lawyer

Tort law is very important as it helps to recover damages that occurred as a result of breach of legal obligations. English law and UAE law have distinct tort provisions. However it appears that the law is not applied very strictly by. more

Tort law is very important as it helps to recover damages that occurred as a result of breach of legal obligations. English law and UAE law have distinct tort provisions. However it appears that the law is not applied very strictly by English courts and most of the provisions related to tort can be contracted out. In UAE, tort provisions are a matter of public policy and these cannot be reduced or contracted out of.

Substantive law (to the extent that set-offs are an institution of substantive law under the circumstances of the specific case) primarily stipulates the criteria of eligibility for set-off, which is to say, whether, when, and on what. more

Substantive law (to the extent that set-offs are an institution of substantive law under the circumstances of the specific case) primarily stipulates the criteria of eligibility for set-off, which is to say, whether, when, and on what terms a debtor may compensate obligations vis-a-vis their creditor by invoking their own receivable, and thus achieve the fulfillment of their obligation and the satisfaction of their own claim at the same time. The governing law that applies to the set-off also determines the consequences thereof, as well as a host of other, related issues. The approach to determining the conflict-of-laws status of set-offs may vary: while it has been standard practice for some time now in German law to accentuate the law-of-obligations status of the claim against which a set-off is asserted (and which also determines the conflict-of-laws status of the set-off; the main obligation), as a consequence of the broadly applied principle of protection of the weaker party (here in the form of protection extended to the passive participant in a unilateral set-off), the Romanic understanding favors a cumulative approach, under which the status of both mutually set-off obligations must necessarily be reflected when determining the prerequisites and consequences of the set-off. In this respect, it is with some hesitation that we accept the conclusion reached by the European Court of Justice in 2003 in Commission v. CCRE, where the court opted for the application of the Romanic cumulative principle. However, for a modern approach to resolving the conflict-of-laws status of set-offs of contractual obligations, the above-cited decision is of diminishing significance. This author is inclined to also find support for a conflict-of-laws determination of the compensatory status within the scope of the Rome Convention in Article 10 (1) (d) and in Article 10 (2) of the Rome Convention. Article 17 of the Rome I Regulation, which does provide an explicit choice of governing law for set-offs, takes as its point of departure the status of that claim against which the right to set-off is asserted (i.e. the claim of what is known as the passive party). This concept preserves one of the core ideas of the Rome I Regulation, namely, that the weaker party - here, that party which did not initiate the unilateral set-off - is deserving of protection. In terms of its subject matter, the scope of the above-referenced provision exclusively covers set-offs performed in the wake of a unilateral expression of will. At the same time, the above-discussed arrangement unequivocally confirms that within the EU’s concept of law of autonomous qualification, set-offs primarily serve as a means of discharging oneself of an obligation.

Hmotne pravo, je-li za konkretnich okolnosti zapocteni institutem hmotneho prava, stanovi predevsim podminky zapocitatelnosti, tedy zda, kdy a za jakych podminek je dluznik opravnen kompenzovat svou vlastni pohledavkou zavazek vuci veriteli a dosahnout zaniku sve povinnosti a soucasne stejnym zpusobem dosahnout uspokojeni vlastniho naroku. Pravo rozhodne pro zapocteni take urcuje dusledky zapocteni a celou radu dalsich otazek se zapoctenim souvisejicich. Lze se setkat s ruznymi pristupy pri urcovani kolizniho statusu zapocteni. Zatimco v nemeckem pravu se jiz po delsi dobu vetsinou prosazuje v dusledku siroce aplikovaneho principu ochrany slabsi strany (zde v podobe ochrany pasivniho ucastnika jednostranneho zapoctu) prevaha obligacniho statusu pohledavky, proti niz zapocet smeruje, a ktery urcuje take kolizni status zapocteni, romanske pojeti prosazuje kumulativni pristup, podle nehoz je pro podminky a ucinky zapocteni nutne zohlednit status obou zapocitavanych zavazku. Ponekud rozpacite lze v tomto smeru prijmout zaver, k nemuz dospel ESD v roce 2003 ve sporu Komise v. CCRE, kdyz soud se v teto veci priklonil k aplikaci romanske zasady kumulativni. Pro aktualni pristup ke koliznimu reseni statusu zapoctu smluvnich zavazku ma vsak toto rozhodnuti z dnesniho pohledu jen minimalni vyznam. Autor se priklani k tomu, ze v cl. 10 odst. 1 pism. d) a v odst. 2 tehoz clanku Rimske umluvy lze nalezt tez oporu pro kolizni reseni kompenzacniho statusu v rezimu tohoto predpisu. Clanek 17 Narizeni Rim I, ktere jiz explicitni upravu kolizniho statusu zapocteni upravuje, vychazi z navazani na status pohledavky, proti niz zapocteni smeruje (pohledavka tzv. pasivni strany). Tato koncepce zachovava jednu z hlavnich myslenek Narizeni Rim I, totiz ochranu tzv. slabsi strany, zde strany, ktera jednostranny zapocet neiniciuje. Vecny rozsah predmetne upravy se vztahuje vylucne na zapocteni v dusledku jednostranneho projevu vule. Soucasne ovsem predmetna uprava jednoznacne potvrzuje charakter zapocteni v autonomnim kvalifikacnim pojeti prava EU primarne jako zpusobu splneni zavazku.

Narizeni Rim II o pravu rozhodnem pro mimosmluvni zavazky zadnou vyslovnou upravu kolizniho rezimu zapocteni neobsahuje. Autor odmita nazor, podle nehoz lze cl. 15 pism. h) Narizeni Rim II pouzit na zapocteni dvou mimosmluvnich zavazku. Jeho dikce je sice obdobna te v cl. 10 Rimske umluvy, Narizeni Rim II se vsak tyka zavazku svym charakterem, a predevsim zpusobem vzniku znacne nekompatibilnich (narozdil od zavazku smluvnich). Ackoliv bude u zapocteni mimosmluvnich zavazku nutne casto postupovat diferencovane, autor se priklani k tomu, ze v rade pripadu bude nutno u zapoctu mimosmluvnich zavazku volit pristup kumulativni, ktery je vlastni romanske koncepci kolizniho reseni statusu zapocteni. Stejny postup je nutne vetsinou vyzadovat v pripade zapocteni smluvnich a mimosmluvnich zavazku.