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.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Friday urged the El Salvador government to comply with international human rights obligations in its treatment of over 36,000 Salvadorans detained during its state of national emergency. The president and the government have revealed the harsh conditions in prisons.
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. And the court denied review of a petition raising a First Amendment challenge to university bias-response teams.
Japan’s Shizuoka District Court aquitted 88-year-old Iwao Hakamata on Thursday in a retrial, overturning his conviction after spending 48 years on death row. In 1980, his death sentence was finalized by the Supreme Court of Japan. In 1981, he requested a retrial.
Under Article 315 of the the Spanish Civil ProcedureLaw , government officials can testify in writing. Sánchez then invoked his right to remain silent under Article 118 of the Spanish Criminal ProcedureLaw , which grants broad scope for the right to remain silent during investigations, trials, or appeals.
Background China’s Civil ProcedureLaw was enacted in April 1991 by the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress. The latest amendments to the Civil ProcedureLaw in 2023, referred to as the new CPL, involve 26 amendments, including 14 modified articles and 15 new additions. 276, para.
On 15 July 2022, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (“NSW”) recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment issued by the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court 12 years ago in Tianjin Yingtong Materials Co Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 943. [1] Written by Zilin Hao*. 1] It ruled that the defendant Katherine Young (“Ms.
The different characterization of limitation as a procedural or substantive issue adds more to the complexity. Classification of limitation in the context of foreign-seated arbitrations – procedural or substantive? The limitation in India is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”).
Speaking about the country’s judicial system, Justice Ramana emphasized the challenges faced by a common man approaching the courts. He acknowledged that the present justice delivery system in the country poses “multiple barriers for the common people” and that the “workings of the courts do not sit well with the complexities of India”.
By Ananya Bhargava, Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, India. Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Honasa Consumer Limited v RSM General Trading LLC granted an anti-enforcement injunction against the execution proceedings instituted in the Dubai Court on the ground that it threatened the arbitral process in India.
Broadly speaking, indirect jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction of the foreign court in the context of recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments. Concretely, the court being asked to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment evaluates whether the foreign court had proper jurisdiction to hear the dispute. I (2017) 151.)
Kostin, Senior Research Fellow at the Private Law Research Centre (Moscow, Russia) and counsel atAvangard law firm. and Valeria Rzyanina, junior associate, Avangard Law Firm. This is a synopsis of an article published in the Herald of Civil ProcedureLaw Journal N 1/2021 in Russian). 40-39791 / 2018.
According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to a choice of court agreement are subject to the rights and obligations arising from it. A choice of court agreement in a bill of lading which is agreed by the carrier and shipper and transferred to a consignee, or third-party holder is a ubiquitous example.
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.
Mr Ting Liao, PhD candidate at the Wuhan University Institute of International Law, published a note on the Chinese Smart Court , which attracted a lot of interest and attention. We have responded a few enquires and comments, some relating to the procedure and feasibility of virtual/remote hearing.
In the XX century, dispute resolution was characterized by the leading role played by State courts: however, this situation has begun to change. remains the benchmark practice for the development of a model based on the three principles of self-government, government by law, and government by virtue. Cristina M.
However, as I have learned more about the procedural history preceding the decisions of the Dubai Supreme Court (“DSC”), which was not available to me when I posted my previous comment, greater emphasis will be placed on the general factual background of the case. First Appeal: DSC, Appeal No. Second Appeal: DSC, Appeal No.
Carlos Santaló Goris , Researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory ProceduralLaw and Ph.D. On 22 January 2021, the Czech Chamber of Deputies approved “ the government act amending Act No. The first legislative implementation of the EAPO Regulation in the Czech national law.
. & Wenliang Zhang (Associate Professor, Renmin University of China Law School). and foreign court to have considered the adequacy of the Chinese judicial system in the context of judgments recognition. The agreement was governed by Chinese law and provided that suits could be resolved by courts in Beijing.
