Trinxet

Salvador Trinxet Lorca, entrevista

Business — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:07:22 +0000

Entrevista Salvador Trinxet Lorca

Salvador Trinxet Lorca es un abogado especializado en Derecho mercantil internacional. MBA por Instituto de Empresa. Ha escrito diferentes libros sobre derecho europeo (como “European Union Direct Taxes”), derecho comparado, relaciones internacionales (como “Relaciones internacionales tomando un café”), la gestión de despachos profesionales e incluso cuentos infantiles.

Más información en www.salvador-trinxet-llorca.com

Libro “Diplomacia tomando un café”

Business — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:53:37 +0000

La guía divulgativa “Diplomacia tomando un café” se encuentra por fin disponible el librerías virtuales y físicas.

El texto es obra de los juristas Fabián Plaza y Salvador Trinxet, ambos con años de reconocida experiencia en el campo del derecho internacional. Se trata de un manual accesible para cualquier lector, sin necesidad de ningún tipo de conocimiento previo. A través de “Diplomacia tomando un café”, se puede ir descubriendo de forma sencilla y amena cómo funciona la ONU, de qué manera se negocia un tratado internacional, qué potestades tienen los Embajadores y Cónsules, cuáles son las líneas maestras de la política exterior española y otros muchos temas de interés.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

Business — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:59:14 +0000

MiFID and sanctioning regimes set for reform

The European Parliament set out its view on the proposed reform in a resolution adopted on 14 December.
On 8 December the European Commission launched a wide consultation on the review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), one of the main pillars of the EU’s regulatory framework governin financial markets. This is seeking to address the technological developments and changes to financial markets that have occurred in the three years since MiFID was adopted. Suggestions include widening the Directive’s scope, increasing transparency in trading and giving regulators the powers to ban risky activities.

This, along with the results of the consultation, which is open until 2 February 2011, will feed in to a proposal amending the Directive which is expected next May. Separately, the Commission has also presented a Communication on strengthening sanctioning regimes in the financial sector. This follows a review of the use of sanctioning powers at national level which highlighted the divergence of sanctioning regimes across Member States.

The Communication therefore suggests ways to strengthen and achieve further convergence of such regimes, for example via the setting of common minimum standards for certain issues, such as the type and level of sanctions available.

The Commission welcomes comments for interested parties up until 19 February 2011.

Collective redress

Business — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:51:01 +0000

Collective redress back on the agenda.-Once again the issue of collective redress is on the table. On 4 February the Commission launched a consultation paper on collective redress. This paper ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ seeks to identify common legal principles for collective redress, to see how these could fit within the legal systems of the EU and Member States. It also explores in which fields different forms of collective redress could have an added value for improving the enforcement of EU legislation or for better protecting the rights of victims. The paper notes that collective redress may simplify the procedure and reduce costs in cases where a number of people are victims of the same breach committed by the same company. Other issues under the spotlight include the availability of collective injunctive relief and the availability of different procedures for the collective claim of compensatory relief in Member States. This is not the first Commission consultation on the subject: green papers in 2005 and 2008 considered the areas of anti-trust and consumer actions respectively.
Both these papers were considered by the EU committee of the Law Society of England and Wales (the
Society), the practitioner committee I currently chair. In its response the Society set out clearly that
effective consumer redress is a must. In certain situations this can only be achieved through collective action and so the development of collective redress is desirable. Nevertheless, the Law Society of England and Wales is against any move to harmonise the legal system of Member States in this respect, not least because it is unclear whether the EU has power to do so. Instead our committee favoured an approach that would enhance information-sharing and cooperation between Member States.
On the question of whether the EU should adopt a legally binding approach or a set of principles for good practice, the Society has backed the latter, calling for encouragement at EU level of voluntary mechanisms of collective redress. We have supported the adoption of non-binding measures, such as a standard model of collective redress, which would provide a model to assist in future development of the doctrine. For crossborde cases, as opposed to purely domestic disputes, the Society has previously seen the merit in a binding mechanism for collective redress. One of the key issues to be addressed in the field of cross-border disputes is forum-shopping. Consideration should be given to whether Member States may permit their jurisdictions being used as a device to delay legitimate claims.

The consultation paper stresses a desire to avoid the abuses of the US class action system but the
Commission recognises the need to balance this against access to justice. To this end, the consultation asks whether principles such as the ‘loser pays’ would be effective safeguards against abuse. Funding of actions and enforcement of judgments are further areas for consideration. The Commission asks stakeholders for their views on whether private funding methods, such as insurance, would appropriately balance access to justice against avoiding abuse. These are all questions that the EU Committee and the Society’s Civil Justice Committee will be tackling over the coming weeks.

In the current consultation paper the Commission asks how alternative dispute resolution (ADR) could be incorporated into collective redress. This is not a straightforward issue. The position we have taken to date is that in any collective redress system there should be a procedure allowing for claims to be resolved without recourse to litigation but which, nevertheless should be subject to court approval.