This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) has recently updated its rules of procedure. The updated version has come into force on January 1, 2025. Additionally, there are amendments in amongst others the following rules: 2.1.3 notification of interested parties) 2.2 and explanatory notes (language and third parties) 3.2.1
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. Once again this week, the Supreme Court has been busy sifting through the relists. Grants are now filling in the 2025-26 term, which will start in October.) A short explanation of relists is available here.
Introduction An asymmetric choice of court agreement is commonly used in international commercial transactions, especially in financial agreements, which usually allows one party (option holder) an optional choice about the forum in which proceedings may be brought but the other (non-option holder) an exclusive choice to sue in a designated court.
While the parties had chosen Dutch law to be applicable to the contract, the court held that the German provision was applicable in view of Art. 3 of the Rome I Regulation, which stipulates the application of mandatory provisions of the state in which the facts of the case are exclusively located if the law of another state is chosen.
The authors discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article also looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.
(Cornell), Bachelor of Laws (ZUEL). * The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an important principle in civil procedurelaws and frequently applied by courts in many legal systems, especially those of common law countries. For instance, in Jiahua International Limited, Ruixiang Limited v.
The European Commission must submit its report on the application of the European Succession Regulation by 18 August 2025. Although the European Succession Regulation has proven successful in practice, there are many open questions which the ever-growing body of European Court of Justice case-law has not yet answered.
While previously, according to Kegel , connecting factors were understood to build upon certain generally neutral conflict-of-laws interests, cultural identity is becoming a relevant aspect of party interests, which she demonstrated with the help of different recent judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice.
This report has been prepared by Priyanka Jain , a researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory ProceduralLaw, and Ph.D. On 8-9 October 2020, ERA – the Academy of European Law – organized its Annual Conference on European Consumer Law 2020. Introduction: .
When looking at the judges appointed by both presidents, it is clear that their circuit court appointees show distinct patterns in terms of gender, race, and geographic representation. Court of Appeals circuits, including the Ninth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. The average vote differential for Trumps circuit court judges was 23.2.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content