The Jean Monnet Center of Excellence and the UNESCO Chair at the Department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, is organising a Summer academy on European Studies and Protection of Human rights in Zagora, on Mount Pelion, Greece, consisting of two summer schools in English. The academic faculty in both summer schools are University professors and experts from all over Greece and the EU (Great Britain, Spain and Poland).
The first summer school is on “Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU“. It will be held from Friday July 8, afternoon until Monday, July 11, 2016, afternoon. In particular, the summer school will last 25 hours. The main areas of study will be:
For further information in this summer school click here.
The second summer school will begin on Thursday, July 14 afternoon and will end on Tuesday, July 19. It will last 40 hours with a focus on the protection of human rights in Europe:
For further information on this summer school click here.
A Certificate of attendance will be issued to all while a Certificate of Graduation will be awarded to all those passing a multiple choice examination.
For additional information and applications to any of the schools, please refer to the links below or contact:
Assistant Professor Despina Anagnostopoulou, danag@uom.gr
or Ms. Chrysothea Basia, chrybass@yahoo.com
An article by A. Anthimos, Czech Yearbook of International Law 2017 volume VIII (Forthcoming), accessible at SSRN.
Abstract. Fictitious forms of service have dominated for decades the notification of documents abroad. The insecurity caused by these means of service led to the ratification of the 1965 Hague Service Convention by a significant number of countries. Still, the problem has not been solved, because the Convention did not dare to take the steps towards abolition of fictitious service. The sole exception being, stipulated under Article 19, for documents instituting proceedings. The EU-Service Regulation followed the same path. For nearly 10 years, fictitious service was not discarded by national courts in all cases. However, a recent judgment of the ECJ interpreted the Service regulation as banning all forms of fictitious service. This ruling led to a shift in national jurisprudence. However, at the same time it triggered reactions.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion surrounding the ECJ ruling, by highlighting its repercussions both within the framework of the Service Regulation, and potentially in the ambit of the multilateral Hague Service Convention.
Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González, Derecho Internacional Privado, 16a ed., Editorial Comares, 2016, vol. I, ISBN: 9788490454060, pp. 992, 39,50 euro, e vol. II, ISBN: 9788490454121, pp. 1512, 42 euro.
[Dal sito dell’editore] – La décimosexta edición de este «Derecho internacional privado, volumen I» persigue ofrecer al lector un material de estudio del Derecho internacional privado convenientemente actualizado, sistemático y comprensible. Esta nueva edición se presenta con un doble objetivo. Por una parte, servir como texto para el estudio, en el ámbito universitario, de un DIPr. enteramente orientado a la práctica, y por otra parte, operar como instrumento de ayuda en la aplicación del Derecho internacional privado por los profesionales del Derecho.
I sommari dei volumi I e II possono essere consultati, rispettivamente, qui e qui.
Maggiori informazioni sono reperibili a questi indirizzi: volume I e volume II.
Others have reported in some detail, and I am happy to refer, on Arlewin v Sweden at the ECtHR – the second Strasbourg conflicts ruling I report on in more or less one week. Epra have a short and sweet review, based mostly on the Court’s press release but useful nevertheless: they for instance suggest that Strasbourg have extended e-Date Advertising’s centre of interests rule for infringement of personality rights via the internet, to transmission by satellite. Dirk Voorhoof takes the media regulation angle. Dr Takis has the most extensive review over at Profs Peers and Barnard’s EU law analysis.
The case is a good illustration of an important port of entry for the ECHR into EU conflicts law in commercial litigation at least (I am not talking here of family law): Article 6’s right to fair trial. (See here for more extensive review of the Convention’s impact on European private international law). Strasbourg and Luxemburg are playing combination football here: the ECtHR approving of the CJEU’s application of the Brussels I Regulation in the case of libel and defamation. Especially with the EC’s recent shift of focus to the plaintiff’s position rather than the defendant’s , nothing guarantees of course that in the future EU law at this point might not be at odds with human rights law.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed, 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.4 .
