Quentin Decleve, Author at international litigation blog
2
archive,author,author-quentin,author-2,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

Author:Quentin Decleve

Belgian Parliament Amends Bill Establishing Brussels International Business Court

On 10 December 2018, the Commission for Justice of the Belgian Parliament published a second draft bill (the Bill) for the creation of the Brussels International Business Court (the BIBC). The Belgian government had already approved a first draft in October 2017 and submitted it to Parliament in May 2018. The Bill now aims to reflect the opinions expressed by the Belgian Council of State and of the High Council of Justice (Hoge Raad voor de Justitie/Conseil supérieur de la Justice), as well as the amendments suggested by various members of the Parliament. This being said, the key features of the BIBC remain largely unchanged.READ MORE

0

EU Requests Consultations with South Korea under EU-Korea Trade Agreement Over Labour Rights Commitments

Dear Readers, Happy New Year!

In order to kick-start the year, I wanted to draw your attention to a very interesting development that took place in the field of international trade law at the end of 2018.

On 17 December 2018, the European Union (the EU) requested formal consultations with South Korea following Korea’s failure to implement certain sustainable developments commitments made under the EU-Korea Trade Agreement.

This request for consultations (which was made under Article 13.14 of the EU-Korea Trade Agreement) is the first phase of formal dispute settlement provided for in Chapter 13 of the EU-Korea Trade Agreement. Those consultations will give the EU and Korea an opportunity to discuss the matter, create a channel of communications and find an amicable solution.READ MORE

0

Commisimpex Saga – 2018 Developments in France on State Immunity from Execution

Before 2018 comes to an end, I wanted to report on the developments on State immunity from execution (and more particularly on the Commisimpex saga) that took place in France this year.

The Commisimpex saga relates to a dispute between Société Commissions Import Export (Commisimpex) and the Republic of Congo (Congo) regarding unpaid debts due by Congo to Commisimpex.

After having obtained two ICC awards in its favour in 2000 and 2013, Commisimpex sought to enforce them against Congo in France.

In a notable case, it sought to attach banks accounts held by the Congolese embassy in Paris as well as by the Congolese delegation to UNESCO. In addition to the arbitral awards, Commisimpex relied on a waiver granted by Congo in the 1990s which entitled Commisimpex to attach diplomatic assets.READ MORE

0

English Commercial Court Rules on Enforcement of Section 1782 Order

It has been a couple of weeks since I wanted to report on a judgment by the English Commercial Court which ruled on the enforcement of 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 (Section 1782)[1]. As we discussed before, Section 1782 is a U.S. Federal Statute that allows a litigant before a “foreign or international tribunal” outside the United States to apply to the U.S. district courts to obtain discovery against a person or entity residing or found in the district where the application is sought.READ MORE

0

Belgian Supreme Court Rules on Validity of NATO’s Arbitration Clause in Light of Article 6 ECHR

On 27 September 2018, the Belgian Supreme Court handed down a judgment regarding the validity, in light of Article 6, paragraph 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR), of an arbitration clause contained in a service agreement concluded between the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and one of its gardeners (Mr. P) in 2007.READ MORE

0

European Court of Human Rights Rules That, If So Requested, CAS Hearings Must Be Public

On 2 October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) held in the case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland that arbitration proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the CAS) violated the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) if those proceedings were not conducted publicly despite the express request of one of the parties.READ MORE

0