scholarly journals Interpretation of the jurisdictional prerequisites in EU civil and commercial matters in the process of practical application of the Brussels I Regulation in the light of the CJEU jurisprudence

2021 ◽  
pp. 133-158
Author(s):  
Sylwia Jastrzemska
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
Legal Sense

The possession of national jurisdiction by the court is a condition sine qua non for the possibility to resolve the case. Its lack results in the invalidity of the proceedings in accordance with the disposition of Article 1099 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the amendments in 1997 and the doctrine’s acceptance of the division of domestic jurisdiction into jurisdiction in the international legal sense and international jurisdiction, these institutions are no longer included in the concept of a court path. At present, admissibility of a court path and international jurisdiction are treated as two separate procedural institutions which, on their own, constitute prerequisites for proceedings. Do EU cases differ in this respect from cases without a cross-border element? Is the interpretation of EU law different from the traditional interpretation in domestic cases? Should a purpose-oriented interpretation prevail? The author attempts to answer these and other questions in this text.

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.

scholarly journals Proving Chinese Law in the Courts of the United States

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-215
Author(s):  
Richard K Wagner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Business Culture ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Chinese Business ◽  
The Us

The volume of disputes heard by United States (US) courts containing a China element continues to be robust even against a backdrop of political rhetoric concerning an economic ‘de-coupling’ of the US and China. These cross-border disputes often involve Chinese parties and special issues, some of which concern Chinese business culture, but many of which involve interpreting questions of Chinese law. How is proving Chinese law accomplished in these cases and how have US courts performed in interpreting Chinese law? This article first discusses the approach to proving Chinese law in US courts. While expert testimony is often submitted and can be valuable to a US court, the applicable US rule offers no standards by which these opinions are to be judged. And, in the China context, without specific guidance, it can be challenging for a judge, unaccustomed with China or the Chinese legal system to determine which version of the law to believe. Moreover, under the applicable rule, the US court can simply ignore competing Chinese law opinions and conduct its own Chinese law legal research, presumably using English language sources. This can lead to interesting interpretations of Chinese law to say the least. The article anchors its discussion in an examination of those recent cases which have interpreted Article 277 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. This is the legal provision of Chinese law that can be implicated in certain situations involving cross-border discovery, and there are now numerous Article 277 cases among the reported US decisions. The article analyses Article 277 by placing it within the larger context of Chinese civil procedure and argues that the language used in the provision has a special meaning within Chinese evidence law that has been obscured in those US case decisions interpreting it, leading to erroneous results. The article concludes by offering judges and practitioners some suggestions for interpreting Chinese law in future US cases. Keywords: Chinese law; US courts; Article 277; deposition; cross-border discovery; Hague Evidence Convention; Chinese civil procedure.

European Cross-Border Insolvency Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Bork ◽  
Renato Mangano
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Main Interest ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
European State ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Centre Of Main Interest

This book provides a distilled and accessible analysis of the European cross-border insolvency law. With reference to the amended Insolvency Regulation (EIR) and related sources it examines the issues involved in intra-member state cross-border insolvency. The book analyses in depth the main areas of change brought about by the EIR such as the restatement of the meaning of 'centre of main interest' (COMI) and the rules on international jurisdiction, the new specific measures for multi-national enterprises, and the move towards co-operation between insolvency practitioners and courts. The EIR represents a very significant development in European insolvency law which will have an impact on all insolvencies with an international element involving a European state. All practitioners advising on the area need a clear grasp of the implications of the changes and this book aims to deliver just that.

Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law Lessons from European Civil Procedure

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pietro Ortolani
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Hard Law ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

One of the main purposes of private international law is the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil matters. In the European Union (EU), this goal is pursued by an articulate body of regulations, forming part of what is usually labelled as ‘European procedural law’ or ‘European civil procedure’. In criminal law, by contrast, no such system exists: although Eurojust aims at resolving conflicts of jurisdiction by facilitating the identification of the jurisdiction that should prosecute cross-​border crimes, no hard-​law instrument regulates this matter in a binding fashion.

Provisional and Protective Measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-239
Author(s):  
European Law
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
General Part ◽  
Asset Preservation

This chapter focuses on provisional and protective measures, which are important both in domestic and cross-border litigation to secure effective enforcement or to otherwise preserve rights and prevent (further) harm prior to the commencement of proceedings or pending final judgment. Part X of the European Rules of Civil Procedure consists of three Parts: a General Part (Section 1), which includes rules that apply to all types of measures, unless otherwise provided; a Special Part (Section 2), which includes rules on Asset Preservation, Regulatory Measures, Evidence Preservation, and Interim Payments; and a Cross-Border Part (Section 3), which primarily refers to existing legislation. Section 3 further provides a minimal number of general rules as it is not intended to provide a set of rules on the complex and multifaceted issue of cross-border provisional and protective measures. Principle 8 of the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles was the starting point for the development of Rules concerning provisional and protective measures. This Principle includes three basic rules: on function and proportionality (8.1); ex parte measures; (8.2); and compensation and security (8.3).

scholarly journals An Urgent Suggestion to Pour Old Wine into New Bottles: Comment on “A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 81-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Technological Evolution ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Informed Reader ◽  
Previous Scholarship

Dan Svantesson is quickly establishing himself as a leading voice in the field or jurisdiction. Coming to this field from Internet and data protection law, he is surely well placed to criticize the current legal framework of international jurisdiction in light of technological evolution, which has made territoriality lose its salience as the cornerstone of jurisdiction. I myself have recently been characterized as one of the border guards of territoriality, on the basis of my earlier monograph on Jurisdiction in International Law. Accordingly, the informed reader might believe that I will severely criticize as iconoclastic such a proposal as Svantesson’s namely, doing away with territoriality as the very linchpin of jurisdiction. As it happens, however, I largely concur with Svantesson’s ideas, at least to the extent they apply to cross-border transactions via the Internet. In this contribution, I argue that the reality of a de-territorialized Internet necessitates jurisdictional rethinking, but that this rethinking in fact heavily relies on previous scholarship, predating the Internet era. The advent of the current era, however, has lent particular urgency to those earlier proposals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document