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
Share At oral arguments earlier this week the Supreme Court was skeptical of the Food and Drug Administrations effort to block a North Carolina-based company from challenging the denial of its application to market e-cigarettes in the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana.
Written by Marco Farina, Italian lawyer, PhD in Civil ProceduralLaw at the University La Sapienza of Rome – Adjunct Professor of Civil ProceduralLaw at the University LUISS of Rome. The Court of Appeal of Rome reasoned under Article 64 (b), of the Italian Act on Private International Law (Law 31 May 1995 no.
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.
On November 30, 2023, the Higher Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg ruled in DUH and BUND v. Unlike in the 2021 landmark ruling in Neubauer et al. Germany of the Federal Constitutional Court, the focus of the decision is not on fundamental rights, but on administrative questions of climate governance and enforcement.
By Zhengxin Huo, Professor of Law, China University of Polit’l Science and Law; Associate Member of International Academy of Comparative Law; Observer of the UNESCO 1970 Convention. Against this background, the lawsuit before the Chinese court is more important in terms of legal analysis. Email: zhengxinh@cupl.edu.cn.
As was briefly announced earlier on this blog , on 29 January 2021, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague gave a ruling in a long-standing litigation launched by four Nigerian farmers and the Dutch Milieudefensie. Oil spill in Nigeria and litigation in The Hague courts. Introduction.
Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer. This case marks the first time that a Chinese court has recognized and enforced a Thai monetary judgment. Guangxi High People’s Court’s news ). On 16 September 2019, the Thai Court issued a civil judgment No.
This also applies to the extended possibility of choice of court agreements, for which it is still unclear whether exclusive prorogation is possible beyond the cases named in Article 10 section 4 of the Brussels II ter Regulation. Only if the rules are interpreted with a sense of proportion the desired improvements can be achieved.
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. After several years of litigation in both federal and state courts, Z.
After all, mandatory application in EU courts is largely irrelevant if courts do not have jurisdiction in the first place. If the remaining alternative is to bring an action in a court outside the EU, the application of the CSDDD civil liability regime is not, however, guaranteed. Common to Arts. 22 (5) CSDDD.
Maxian Rusche : Available actions in the German courts against the abuse of intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Achmea that intra-EU investment arbitration violates fundamental rules of EU law. 13 (3) No.
Share Twice in the past decade the Supreme Court has blocked Oklahoma from executing Richard Glossip. But even with the Oklahoma’s rare confession of error, both the state’s highest court for criminal cases and the state’s pardon and parole board turned down Glossip’s pleas for relief. 9, two former U.S.
The following article presents the German implementing rules for this recast. Magnus: A new Private International Law and new ProceduralRules for Adoptions in Germany. As a result of two recent reforms the German private international and procedurallaws applicable to adoptions have changed quite substantively.
During the twentieth century many countries moved from an absolute theory of foreign state immunity, under which countries could never be sued in another country’s courts, to the restrictive theory. But Russia joined the restrictive immunity camp in 2016, when its law on the jurisdictional immunity of foreign states went into effect.
Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They 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. 25 Brussels Ia Regulation itself.
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304. European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193. “The Blanquet-Angulo, Alejandra.
Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement”. The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304.
Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement”. The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304.
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304. European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193. (An Blanquet-Angulo, Alejandra.
The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304. European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193. “The Blanquet-Angulo, Alejandra.
Brexit and the Future of Private International Law in English Courts”, Oxford 2022. Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement”. “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. Bibliography.
Brexit and the Future of Private International Law in English Courts”, Oxford 2022. Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement”. “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. Bibliography.
Brexit and the Future of Private International Law in English Courts”, Oxford 2022. Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement”. “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. Bibliography.
79-109 (available here ) Amurodov, Jahongir “Some issues of Ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) by the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Uzbek Law Review 2020-03, pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, New York University Law Review 97 (2022), pp.
79-109 (available here ) Amurodov, Jahongir “Some issues of Ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) by the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Uzbek Law Review 2020-03, pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, New York University Law Review 97 (2022), pp.
79-109 (available here ) Amurodov, Jahongir “Some issues of Ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) by the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Uzbek Law Review 2020-03, pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, New York University Law Review 97 (2022), pp.
In addition, case law in this field has encountered difficulties in articulating the applicable guiding principles and is sometimes ambiguous, inconsistent, or even contradictory. Case 1: Ruling No. Facts The first case concerns the enforcement of a court-approved settlement deed ( saqq ) issued by a Saudi court.
Share Nineteen states came to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to keep in place a Trump-era policy that allows immigration officials to quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The dispute now before the Supreme Court is a separate case. immigration court.
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