In cooperation with the Centre de droit privé fondamental of the University of Strasbourg and the Centre d’études sur l’efficacité des systèmes juridiques continentaux of the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, the Société de législation comparée organises an international conference entitled:
The application of foreign law under constitutional and treaty-based review
(Le droit étranger à l’épreuve des contrôles de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité)
Scholars and practitioners in the fields of private international law from different backgrounds will meet in Paris to identify new models of control in the application of foreign law within Western legal systems and compare them with a view to understanding the place of the Otherness today in Europe and in Americas.
Date: 23 September 2016
Venue: Cour de Cassation, Grand’Chambre, 5, Quai de l’Horloge, 75001 – Paris.
Conference Directors:
Gustavo Cerqueira, Senior Lecturer at the University os Reims (France)
Nicolas Nord, Senior Lecturer at the University of Strasbourg, Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Law (France)
With the participation of :
Bertrand Louvel, First-President of the French Cour de cassation
Dominique Hascher, Chairman of the Société de législation comparée
Jean Massot, Honorary Section’s President at the French Conseil d’Etat
Danièle Alexandre, Emeritus Professor at the University of Strasbourg
Paul Lagarde, Emeritus Professor at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Councillor at the Cour de cassation in extraordinary service
Guillaume Drago, Professor of the University of Panthéon-Assas Paris II
Prolegomena :
Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Professor at the University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Julien Boudon, Professor at the University of Reims, Dean of the Faculty of Law
French Perspectives :
Alice Meier-Bourdeau, Attorney at the French Conseil d’État and Cour de cassation
Hugues Fulchiron, Professor at the University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Professor at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
Comparative Perspectives :
Serena Forlati, Associate Professor at the University of Ferrara
Fernanda Munschy, Attorney at the Bar of Strasbourg
Gustavo Cerqueira, Senior Lecturer at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne
Alejandro Garro, Associate Professor at the University of Columbia
Patrick Kinsch, Professor at the University of Luxembourg
Gustavo Monaco, Professor at the University of São Paulo
Didier Opertti-Bádan, Former Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Uruguay
See whole program here.
No participation fee.
Registration and further information:
Gordon Choisel / gordon.choisel@legiscompare.com
On 17 June 2016, the University of Milan will host a conference on The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs: Challenges of Implementation in a Global Perspective.
Speakers include Jean-Louis De Brouwer (EU Commission), Mariarosa Cutillo (UNFPA) and Thomas Schoenbaum (UW School of Law).
Nerina Boschiero (Univ. Milan) will introduce the discussion, while Tullio Treves (Univ. Milan) will draw the conclusions.
The programme of the event is available here.
The Estonian Riigikohus has requested, on 7 April 2016, a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on a case concerning violations of a legal person‘s rights committed on the internet: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16). The Estonian court has asked the following questions:
1. Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can bring an action for rectification of the incorrect information and removal of the harmful comments before the courts of any Member State in which the information on the internet is or was accessible, in respect of the harm sustained in that Member State?
2. Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests?
3. If the second question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that:
— it is to be assumed that a legal person has its centre of interests in the Member State in which it has its seat, and accordingly that the place where the harmful event occurred is in that Member State, or
— in ascertaining a legal person’s centre of interests, and accordingly the place where the harmful event occurred, regard must be had to all of the circumstances, such as its seat and fixed place of business, the location of its customers and the way and means in which its transactions are concluded?
Many thanks to Dr. Christina Mariottini (HCCH/ILA) and Meeli Kaur for the tip-off!
— This is the amended version of a post published on 14 June 2016.
On 17 June 2016 the University Milano-Bicocca will host a conference on Divorce and parental responsibility under the Brussels II bis Regulation.
The participation to the colloquium is reserved to judges and attorneys selected by the Scuola Superiore della Magistratura and by the Associazione Italiana degli Avvocati per la famiglia e per i minori (AIAF).
Presentations will be given by academics from Italy, Croatia, Spain and Lithuania on issues such as the habitual residence and the hearing of the child, prorogation of jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings.