I allow myself to pick up a few elements from this fascinating interview in the following for our international audience: The Tenth Panel functions as a court of first appeal ( Berufungsgericht ) in patent nullity proceedings and as a court of second appeal for legal review only ( Revisionsgericht ) in patent infringement proceedings.
(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.
According to a widespread view, adaption is very often necessary with regard to the spouse’s share in the deceased’s estate, namely if the matrimonial property regime and questions relating to succession are governed by different laws. 57 Austrian Code of Civil Procedure. 5 Brussels Ia Regulation and Art.
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.
LIN Jidong, Wuhan University Institute of International Law. Regulation 2022 generally authorises all the grass-roots courts to hear foreign-related disputes (Art. 1) and limits the jurisdiction of intermediate and higher courts (Art. Nowadays, most intermediate courts have the jurisdiction to hear foreign-related disputes.
The recognition and enforcement of French civil and commercial judgments in China is generally regulated by Articles 281 and 282 of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Civil ProcedureLaw as amended in 2017 (hereinafter “ PRC CPL ”). Major Provisions under the France-China Agreement.
I allow myself to pick up a few elements from this fascinating interview in the following for our international audience: The Tenth Panel functions as a court of first appeal ( Berufungsgericht ) in patent nullity proceedings and as a court of second appeal for legal review only ( Revisionsgericht ) in patent infringement proceedings.
The rules on applicable law for environmental damage, contained in the Rome II Regulation on the law that applies to non-contractual obligations, are a clear and considered exception. Courts are struggling with the right approach to the relevant rules.
This article examines the impact of this realignment on private international law, for civil and commercial matters, within the legal systems of the UK, the EU and third countries with whom the UK and the EU had established relationships before their separation. It approaches that subject from three perspectives.
Even more intriguingly, in jurisdictions where natural restitution is theoretically upheld as a principle – including Germany, Austria, Portugal, and Spain – its actual adoption by courts remains relatively rare. Or, conversely, does it represent an obsolete or unnecessary element of compensation law?
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.
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.
Remien : The European Succession Regulation and the many questions of the European court practice – five years after entry into force. but especially national court practice shows many interesting cases of the necessary overall assessment. The decision also deals with questions of German procedurallaw. According to Art.
Magnus: A new Private International Law and new Procedural Rules for Adoptions in Germany. As a result of two recent reforms the German private international and procedurallaws applicable to adoptions have changed quite substantively. It argues for the application of the law of the state where the register is kept.
More recently, my view that Donziger was pretty obviously guilty of contempt of court, and that Judge Preska was right not to allow him to put on evidence at his trial showing that Judge Kaplan had been biased and had gotten his findings of fact all wrong about what had happened in Ecuador, has not endeared me to Donziger and his partisans.
Wolfram: Achmea – neglecting of international public law – some afterthoughts. This contribution is not meant to assess the Achmea judgment of the European Court of Justice. The second court is not permitted to review the decision to decline jurisdiction by the first court.
Recent Decisions of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht and their Impact on Private International Law (in English). Any act taken in violation of these limits may be declared void by the Constitutional Court. Both the “Lisbon” judgment and the UPC ruling have implications for European private international law.
The preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) exists to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law. One such condition is that the question referred to the court must be applicable to the decision in the initial legal dispute.
The monograph predominantly examines 19 Indonesian court decisions on choice of law in international commercial contracts during the period, 2000-2020. As the reader, one thing I found striking about Indonesian practice is that a choice of foreign law alone can oust the jurisdiction of the Indonesian courts.
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. While the court left the decision between lit. a and lit.
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.
One is the jurisdictional challenge of finding a competent court in the same jurisdiction as the individual users. [3] This constellation provides a strong argument for facilitating collective redress, as otherwise individual users may not be able to obtain justice for privacy infringements before the courts.
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.
In this context, as explained by Michaels and Sommerfeld , while the CSDDD applies to certain non-EU firms based on their turnover in the EU (Article 2(2)), jurisdictional issues persist for actions against non-EU defendants in EU courts, with jurisdiction typically governed by national provisions.
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