REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE AND GRANT PERMISSION TO ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AWARDS DUE TO IMPROPER NOTIFICATION ABOUT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anayit Khoperiya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Negative Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

The article analyses the refusal to recognize and grant permission to enforce awards of international commercial arbitration because of improper notification about the arbitration. The study concerns the new case law of the Supreme Court in cases of recognition and granting permission to enforce the awards of international commercial arbitration in cases where the party against whom the decision is made denies that it has been notified of the arbitration or appointment of an arbitrator. Particular attention was paid to the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases No. 824/26/19 of November 28, 2019 and No. 824/69/19 of February 13, 2020 on the application of Jurginsky Mashzavod LLC on the enforcing of the decision of the Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation on debt collection from PJSC Pokrovske Mine Management. These decisions were assessed as a negative case law that does not contribute to the development of arbitration in Ukraine. It was concluded that in cases No. 824/26/19 and No. 824/69/19 the Supreme Court formulated two extremely negative opinions for the development of international commercial arbitration: 1) the need to inform the different jurisdictions parties of the arbitration proceedings, where in these jurisdictions the Hague Convention is binding, in form of provision of international legal assistance, which would harm the pace of arbitration proceedings; 2) the necessity to notify the parties by arbitration via mail with a postal description of the enclosed documents. The provisions of the Hague Convention regarding the requirement of arbitration notifications of the parties on the implementation of arbitration proceedings using the procedure of international legal assistance were analysed. It was established that the provisions of this convention cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation for arbitration tribunals to notify the parties of the arbitration proceedings, which are situated in states-parties to this convention, through the procedure of international legal assistance only. The practice of the Supreme Court in other cases on the recognition and granting permission to enforce of international commercial arbitration decisions, where the party against which the decision was made denies that it has been notified about the arbitration or appointment of an arbitrator, was positively assessed. This practice is pro-arbitration. It was emphasized the importance of forming pro-arbitration practice of the Supreme Court, which ensures the image of Ukraine as a friendly jurisdiction for arbitration and for investment accordingly.

The Hague Convention on Child Abduction of 1980 and Its Implementation in Finland

1997 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-166
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Court Of Appeal

AbstractFinland ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in 1994. The Convention was implemented by making use of the so-called transformation techniques, i.e. by drafting and adopting Finnish internal law provisions deemed to be necessary for the proper implementation of the international obligations under the Hague Convention. The overall aim of the implementation provisions has been to make the practical application of the Convention as effective and speedy as possible and for this purpose to go even further than necessarily required. The most important features of these national arrangements are the following: – The Hague Convention rules on the return of an abducted child have been made retroactive. – Only one court, the Court of Appeal of Helsinki, is competent to receive applications and make orders for the return of children. Besides, an order for the return is always immediately enforceable, unless the Supreme Court, upon appeal, orders the stay of enforcement. – The `fundamental principles' exception in Article 20 of the Convention cannot be invoked against the application in Finnish return proceedings. According to Article 20 the return of the child can be refused where the return would not be permitted by the fundamental principles relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the requested State. The first cases indicate that the retroactive application of the Convention provided by the Finnish Act has been less successful. The courts have shown obvious reluctance towards the ordering of the return in these cases whereas in the `new' cases the Court of Appeal as well as the Supreme Court have generally followed the spirit of the Convention in a loyal manner.

Part I General and Introductory, 4 Subject-Matter Scope: Civil and Commercial Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Civil Matter

This chapter discusses the ‘subject-matter scope’ of Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. ‘Subject-matter scope’ refers to the scope covered by a measure as regards its subject matter, that is to say the branches and areas of the law to which it applies. For the three legal instruments under consideration, the relevant provisions are contained in Article 1 of Brussels 2012 and Lugano, and Articles 1 and 2 of Hague. A review of case law shows that the distinction between a civil matter and public matter is far from straightforward. There is a significant grey area in which the Court of Justice of the European Union could legitimately go either way.

THE FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OF ASYMMETRIC JURISDICTION AGREEMENTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Merrett
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
International Financial Markets ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Hague Convention

AbstractAsymmetric jurisdiction clauses are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party. They are widely used in international financial markets. However, the validity of this form of agreement has been called into doubt in several European jurisdictions. Furthermore, following Brexit, there may well be an increasing focus on alternative methods of enforcement under the Hague Convention and at common law, claims for damages and anti-suit injunctions. As well as considering recent developments in the case law and the implications of Brexit, this article will emphasize that all of these questions can only be answered after the individual promises contained in any particular agreement are properly identified and construed. Once that is done, there is no reason why the asymmetric nature of a clause should be a bar to its enforcement.