Speakers include Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), Carola Ricci (Univ. Pavia) and Costanza Honorati (Univ. Milano Bicocca).
Further information may be found in the flyer of the initiative, available here.
Scade il 15 luglio 2016 il termine per iscriversi all’edizione 2016 di EULoS, una summer school sui temi del diritto del mare rivolta a laureati e dottorandi, organizzata dalle Università di Genova e Brema, dalla Hochschule Bremerhaven e dall’Institut für Seevölkerrecht und Internationales Meeresumweltrecht di Brema.
I corsi si terranno a Brema, fra il 22 agosto e il 2 settembre 2016.
Come la passata edizione, anche le lezioni di quest’anno toccheranno, fra gli altri, argomenti di interesse internazionalprivatistico.
Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.
On 17 June 2016 the University Milano-Bicocca will host a conference on Divorce and parental responsibility under the Brussels II bis Regulation.
Presentations will be given by academics from Croatia, Spain and Lithuania on issues such as the habitual residence and the hearing of the child, prorogation of jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings.
Further information may be found in the flyer of the initiative, available here.
According to a document of 3 June 2016 (9770/16), the Council of the European Union is expected to confirm a general approach on the Commission’s proposals for two regulations on the property regimes of international couples.
The regulations are meant to implement enhanced cooperation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, and on the property consequences of registered partnerships.
The general approach refers to the texts of the regulations as result, respectively, from document 8115/16 and document 8118/16 of the Council, both dated 30 May 2016.
As noticed in an earlier post, eighteen Member States have expressed the intention to take part in the enhanced cooperation.
The adoption of the regulations will take place once the European Parliament has given its opinion in accordance with Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
In Case C-185/15 Kostanjevec, Kokott AG (not available in English at the time of writing) advised on a number of issues in relation to a counterclaim under Article 6(3) Brussels I (now 8(3) of the Recast). At the core of the dispute lies a leasing contract and the consumer counterclaiming for restitution per unjust enrichment, of the sums she had transferred to counterparty. The counterclaim follows the annulment of the contract between the two, even though Marjan Kostanjevec had initially been ordered to pay.
The first relates to the temporal scope not of the Recast Brussels I Regulation viz Brussels I, but rather simply of Regulation 44/2001, in particular with respect to a Member State (Slovenia) which joined the EU on 1 May 2004. The Brussels Convention had never applied to Slovenia. The proceedings between parties go back to 1995, prompting the EC among others to suggest that per Article 66 of the Regulation (This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted…after the entry into force thereof) it simply does not apply. Kokott AG however suggests first of all that the new claim in restitution, followed the use of a separate means of redress under Slovenian law, instituted after the initial claim by the leasing company had been wrapped up in its entirety. Moreover, other language versions refer not to ‘proceedings’ but rather to a claim (defined in C-341/93 Danvaern Production as claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement of a separate judgment or decree. It does not apply to the situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim which he allegedly has against the plaintiff (at 18).
Regulation 44/2001 applies therefore, in the view of the AG. I would agree that it should: this is particularly relevant where parties have a long and complex history of litigation. (Similarities here may exist with Nikiforidis, which is in my blog pile). Applying Danvaern Production however for the interpretation of Article 66 I think may be problematic. The raison d’être of Article 6(3) is to help avoid conflicting decisions in cases that are closely related. Even if, per Danvaern, they seek a separate pronouncement, they do essentially relate to reciprocal commitments which are part of the same bundle of facts. (See also Kokott AG herself, in para 44 of her Opinion with reference to the Jenard Report and to Léger AG in Danvaern). It feels a little inconsistent to call upon arguments developed viz inseparable claims (under Art.6(3): Danvaern) to support a thesis of separability (viz the application ratione temporis: they are separate claims even if they have a common history in fact and in contractual liaison).
