Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments on the Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause under the Brussels Convention

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. T. Hascher
Keyword(s):  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

IV Trust Arbitration as a Matter of International Law, 20 International Enforcement of an Arbitration Provision in a Trust: Questions Involving the New York Convention

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moses Margaret L
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Party ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Subject ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
New York Convention

This chapter considers whether an arbitration clause that requires all disputes arising out of a trust instrument to be arbitrated can be enforced under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, more commonly known as the New York Convention. To address the question of whether a mandatory arbitration provision in a trust instrument falls within the scope of the Convention, a court must consider: whether the dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration; whether there is an agreement in writing to arbitrate the subject of the dispute and whether that agreement binds all the parties to arbitration; whether the dispute is foreign; in some cases, whether the agreement arises out of a legal relationship, contractual or not, which is considered ‘commercial’; and (v) in some cases, whether the agreement provides for arbitration in the territory of a state party to the convention (Contracting State).

Part III Jurisdiction, Foreign Judgments and Awards, 17 Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Under the Brussels/Lugano System

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torremans Paul
Keyword(s):  
Brussels Convention ◽  
System P ◽  
Small Claims ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

This chapter discusses the recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Brussels/Lugano system. It first considers the rules on recognition and enforcement under the Brussels I Recast, including grounds and non-grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement. It then examines recognition and enforcement under the EC/Denmark Agreement and the Brussels Convention, the circumstances that merit the application of the rules on recognition and enforcement under the Lugano Convention, and the differences between the Lugano Convention and the Brussels I Recast with respect to recognition and enforcement of judgments. It also reviews the relevant provisions of the European Enforcement Order Regulation, the European Order for Payment Procedure Regulation, and the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation.

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSvan der WeideJ. A.Lecturer in private international law, Faculty of Law, Free University, Amsterdam122001483367371RutgersJ.W., International Reservation of Title Clauses: A Study of Dutch, French and German Private International Law in the Light of European Law, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague 1999, XI + 233 pp., € 61.50/US$ 81/UK£ 47.25. ISBN 90-6704-116-5.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 20012001T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00001388a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.See, e.g., VlietL.P.W. van, Transfer of Movables in German, French, English and Dutch Law (diss. Maastricht) (Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri 2000).2.1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, most recently amended by the 1996 Accession Convention. The Brussels Convention will be converted into the Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Official Journal ECL 12, 16 01 2001), which will come into force on 1 March 2002. This Council Regulation shall apply to all EC Member States except Denmark.3.Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 (Official Journal EC L 200, 8 08 2000). Art. 4 states: ‘1) Member States shall provide in conformity with the applicable national provisions designated by private international law that the seller retains title to goods until they are fully paid for if a retention of title clause has been expressly agreed between the buyer and the seller before the delivery of the goods. 2) Member States may adopt or retain provisions dealing with down payments already made by the debtor.’4.See, e.g., MünchKomm-Kreuzer, Internatonales sachenrecht (München, C.H. Beck 1998), Nach Art. 38 Anh. I, nrs. 66–67; Staudinger/Stoll, Internationales Sachenrecht (Berlin, Sellier de Gruyter 1996) nrs. 282–285 and 292–294; WeberR.H., ‘Parteiautonomie im internationalen Sachenrecht?

2001 ◽  
Vol 48 (03) ◽  
pp. 367
Author(s):  
J. A. van der Weide
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Council Regulation

scholarly journals A Step Forward in the Harmonization of European Jurisdiction: Regulation Brussels I Recast

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alavi Hamed ◽  
Khamichonak Tatsiana
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

Abstract The Brussels regime is a legislative framework that regulates questions of transnational litigation in the European Union. Having been initially shaped upon negotiation of the 1968 Brussels Convention, it has been subsequently superseded and expanded in scope by the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, alongside other instruments addressing specific areas of law. Recently, the Brussels regime has been amended by the Recast Brussels I Regulation, which entered into force on January 15, 2015, bringing about significant and long-awaited change. Addressing the experience of application of its predecessors, the changes in the Recast Regulation have been introduced to the treatment of choice-of-court agreements and their relationship with the lis pendens doctrine, abolition of exequatur, reaffirmation and clarification of the arbitration exclusion, as well as further minor amendments.

