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.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation ◽  
Extensive Reference

This book offers comprehensive coverage and analysis of the relationship between the three instruments governing civil jurisdiction and judgments in Europe: the Brussels Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Choice of Court Convention. The text provides a practical explanation of how the instruments operate, focusing on real-life litigation problems, and including extensive reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The work is specifically designed for ease of navigation and is split into four parts. Part I offers an introduction to the features and scope of each of the instruments. Part II goes on to examine the issue of jurisdiction whilst Part III tackles recognition and enforcement. Finally, Part IV addresses procedural and systematic problems. A detailed table of contents and extensive cross-referencing throughout make it simple to home in on the relevant sections.

Court of Justice of the European Union: Decision of 2 March 2010, Case C-315/08, Janko Rottman v. Freistaat BayernCase Note 1 Decoupling Nationality and Union Citizenship? Case Note 2 The Consequences of the Rottmann Judgment on Member State Autonomy – The European Court of Justice's Avant-Gardism in Nationality Matters

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira ◽  
Gerard René de Groot ◽  
Anja Seling
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship

This reference for a preliminary ruling raises for the first time the question of the extent of the discretion available to the Member States to determine who their nationals are. In so far as citizenship of the European Union, which depends, admittedly, on enjoyment of the status of national of a Member State, is established by the Treaty, can the powers of the Member States to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality still be exercised without any right of supervision for Community law? That is, in essence, the point at issue in this case. This case therefore calls for clarification of the relationship between the concepts of nationality of a Member State and of citizenship of the Union, a question which, it need hardly be emphasised, to a large extent determines the nature of the European Union.

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).

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

6 Responsibility, 6.5 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm veTicaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland , App. No. 45036/98, European Court of Human Rights, 30 June 2005

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lock Tobias
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Organization ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship

In Bosphorus the ECtHR introduced the so-called Bosphorus presumption: if a member state of an international organization acted in compliance with an obligation arising from its membership and had no discretion, there is a rebuttable presumption that the member state has complied with its obligations under the ECHR provided that the organization itself ensures a protection of fundamental rights equivalent to what the Convention requires. The Court considered that the European Union met this test. If an organization provides equivalent protection, the presumption can be rebutted, but only if this protection was manifestly deficient in the concrete case. By formulating the presumption the ECtHR showed a great deal of respect for the European Court of Justice and placed the relationship between the two European courts on relatively solid ground. A number of questions remain, however.

Article 260 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice

Article 228 EC If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.

Article 43 CFR

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Martin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Role

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

8. European Actions

2020 ◽  
pp. 180-208
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Actions ◽  
The Eu

This chapter describes the direct enforcement of European law in the European Courts. The judicial competences of the European Courts are enumerated in the section of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) dealing with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter discusses four classes of judicial actions. The first class is typically labelled an ‘enforcement action’ in the strict sense of the term. This action is set out in Articles 258 and 259 TFEU and concerns the failure of a Member State to act in accordance with European law. The three remaining actions ‘enforce’ the European Treaties against the EU itself. These actions can be brought for a failure to act, for judicial review, and for damages.

8. Enforcing EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-239
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Similar Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.

scholarly journals How Smallness Fosters Clientelism: A Case Study of Malta

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1034-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter Veenendaal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Political Life ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
High Turnout ◽  
State Size ◽  
The Relationship

While it has long been assumed that smaller communities are more prone to particularistic politics, the relationship between state size and clientelism remains strongly undertheorized. Departing from the assumption that face-to-face contacts, overlapping role relations, stronger monitoring mechanisms, and the enhanced power of single votes contribute to the emergence of patron–client linkages, this article provides an in-depth case study of clientelism in Malta, the smallest member state of the European Union. The analysis reveals not only that patron–client linkages are a ubiquitous feature of political life in Malta, but also that the smallness of Malta strongly affects the functioning of clientelism by eliminating the need for brokers and enhancing the power of clients versus patrons. In addition, clientelism is found to be related to several other characteristics of Maltese politics, among which the sharp polarization between parties, extremely high turnout rates, profound executive dominance, and the incidence of corruption scandals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document