With reference to C-297/14 Hobohm, the AG subsequently also advises that the counterclaim is covered by the Regulation’s consumer contracts title as having a ‘close link’ with the consumer contract, and, for the sake of completeness, and with reference to Profit SIM, that claims for restitution are covered by (now) Article 7(1) ‘s forum contractus even if they are grounded in the contract at issue not actually having existed.
I am curious how the Court will approach the temporal application issue.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private International law, 2nd ed. 2016, chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1.a, Heading 2.2.21.3, Heading 2.1.1
Under the State Immunity Act, foreign states are generally immune from being sued in Canada. This includes being sued on a foreign judgment. However, in 2012 Canada enacted legislation to give victims of terrorism the ability to sue a foreign state that sponsored the terrorism. It also made it easier for foreign judgments against such a state to be enforced in Canada.
In Tracy v The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, 2016 ONSC 3759 (released June 9, 2016; likely to be posted in the week of June 13, 2016, in CanLII) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to consider these legislative reforms and how they applied to a series of American judgments rendered against Iran in favour of American victims of terrorist acts which Iran was found to have sponsored. The court held that Iran was not immune from the enforcement proceedings and that accordingly the American judgments were enforceable against certain assets of Iran in Ontario.
The decision is reasonably detailed. It involves interpretation of the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. It also considers issues relating to the limitation period and the enforcement of punitive damages awards (in this case, in the hundreds of millions of dollars). Not all of the analysis resonates as convincing and there is considerable scope for a possible appeal. For example, Iran’s argument that the loss or damage suffered by the victim had to have been, on the language of s 4(1) of the JVTA, suffered after January 1, 1985, did not prevent the enforcement of American decisions in respect of acts of terror which happened before that date because, the court held, the victims continued to suffer harm on an ongoing basis. This seems vulnerable to challenge. In addition, the court’s reasoning as to why the enormous punitive damages awards were not contrary to public policy is extremely brief.
However, on any appeal, Iran does have a significant procedural problem to overcome. It did not defend the enforcement actions when they were initially brought in Ontario. All of the immunity arguments were canvassed by the court as part of Iran’s motion to have the resulting default judgments set aside, on the issue of whether Iran might have a viable defence on the merits. But at no point did Iran offer any explanation for the initial failure to defend. While not conclusive, this weighs against setting the judgments aside even if Iran can show merit to its position on immunity.
The timing of the court’s decision against Iran could pose challenges for the current Canadian government, which is currently working to re-engage with Iran after the previous government cut ties in 2012 (see news story here). In addition, a Montreal-based professor has recently been jailed in Iran and this has caused considerable concern in Canada (see news story here).
The University of Lucerne and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) will be co-organizing a conference on the implementation of the Hague Choice of Law Principles ( “Towards a Global Framework for International Commercial Transactions: Implementing the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts”) on 8/9 September 2016. The conference serves to analyze the impact and prospects of the 2015 Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (the Hague Principles) in the context of other relevant legal instruments applicable to international commercial transactions. It brings together distinguished academics, experts, private practitioners and representatives from various international institutions.
Scholars and practitioners in the fields of private international law and commercial law and dispute resolution are encouraged to participate.
Conference Directors: Prof. Dr. Daniel Girsberger, University of Lucerne (Switzerland), Dr. Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary-General (HCCH)
Venue: University of Lucerne, Auditorium 9, Frohburgstrasse 3, CH-6002 Lucerne (Switzerland)
Speakers: Jürgen Basedow, Neil B. Cohen, Andrew Dickinson, Roberto Echandi, José Angelo Estrella Faria, Franco Ferrari, Lauro Da Gama e Souza Jr, Thomas Kadner Graziano, Peter Mankowski, Jan L. Neels, Emily O’Connor, J.A. Moreno Rodríguez, Geneviève Saumier, Linda Silberman, Renaud Sorieul
Participation fee: CHF 250.– (including documentation, catering and dinner on Thursday, 8 September 2016; accommodation not included)
Registration and further information: https://regis.buchertravel.ch/event/HCCH_2016
Contact: Mrs. Lisbeth Meule (lisbeth.meule@unilu.ch)
UNCITRAL Working Group V (Insolvency Law) has issued a report on the work of its forty-ninth session, which took place in New York from 2 – 6 May 2016. The Working Group continued its deliberations on the cross-border insolvency of multinational enterprise groups, the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-derived judgments and the obligations of directors of enterprise group companies in the period approaching insolvency. Furthermore the report communicates that a meeting of an open-ended informal group established to consider the feasibility of developing a convention on international insolvency issues has taken place. This is rather exciting, as the development of an international insolvency convention by UNCITRAL would constitute the next big step in international insolvency law leaving behind the defiencies of soft law. The report is available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/5Insolvency.html.
