Intra-EU Arbitral Awards After Achmea: Recognition and Enforcement Within the European Union Under the New York Convention

2019 ◽  
pp. 69-89
Author(s):  
Aliz Káposznyák
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

scholarly journals Arbitration in EU Jurisdiction Regulation: Brussels I Recast and a New Proposal

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Dowers ◽  
Zheng Sophia Tang
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Satisfactory Answer ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the European jurisdiction regime and arbitration is one of the areas generating confusion and disputes. The Brussels I Regulation clearly excludes arbitration from its scope to avoid conflicts with the New York Convention, but arbitration-related issues, such as the validity of arbitration agreements, either as an independent claim or an incidental question, frequently arise in courts. The scope of the Brussels I Regulation in terms of arbitration has been addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a number of decisions, such as Marc Rich v Societa Italiano Impianti, Van Uden, and Front Comor. None of them have provided a satisfactory answer. In order to provide clarification and to reconcile the European jurisdiction Regulation and the New York Convention, the Brussels I Recast has inserted a new recital specifically addressing the relationship between court jurisdiction and arbitration. This article aims to assess the effect of the new recital and whether it has appropriately resolved the difficult questions on the relationship between jurisdiction and arbitration in the European Union.

Dochodzenie roszczeń ze sprzedaży towarów w obrocie międzynarodowym na obszarze UE. Zagadnienie jurysdykcji

2016 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Agata Michalska-Olek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Way

The article aims to show the possible ways of judicial redress for claims resulting from sales of goods especially including the issue of jurisdiction and application of the provisions of national law or the provisions of Community law. In the article the provisions of the Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters as well as the provisions of regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council were widely discussed. The author discusses in particular the issue related to cross-border contracts for the sales-of-goods within the European Union. Part of the deliberations concerns judicial rulings, in particular judicial decisions issued in cases in which the court shall consider the issue of jurisdiction of its own motion. In the conclusion of the article it is stated that the choice between the national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other states will depend on the terms of agreement between the parties as well as the documents related to the transaction, in particular consignment notes (CMR), and the EXW clauses – such a formulation means that the parties agreed to the way of delivery of goods according to the commercial (Incoterms) clauses, determining in such a way the issue of jurisdiction.

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

Book Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-121
Author(s):  
Thomas Klikauer ◽  
Norman Simms ◽  
Helge F. Jani ◽  
Bob Beatty ◽  
Nicholas Lokker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
European Union ◽  
Second World War ◽  
First Century ◽  
New Right ◽  
Academic Press ◽  
The European Union ◽  
World War ◽  
Second World

Jay Julian Rosellini, The German New Right: AfD, PEGIDA and the Re-imagining of National Identity (London: C. Hurst, 2019).Simon Bulmer and William E. Paterson, Germany and the European Union: Europe’s Reluctant Hegemon? (London: Red Globe Press, 2019).Susan Neiman, Learning from the Germans: Race and the Memory of Evil (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019).Stephan Jaeger, The Second World War in the Twenty-First-Century Museum: From Narrative, Memory, and Experience to Experientiality (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020).Robert M. Jarvis, Gambling under the Swastika: Casinos, Horse Racing, Lotteries, and Other Forms of Betting in Nazi Germany (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2019).

scholarly journals Dallah: the death knell for deference?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document