I. The 20th Session Of The Hague Conference: A New Choice Of Court Convention And The Issue Of Ec Memebership

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thalia Kruger
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
20Th Session ◽  
The Hague Convention

On 30 June 2005 a Convention to respect choice of court agreements was finally born. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements aspires to be parallel to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (‘New York Convention’). The exception is that if an equally broadly accepted convention exists with respect to choice of court agreements,1 business parties will have an alternative to choosing arbitration in their contracts. If they have the assurance that a judgement will be recognized and enforced in a large number of States, some might be more inclined to insert a choice of court clause instead of an arbitration clause. This assumption has been confirmed by ICC research.2

The Impact of the Applicable Law Of Contract on the Law of Jurisdiction under the European Conventions

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 190-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Forsyth ◽  
Philip Moser
Keyword(s):  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

The Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, agreed in Brussels on 27 September 1968 (and generally referred to as the Brussels Convention), has been part of English law since the coming into force of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.1 The Convention now dominates the law of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters as well as the law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

scholarly journals Arbitration agreements in the foreign economic activity of russian companies

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (Extra-B) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
Yuri Mikhailovich Lukin ◽  
Arthur Robertovich Vasiliev ◽  
Rafail Valievich Shakiryanov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common

The article assesses the potential risks associated with the problem of recognizing the arbitration clause as inconsistent or invalid. The main scientific research method used in this article is the comparative legal method, which makes it possible to most accurately determine the common and different features in the approaches of different jurisdictions. This article discusses the main conditions and essential circumstances requiring attention when working with contracts in the foreign economic activity in terms of validity of the arbitration agreements. In order to achieve the goal set in the article, we analyzed: the legislation of the Russian Federation on international commercial arbitration, the UNISTRAL rules, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), the international arbitration rules, the judicial practice related to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. As a result of analysis, the article provides provisions aimed at increasing the efficiency of conclusion of such arbitration clauses in the foreign economic activity of Russian companies.    

scholarly journals Arbitration agreements in the foreign economic activity of russian companies

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (Extra-B) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
Yuri Mikhailovich Lukin ◽  
Arthur Robertovich Vasiliev ◽  
Rafail Valievich Shakiryanov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common

The article assesses the potential risks associated with the problem of recognizing the arbitration clause as inconsistent or invalid. The main scientific research method used in this article is the comparative legal method, which makes it possible to most accurately determine the common and different features in the approaches of different jurisdictions. This article discusses the main conditions and essential circumstances requiring attention when working with contracts in the foreign economic activity in terms of validity of the arbitration agreements. In order to achieve the goal set in the article, we analyzed: the legislation of the Russian Federation on international commercial arbitration, the UNISTRAL rules, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), the international arbitration rules, the judicial practice related to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. As a result of analysis, the article provides provisions aimed at increasing the efficiency of conclusion of such arbitration clauses in the foreign economic activity of Russian companies.    

scholarly journals Recognition and enforcement of declaratory awards under English Law as an effective method to protect the arbitration agreement = Reconocimiento y ejecución del laudo declarativo en el Derecho inglés como método efectivo para proteger el convenio arbitral

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 306
Author(s):  
Javier Pérez Font
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
English Law ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: Where a party to an English arbitration clause commences proceedings before the courts of a state member of the EU other than the United Kingdom, the counterparty can: either claim for the stay of the proceedings before that Court, or start arbitral proceedings in England in order to obtain a declaratory ruling on the validity of the agreement which could subsequently be converted into a judg­ment under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In accordance with Article 45(1)(c) of Brussels I Bis Regulation, this judgment entered in the terms of the award would entitle the complying party to resist within the United Kingdom the enforcement of a later inconsistent Regulation judgment rendered in another state member.Keywords: declaratory awards, oorpedo actions, s.66 Arbitration Act 1996, Article 45(1)(c) Brus­sels I Bis Regulation, enforcement of arbitral awards.Resumen: Cuando la parte de un convenio arbitral sometido a Derecho Inglés comienza pro­cedimientos judiciales ante los tribunales de un estado miembro de la UE diferente del Reino Unido, la contraparte puede: plantear una declinatoria internacional o iniciar el procedimiento arbitral con la intención de obtener un laudo declarativo concerniente a la validez del convenio que posteriormente podrá ser convertido en sentencia a través de la sección 66 de la Arbitration Act 1996. De acuerdo con el Artículo 45(1)(c) del Reglamento Bruselas I Bis, esta sentencia habilitaría a la parte que ha cumplido el convenio a oponerse al reconocimiento y ejecución de la sentencia contradictoria que pudiera dictarse posteriormente por el tribunal de otro estado miembro.Palabras clave: laudos declarativos, acciones torpedo, s.66 Arbitration Act 1996, Art.45(1)(c) del Reglamento Bruselas Bis I, ejecución del laudo arbitral.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document