The ILA reminds you to join the celebration of yet another landmark – the Seventy7th Biennial International Conference 2016 – which is set to take place from the 7-11 August 2016 in Sandton, South Africa.
Come join an illustrious panel of distinguished local and international speakers, fellow law professionals, business leaders, academics, as well as young scholars from different parts of the world.
Judge Navi Pillay, who will participate in the panel on international criminal law, and former UN High Commissionar for Human Rights, will deliver the key note address at the opening session of the conference.
If you’ve not yet registered, please see the programme online and join us in Sandton. Should you have registered already, additional speaker sessions have been added and high profile speakers confirmed!The regular registration closes 30 June 2016.
Register, by clicking here.
In AVOTIŅŠ v Latvia, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR at Strasbourg held late May that Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial) was engaged but not infringed by the Latvian’s Supreme Court’s application of Article 34(2( Brussel I (now Article 45(1) b Brussels I Recast).
The Article reads ‘A judgment shall not be recognised: (…) 2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;…
In the case at issue applicant sought refusal by the Latvian court of recognition of a Cypriot judgment issued against him. After review of the Regulation’s core pedigree of mutual recognition and mutual trust, burden of proof particularly exercised the Court: at 121:
‘The fact that the applicant relied on that Article (34(2), GAVC) without having challenged the judgment as required necessarily raised the question of the availability of that legal remedy in Cyprus in the circumstances of the present case. In such a situation the Senate was not entitled simply to criticise the applicant, as it did in its judgment of 31 January 2007, for not appealing against the judgment concerned, and to remain silent on the issue of the burden of proof with regard to the existence and availability of a remedy in the State of origin; Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, like Article 34(2) in fine of the Brussels I Regulation, required it to verify that this condition was satisfied, in the absence of which it could not refuse to examine the applicant’s complaint. The Court considers that the determination of the burden of proof, which, as the European Commission stressed (see paragraph 92 above), is not governed by European Union law, was therefore decisive in the present case. Hence, that point should have been examined in adversarial proceedings leading to reasoned findings. However, the Supreme Court tacitly presumed either that the burden of proof lay with the defendant or that such a remedy had in fact been available to the applicant. This approach, which reflects a literal and automatic application of Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, could in theory lead to a finding that the protection afforded was manifestly deficient such that the presumption of equivalent protection of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 is rebutted. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of the present application the Court does not consider this to be the case, although this shortcoming is regrettable.’
Those ‘specific circumstances’ include in particular the applicant’s professional background: at 124:
‘the applicant, who was an investment consultant, should have been aware of the legal consequences of the acknowledgment of debt deed which he had signed. That deed was governed by Cypriot law, concerned a sum of money borrowed by the applicant from a Cypriot company and contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on the Cypriot courts. Accordingly, the applicant should have ensured that he was familiar with the manner in which possible proceedings would be conducted before the Cypriot courts (…). Having omitted to obtain information on the subject he contributed to a large extent, as a result of his inaction and lack of diligence, to bringing about the situation of which he complained before the Court and which he could have prevented so as to avoid incurring any damage’.
I am not convinced by the Court’s view on the burden of proof ad on the national court’s duty to assess the law in the State of origin sua sponte. Judges Lemmens and Briede, jointly concurring but for different reasons as the court, in my view have the better argument where they say
‘If the applicant wanted to argue that no remedy had in fact been available to him in Cyprus, in our opinion it would have been for him to raise this issue explicitly before the Supreme Court. We question whether he could expect the Supreme Court to raise that issue of its own motion. And we definitely consider that he cannot complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of an explicit response to an argument that was not explicitly made.’