Monasky v. Taglieri (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 873-887
Author(s):  
Linda Silberman
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Critical Aspects

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided four cases under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction (hereinafter the Hague Convention), the most recent one coming this term in Monasky v. Taglieri. The Hague Convention, adopted in 101 countries, requires the judicial or administrative authority of a country that is party to the Convention to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained to the country of the child's habitual residence.The Convention also provides for a limited number of defenses to return. The obligation of return is a “provisional” remedy, in that the merits of any custody dispute will be determined by a court in the country of habitual residence. One of the most critical aspects of the Convention is this concept of “habitual residence,” which was the issue presented to the Court in Monasky.

scholarly journals PARTY AUTONOMY IN THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO AGENCY

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 1205-1223
Author(s):  
Tatiana V. Novikova
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Hague Convention

The research is relevant due to development of transboundary private legal relations, including agency, recourse to party autonomy and the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Agency (the Hague Convention of 1978) potential of practical application. The goal is to analyze the party autonomy standards stipulated by the Hague Convention of 1978, to assess the place of the indicated norms within the system of international norms regarding party autonomy and to make conclusions on potential of its practical application. The main specific legal methods are historical and comparative. Due to insufficient scientific elaboration on the matter the main materials were the international treaty norms, including different language versions and translations, and profound travaux préparatoires enabling to clear up the contents of the norms. The main results include the following conclusions. Firstly, in spite of standpoint widespread in Russian jurisprudence the Hague Convention of 1978 acknowledges party autonomy for two legal relations and stipulates liberal standard for agent and principal relations and strict - for the agents authority in principal and third party relations. Secondly, the Hague Convention of 1978 has the potential of practical application as a part of lex fori of its states parties by court and as a collection of internationally accepted norms by international commercial arbitration. In conclusion the author stresses that it is important for Russian participants of international civil intercourse to have the right perception of the Hague Convention of 1978 norms when choosing a forum for disputes arising out of their international agency agreements.

Legal Ground of Choice of Law Agreement Permissibility in International Commercial Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
T. V. Novikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Research Goal ◽  
The Russian Federation

Problem statement. Specific nature of international commercial arbitration raises an issue whether in this case lex fori is capable to be the ground of choice of law agreement permissibility. Topicality of the issue is determined by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explanation of 09 July 2019 to courts referring issues of choice of law permissibility to lex fori. Goals and tasks of the research. Goal – research of legal ground of choice of law permissibility in international commercial arbitration. Tasks: to study the ICAC approaches to choice of law acknowledgement; to advance a hypothesis on the influence of explanation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code to the ICAC practice and to draw a conclusion on the international commercial arbitration «procedural documents» provisions as the ground for it to acknowledge choice of law agreement. Methods. Methods of formal logic play a key role: analysis of the ICAC practice permitted to distinguish three approaches to choice of law agreement permissibility grounding; induction of ratio decidendi of the ICAC separate decisions – to draw a conclusion on the article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code influence to the ICAC practice in general and on this basis to advance a hypothesis on possible influence of explanations by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in this respect; comparison of the international commercial arbitration rules – to draw a conclusion that these provisions are the ground of choice of law acknowledgement by the tribunal. Results, brief conclusion. Firstly, three approaches of the ICAC to the choice of law agreement permissibility grounding have been revealed and in each them the ICAC relies on the article 1210 of the Russian Federation Civil Code. As far as the article 1210 has an impact on choice of law permissibility grounding within the ICAC, explanations by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of this article are capable to have a possible impact on the ICAC practice. Secondly, within the international commercial arbitration the choice of law agreement permissibility grounding should be based on provisions of its «procedural documents», e. g. national law on international commercial arbitration, rules of institutional arbitration or ad hoc arbitral tribunal, – these rules (but not conflict of laws addressed to courts of the state of the arbitration seat) could be considered as its peculiar lex fori.

scholarly journals Some Moot Points on the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 683
Author(s):  
Nigel Lowe
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

This article discusses the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which, despite having been in existence for over 30 years, continues to present a number of uncertainties for Contracting States. The article focuses on the issues around appealing return orders after a child has been taken out of the jurisdiction, the concept of “habitual residence”, and the non-enforcement of return orders with reference to recent case law from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. 

International commercial arbitration in Canada after Uber Technologies Inc v Heller

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Meshel
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Gig Economy ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller from an international commercial arbitration perspective, focusing on two specific issues. The first issue is the Court’s application of a provincial domestic, rather than international, arbitration statute to Uber and Heller’s international arbitration agreement, on the ground that the agreement is not ‘commercial’. The article argues that this finding is not in line with international arbitration instruments and practice. The second issue is the Court’s interpretation and application of the competence–competence principle, which permits arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction. The article maintains that the Court’s approach does not offend this principle, but that the Court provides insufficient guidance to lower Canadian courts on how to implement this approach in future cases. The article concludes that the Court’s decision, while far-reaching in many respects, should not disturb the enforcement of routine international commercial arbitration agreements in Canada. The decision may have implications, however, for arbitration agreements contained in international contracts—particularly standard form contracts—that might give rise to employment disputes, such as those in the gig economy, or that contain terms that may seem to bar a party’s access to the arbitral process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document