Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 66 No 4 (2020), 95–115
Codifier le divorce international : Quelques remarques sur le projet GEDIP
[Codifying international divorce: Some remarks about the GEDIP project]
Etienne Pataut
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2020.34
published online: 16. 12. 2020
abstract
The EU legislator has modified once again the so-called Brussels 2 bis Regulation. The new regulation 2019/1111 adds new provisions on parental responsibility and child abduction, but leaves those on divorce largely untouched. To the contrary, the GEDIP, an expert group of academics in private international law from across Europe, has established an indepth proposal for a new regulation on divorce. This paper analyzes the proposal which seeks to modernize and improve the current situation that has been widely criticized. The proposed regulation covers choice of law, jurisdiction and recognition. It allows limited party autonomy, both in jurisdiction and choice of law, and suggests significant improvements of the provisions on objective jurisdiction. It also recommends a recognition mechanism that would apply to judgements from third States and provides for a comprehensive set of rules concerning private divorces.
keywords: divorce; choice of laws; jurisdiction; recognition; GEDIP
references (32)
1. ANCEL, B. - MUIR WATT, H. La désunion européenne : le règlement dit Bruxelles 2. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2001, vol 403.
2. BOGDAN, M. Some critical comments on the new Swedish rules on non-recognition of foreign child marriages. Journal of Private International Law. 2019, pp. 247-256. CrossRef
3. BOICHE, A. Pratique judiciaire des règlements européens en droit de la famille. Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé 2014-2016, Pedone, 2016, p. 17.
4. BONOMI, A. La compétence internationale en matière de divorce. Quelques suggestions pour une (improbable) révision du règlement Bruxelles 2 bis. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2017, p. 511.
5. CHALAS, C. Contrats de mariages et nuptial agreements : vers une acculturation réciproque? Journal du Droit International. 2016, 781.
6. COESTER-WALTJEN, D. Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts. 2018, 238.
7. CORNELOUP, S. - JOUBERT, N. Autonomie de la volonté et divorce : le règlement Rome III. In: FULCHIRON, H. - PANET, A. - WAUTELET, P. (dir.). L'autonomie de la volonté en droit des personnes et de la famille dans les règlements de droit international privé européen, Bruylant, 2017, p. 179.
8. CUNIBERTI, G. Le fondement de l'effet des jugements étrangers. Recueil des cours. 2018, vol 394, pp. 93 et seq., spéc. n° 77, p. 146. CrossRef
9. DROZ, G. Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché commun. Bibliothèque de droit international privé. Dalloz, 1972, Vol. XIII, p. 45.
10. EL-HUSSEINI, R. Le droit international privé français et la répudiation islamique. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 1999, 427. Voy. en Belgique l'article 57 de la loi du 16 juillet 2004 portant le Code de droit international privé ? Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2005, 154. CrossRef
11. En France, v. Sabine Corneloup, Maîtrise de l'immigration et célébration des mariages. In: Mélanges P. Lagarde, Dalloz, 2005, p. 207.
12. FRANCQ, S. Réforme avortée et réforme surprise : compétence et reconnaissance en matière de dissolution du mariage après la refonte du règlement Bruxelles IIbis. In FRANQ, S. - SAROLÉA, S. (dir.). Actualités européennes en droit familial international, Anthemis, 2019, p. 53.
13. GONZALEZ BEILFUSS, C. Jurisdiction Rules in matrimonial Matters under Regulation Brussels 2 bis . In: FULCHIRON, H. - NOURISSAT, C. (dir.). Le nouveau droit communautaire du divorce et de la responsabilité parentale. Dalloz, 2005, p. 55.
14. GOTHOT, P. - HOLLEAUX, D. La Convention entre les Etats membres de la CEE sur la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale. Clunet, 1971. 747, spéc. p. 755.
15. GRUBER, U. P. Scheidung auf Europäisch - die Rom III-Verordnung. Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts. 2012, p. 381.
16. HAMMJE, P. Le nouveau règlement (UE) no 1259/2010 du Conseil du 20 décembre 2010 mettant en œuvre une coopération renforcée dans le domaine de la loi applicable au divorce et à la séparation de corps. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2011, 291, n°1 et 13.
17. HAMMJE, P. Le divorce par consentement mutuel extrajudiciaire et le droit international privé. Les aléas d'un divorce sans for. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2017, 143.
18. HAMMJE, P. Divorce et séparation de corps. Répertoire Dalloz de droit international. 2018, n° 205.
19. HAMMJE, P. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2018, 902 et seq.
20. JUENGER, F. A shoe unfit for globetrotting. UC Davis Law Review, 1995, vol 28, n°3, p. 1027.
21. KOHLER, C. L'autonomie de la volonté en droit international privé: un principe universel entre libéralisme et étatisme. Rec. Cours Académie de droit international de La Haye, 2013, vol. 359, spéc. pp. 398 et seq. CrossRef
22. KOHLER, C. Cours précité, spéc. pp. 420 et seq.
23. KRUGER, T. - SAMYN, L. Brussel 2 bis : successes and suggested improvements. Journal of Private International Law, 2016, vol 1. CrossRef
24. La nouvelle législation allemande sur le mariage et le droit international privé. Review Critique de Droit International Privé. 2018, 51.
25. LAGARDE, P. La méthode de la reconnaissance est-elle l'avenir du droit international privé? Recueil des cours. 2015, vol 371, p. 9 et seq.
26. LAMARCHE, M. - LEMOULAND, J. J. Mariage : sanctions de l'inobservation des conditions de formation, Répertoire Dalloz de droit civil, 2014 et 2019, n 7.
27. MALATESTA, A. - BARIATTI, S. - POCAR, F. (dir.). The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters. Studi et pubblicazioni della rivista di diritto internazionale privato et processuale, 2008, vol 71.
28. MCELEAVY, P. Integrating the Brussels II bis Regulation in the United Kingdom. In: BOELE-WOELKI, K. - BEILFUSS, C. G. (eds.). Brussels II bis: its impact and application in the member states, Intersentia, 2007, p. 309.
29. MAYER, P. - HEUZE, V. - REMY, B. Droit International Privé, 12e édition, LGDJ, 2019, n° 606.
30. PATAUT, E. Qu'est-ce qu'un litige intracommunautaire? Mélanges Normand. Litec, 2003, p. 365.
31. RASS-MASSON, L. The Foundations of European Private International Family Law. Yearbook of Private International Law, 2018/2019, vol 20, pp. 217-231.
32. RETORNAZ, V. - VOLDERS, B. Le for de nécessité : tableau comparatif et évolutif. Rev. Crit. 2008, 225.
Codifier le divorce international : Quelques remarques sur le projet GEDIP is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
