Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The interaction between competition law and intellectual property law has often attracted divergent views from scholars and practitioners of each respective sphere of law. Whereas some argue that the two are in conflict with each other and cannot be reconciled. The aforementioned tension between competition law and intellectual property law has been traced to the objectives of each. On the one hand, intellectual property rights confer upon their owners an exclusive right to behave in a particular way while on the other hand competition law strives to keep markets open. Other scholars have argued that, in real sense and practice, the two are actually not in conflict but rather that they complement each other. The question then becomes, is there really an irreconcilable difference between the two areas of law? This paper seeks to establish how the two aspects of law interact and seeks to propose that there be created a balance to alleviate the perceived conflict between the two. This paper will identify the areas in which the balance can be struck. It will also seek to establish how the Kenyan legislative framework as well as the courts has dealt with the conflict. It will proceed from understanding the goals and objective of both intellectual property law and competition law. This will provide the backdrop against which the alleged conflict originates from. A comparative study with other developed jurisdictions will be undertaken so as to advise on the route that should be taken by Kenya on the interface and a conclusion drawn on how the two areas relate and recommendations drawn from the issues identified in the study made.

Trabajo Fin de Curso de Experto Universitario en Derecho Societario (2014/15). Tutora: Patricia Benavides Velasco. El objetivo del presente trabajo no es más que exponer una síntesis, lo más completa posible, de la materia que nos ocupa, a saber, la exclusión del socio en sociedades de capital, específicamente, en la Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada. Se ha pretendido mostrar las distintas perspectivas doctrinales, jurisprudenciales o de otra índole que, a nuestro juicio, hemos considerado más relevantes, posicionándonos argumentativamente junto a aquellas que creemos más acordes con lo que predica la legislación reguladora de la figura estudiada. Se trata de ofrecer una visión global y reflexiva del instituto de la exclusión, tocando todos los aspectos que inciden directamente en ella – al menos eso hemos procurado - , y haciendo especial hincapié en sus causas - punto esencial sobre el que gira la institución - , todo ello sin perjuicio de las humildes opiniones aportadas y reflexiones que pudiéramos plantear, de cuyo riesgo no abjuramos todavía. El resto queda en manos de nuestro lector.

La micro finance vise à permettre aux exclus de système bancaire d’accéder à des services financiers adaptés à leurs besoins, en premier lieu des microcrédits. Mais elle offre aussi la possibilité d’épargner des parts montants, et aussi des systèmes plus développées tels que les services de transferts de fonds et de proposer des instruments de paiement.

Trabajo Fin de Máster en Derecho Ambiental (2014/15). La partición hereditaria, como cualquier otro acto jurídico puede adolecer de algún defecto o de la ausencia de presupuesto que perturbe sus efectos, pudiendo proceder los coherederos a la evicción y saneamiento de los bienes adjudicados, ex art. 1069 C.C. La sección Cuarta del Capítulo VI del Título III del Libro III de nuestro C. Civil, se ocupa de la “Rescisión de la Partición”, desde el art. 1073 al 1081, tan solo se dedican 9 artículos y de éstos sólo el art 1081, hace referencia a un caso de partición nula. Lo cierto es que el C. Civil no tiene tasadas las causas de ineficacia y nos remite a los principios generales sobre la invalidez de los negocios jurídicos. No hay unas reglas concretas de aplicación cuando surge un vicio o defecto que invalide la partición, con lo cual iremos analizando jurisprudencialmente diferentes posiciones.

LL.M. (International Commercial Law) <br>The resolution of jurisdictional conflicts is one of the main functions of private international law. It provided rules to be applied when the courts of more than one country are seized of the same case in international litigation. In determining what that rule should be, regard must be had to the interest of all the relevant entities, namely, the parties to international cases and the courts dealing with such cases. The need to strike a balance is even more urgent in international commercial litigation where the outcome of the case normally has significant economic consequences. From this background, a study has been conducted of two major private international law regimes regarding their approaches to the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts, namely, the common‐law and the European Union (EU). This study is an inquiry into the suitability of each approach in the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts in international commercial cases. It is the view of the present author that each approach has advantages and disadvantages. The common‐law through the doctrine of forum non conveniens shows a greater ability to prevent forum shopping and to prevent injustices in specific cases. However, it is highly unpredictable. On the other hand, the EU approach through the lis pendens rule succeeds in ensuring predictability and certainty in the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts which is very crucial in international commercial litigation. However, its rigidity and inflexibility leads to the determination of international commercial cases by courts that are ill‐suited, thereby giving some room for forum shopping. It is therefore recommended that the two approaches should learn from each other so that their handling of international commercial cases is in line with the special nature of international commercial litigation. The common‐law approach should be made more predictable and the EU approach should allow the courts in the EU to determine which court is best suited to deal with an international commercial case.

This mini-dissertation explores the implications of Lagoon Beach Hotel (Pty) Limited v Lehane 2016 (3) SA 143 (SCA) for the South African cross-border insolvency dispensation, as this case deals with the various problems that arise in cross-border insolvency. As a result of these problems and a certain amount of uncertainty when it comes to dealing with cross-border insolvency issues, many investors are reluctant to invest cross-border. This is due to the fact that multiple countries, each with their own laws concerning cross-border insolvency, are involved. Thankfully, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law has provided a set of guidelines in this regard, namely the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Although South Africa has enacted the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000, and most of the provisions provided for in the Model law have been included in the legislation, the Act still remains inoperative. Throughout this dissertation the Lagoon Beach case will therefore be critically analysed. The analysis will start off with a discussion of the common law, as it is currently the legal position in South Africa. Thereafter a detailed analysis will be conducted of the various orders of court of the Lagoon Beach case and how the courts differed or agreed in their approach. Finally, the Lagoon Beach case will be discussed in light of the Act and the issues in the case will be solved hypothetically by applying the Act to the problems discussed throughout the dissertation.

Please refer to full text to view abstract <br>LL.M. (International Commercial Law)