘Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Europe’ conference was held in 2011, same-sex marriage has been introduced in France (2013), England and Wales (2013), Scotland (2014), Luxembourg (2015) and Ireland (2015). Nonetheless, a few quirks are revealed when these legal systems are more closely scrutinised. Furthermore, taken together they provide an opportunity for fruitful comparisons and a useful starting point for theoretical discussion.
In all of these jurisdictions, same-sex couples can choose between at least two of three conceivable options: marriage, a registered partnership and the default option of non-registration. This seems to suggest that these three options should be discussed successively. However, not only do marriage and registered partnerships share the characteristic of being formalised through the intervention of a public authority, unlike de facto relationships, they also entertain a dialectic relationship that can best be described by grouping them together. Moreover, de facto relationships raise some specific issues, which further justifies them being analysed separately. Formalised relationships will thus be tackled first (section 1), then de facto relationships (section 2), followed by brief concluding remarks (section 3).
FORMALISED RELATIONSHIPS: MARRIAGE AND REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS
As far as formalised same-sex relationships are concerned, the systems of registration adopted by the jurisdictions gathered under the ‘Central Europe’ umbrella can be assigned to one of the three categories identified by Ian Curry-Sumner: the pluralistic (section 1.1), monistic (section 1.2) and dualistic (section 1.3) models of registration. The situation in Britain is extremely peculiar as a result of legislation having been paused in an unlikely place; England and Wales, together with Scotland, should thus be dealt with separately (section 1.4).
PLURALISTIC SYSTEMS: BELGIUM, FRANCE, THE NETHERLANDS, LUXEMBOURG
In a pluralistic system, ‘couples are offered two possibilities for formalising their relationship, irrespective of their gender, namely marriage or a form of non-marital registered relationship’.