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
First and second instance courts decided in favour of Z. the Supreme Courtruled that the Athens Court of Appeal failed to examine two grounds of appeal raised by M. The case was sent back to the appellate court [Supreme Court nr. As a next step, Z. Upon second appeal (cassation) of M., 635/20.5.2021].
Ever since 2009, when the German choice-of-law provisions for contracts were removed and the Rome I Regulation with its carve-out for arbitration agreements entered into force, the choice of law for arbitration agreements has been debated in Germany. The court held that the enforcement provision Article V (1) lit.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Cardoso, Connor J. Coco, Sarah E.
“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E.
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