Anatol Dutta

Civil Claims of Foreign Sovereigns for Lost Taxes: The Big Tobacco Cases and the Revenue Rule

The article analyses some US federal court decisions which by relying on the so-called revenue rule rejected civil claims of foreign sovereigns against major tobacco companies based on tax losses suffered due to the smuggling of contraband tobacco products into the claimants’ territories. The revenue rule deals with the domestic court’s jurisdiction to enforce penal, revenue or other public law claims of foreign states. First, the article discusses the alleged rationale and the unclear scope of the globally accepted revenue rule. Then, it turns to the question whether the revenue rule was rightly applied by the courts to the civil claims of the foreign sovereigns. Finally, it questions the alleged rationale of the revenue rule and argues for its abandonment.

Cross-border protection measures in the European Union

The European Union legislator has tackled the cross-border enforcement of protection measures within the European Union by adopting two instruments: Regulation 606/2013 and Directive 2011/99/EU. This paper tries to sketch the approach followed by the European Union legislator, to point out some of the deficiencies of the new regime and to map both instruments within the existing body of European Union private international law.

First cornerstones of the EU rules on cross-border child cases: The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Brussels IIa Regulation from C to Health Service Executive

in 2007, in Rinau 3 in 2008, in A 4 and Detiček 5 in 2009 and in Povse ,6 Purrucker I ,7 McB ,8 Purrucker II ,9 Aguirre Zarraga 10 and Mercredi 11 in 2010. In 2012, a judgment concerning the cross-border placement of children followed in the case of Health Service Executive (HSE).12 Some aspects of these decisions are reviewed in this paper but not so as to present a comprehensive analysis of the Regulation. Rather it shall provide – as a kind of series of interconnected case notes

Von der pia causa zur privatnützigen Vermögensbindung: Funktionen der Stiftung in den heutigen Privatrechtskodifikationen

Once a legal basis for financial charity, the private law foundation – similar to the trust – has increasingly become a vehicle for owners to tie up their property for private purposes, namely creating dynastic wealth, perpetuating certain property and protecting assets from creditors. The article outlines some reasons why a legislator could restrict the use of the foundation as an instrument of private purpose.This article is published in this Research Paper Series with the permission of the rights owner, Mohr Siebeck. All full-text Rabel Journal articles are available via pay-per-view or subscription at IngentaConnect, a provider of digital journals on the Internet.