Suchergebnisse

That question remains open following Case C–99/96 Mietz v. Intership Yachting Sneek BV16 a more recent decision that raises some similar issues but continues to confine its attention to interim payments. The applicant was appealing against a German order for enforcement of a Dutch judgment ordering interim payment in kort geding proceedings. The applicant argued that the underlying contract was covered by the special provisions on consumer contracts in Articles 13 et seq. of the Brussels Convention. Therefore failure to observe the rules of jurisdiction in Articles 13 et seq. was a ground for non-recognition of the Dutch judgment. The contract was for the sale of a luxury yacht, to be paid for in five instalments during its period of construction and trial. A written contract was signed in the Netherlands, but the applicant alleged for the first time in the German proceedings that the contract was negotiated at a boat show in Germany and an oral contract was made there.

This article explores institutional alternatives for balancing the competing trade and non-trade concerns at the national and global levels in relation to the recognition and enforcement of judgments. It argues against a private international law convention of the kind that is currently being negotiated at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and against quasi-constitutional and constitutional solutions, such as those employed by the European Union and the United States. Rather, the article argues that managing the tensions between trade and non-trade values and between state autonomy and globally established standards can best be achieved through a supplementary agreement in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Das internationale Privatrecht des geistigen Eigentums wird zur Zeit in Europa und im Ausland viel diskutiert. Dieses Buch bietet eine vergleichende Analyse der drei wichtigsten Forschungsprojekte aus den USA, Europa und Japan. Sie decken jeweils Rechtsprechung, das angewandte Recht und die Durchsetzung ausländischer Entscheidungen ab.

Brexit raises a whole range of legal issues in multiple areas. The consequences on the EU framework for jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments are of particular interest for private parties involved in cross-border commercial agreements. This paper explores the legal basis for the jurisdiction of courts and the enforcement and recognition of judgments between the UK and EU-27 courts after Brexit. In addition, it broadly contrasts the main differences of the proposed solutions compared to the EU system. The paper argues that international conventions can provide answers to some of the questions as they set out rules for the jurisdiction, enforcement and recognition of judgments. However, there are factors that can have an impact on possible legal outcomes, such as the framework of the future deal between the UK and the EU-27, the moment of the commencement of proceedings by the parties in the transition period, or the fact that the parties did not opt for exclusive jurisdiction in their agreements. The Withdrawal Agreement provides for some clarity on which EU law provisions apply during the transition period. In addition, the EC Notices and the UK Brexit legislation provide for guidelines as to the rules applicable in and immediately after the transition period. Nevertheless, as the paper analyses, there is still a need for further clarification. Therefore, other methods of dispute resolution proposed in the article such as moving to arbitration instead of English court jurisdiction could provide legal certainty for private parties.