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 Jurisdiction of the Chinese Court: Prorogated Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the first issue that the Court had to consider when it dealt with the dispute. However, the Courtruled that its jurisdiction over the case was established pursuant to the prorogated jurisdiction under the CPL regime. Concluding Remarks.
The Court answered this question in the affirmative. The author analyses the background of the decision and discusses its consequences for the long-standing conflict of procedurallaws ( Justizkonflikt) between the United States and Germany. The article sheds some light on the newly fashioned sec.
Supreme Court has held that issuing foreign government bonds is a commercial activity, even if done for a sovereign purpose. It is unclear if Chinese courts applying the FSIL will reach the same conclusion. The FSIL’s reciprocity clause is consistent with the emphasis on reciprocity that one finds in other provisions of Chinese law.
Both the first instance court and the court in appeal found that the claims were sufficiently connected, despite the contentions of Shell. in the 2015 ruling). Applicable law is defined based on the Dutch conflict of lawsrules on torts, namely art. Procedural matters. 7(1) DCCP’ (at [3.1]
Specific jurisdiction in matters relating to tort will be of little use, as in value chain civil liability claims the place of the event giving rise to damages and the place of damage are usually outside the EU and within that third state. This is a problem of uniformity – different national laws allow for different answers.
The following analysis undertakes the attempt to clarify the key aspects from the perspective of German international private law. Eichel: Choice of Court Agreements and Rules of Interpretation in the Context of Tort or Anti-trust Claims. 1 Lugano Convention 2007 vis-à-vis claims in tort.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content