The end result is the same at the ECtHR. For future application of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation however it makes a big difference.
Geert.
The EBS Law School in Wiesbaden, Germany, is looking for a highly skilled and motivated research fellow on a part-time basis (50%).
The position will entail research within the team of the Chair for Civil Law, Civil Procedure and Private International Law (Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ.) and within the EBS Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) on a number of new and ongoing projects focusing on Private International Law, Transnational Commercial Law and International Civil Litigation.
The position includes teaching and programme management for the “EBS Law Term” on Transnational Commercial Law, an intense academic programme in English from September to December each year for incoming international students from all over the world, mainly from the partner law faculties of the EBS Law School. For further information on this programme: http://www.ebs.edu/lawterm.
Requirements:
The position is limited to two years but can be prolonged. The work location is Wiesbaden, a city close to Frankfurt, Germany. The work involves 19,75 hours per week (50%). The payment is subject to negotiations with the University, depending on the level of qualifications, but will not be lower than the average payment for research fellows (Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter) there. The faculty offers to obtain a doctoral degree on the basis of a thesis (Dissertation) if the faculty’s requirements for admission are met.
How to Apply:
Please send your application with reference to “ZRV_WiMi_Law Term” via email to antonella.nolten@ebs.edu. The application should include a cover letter, a CV containing, if applicable, list of publications and/or teaching evaluations and electronic copies of all relevant certificates. Please do not hesitate to contact Antonella Nolten in case of further questions.
We are looking forward to hearing from you!
by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Claudia Pechstein, an internationally successful ice speed skater, claims damages against the International Skating Union (ISU) because of a two-year-suspension for doping. The essential question was whether an arbitration agreement signed by Pechstein is effective. This agreement includes amongst other things the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. Pechstein claimed that the arbitration agreement was invalid under § 19 GWB (German Antitrust Legislation) because the ISU (nationally and internationally only the ISU organizes competitions in ice speed skating) has abused its dominant position. Pechstein had to sign the arbitration agreement to be admitted to the competition. She claimed that the list of arbitrators of the CAS, from which the parties must each select an arbitrator, has not been prepared impartially because the sports federations and Olympic committees have a clear predominance in creating the list.
However, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) does not agree with these propositions. The Court, by its decision of 7 June 2016, docket no. KZR 6/15, ruled that the action is inadmissible because of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the ISU is indeed dominant in the organization of international speed skating competitions, but has shown no abusive conduct because the associations and the athletes do not confront each other as guided by fundamentally conflicting interests. There was no structural imbalance in the composition of the tribunal ruling on Pechstein‘s suspension. Furthermore, in the Court’s view, Pechstein has signed the agreement voluntarily in the sense of Art. 19 GWB, even if she otherwise could not have participated in the contest. A consideration of the mutual interests justifies the application of the arbitration clause. However Pechstein is entitled to invoke the internationally competent Swiss courts following the arbitral procedure.
I contratti internazionali di agenzia e distribuzione dall’Europa all’Oriente è il titolo dell’incontro in programma il 23 giugno 2016 a Vicenza, promosso dalla locale sezione dell’Associazione Italiana Giovani Avvocati (AIGA) con il patrocinio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Vicenza.
L’incontro vedrà il susseguirsi di interventi in tema di liquidazione dell’indennità di fine rapporto nei contratti internazionali di agenzia e distribuzione nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia (Silvia Petruzzino, Foro di Lugano), di agenzia e distribuzione in Vietnam e in Iran (Federico Vasoli, Foro di Milano) e di distribuzione e commercio elettronico in Cina (Roberto Luzi Crivellini, Foro di Verona).
Maggiori informazioni sull’incontro e sulle modalità d’iscrizione sono consultabili sulla locandina, qui disponibile.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer