The strong protection of secured parties under pledge agreements governed by the Luxembourg law of August 5th 2005 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended, (the “Collateral Law”) has been further reinforced by the Luxembourg court of appeal (Cour d’Appel) (the “Court”),
The Law of 18 July 2018 supplements the Law of 17 May 2017 on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 655/2014, which established a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) procedure, as an alternative to existing legal debt recovery procedures in each EU country.
In a judgment dated June 6th 2018, the District Court of Luxembourg (le Tribunal d’Arrondissement de et à Luxembourg) made a mandat de protection future, under French law, enforceable, for the first time in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
La nouvelle procédure de la Cour internationale d'arbitrage de la Chambre de Commerce Internationale (CCI), en vigueur depuis le 1er mars 2017, et applicable par défaut aux litiges à enjeu financier inférieur à deux millions de dollars (environ 1,84 millions d'euros), vise à offrir un mode de résolution des litiges efficace et rapide, tout en allégeant le coût de la procédure arbitrale.
On 18 January 2016 the Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters entered into force (the “Regulation”).
On 18th January 2017, the Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) came into force.
La loi du 23 décembre 2016 relative aux contrats de crédit immobilier (la « Loi ») s’inscrit dans le sillage d’une directive européenne précédente sur le crédit aux consommateurs, transposée au sein du Code de la consommation, mais dont les dispositions ne s’appliquaient pas aux contrats de crédit hypothécaire. La Loi vient donc parachever ce régime, en introduisant un nouveau chapitre 6 sur les contrats de crédit immobilier dans le même code.
Since the EU Court of Justice made its ruling on the right to be forgotten in May 2014, the topic has been in the media almost incessantly. Most of the debate concerns matters of principle: does the right amount to censorship, who is permitted to exercise the right and under what conditions, and does it actually benefit privacy? As new cases continue to come up, the EU is working hard to provide guidelines, fact sheets and myth-busting documents to explain why the ruling makes sense.
