Home - International Litigation Blog
0
blog,paged,paged-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
 

international litigation blog

European Parliament Adopts Collective Redress Directive For Consumers

DownloadPrint

On 24 November 2020, the European Parliament (the EP) adopted a Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (the Collective Redress Directive or CRD).

The proposed CRD was initially published by the European Commission (the Commission) in April 2018. The proposal was then examined by the EP and by the Council of the European Union (the Council), which entered into interinstitutional negotiations in January 2020. The EP and the Council reached a political agreement on the final text of the Directive on 22 June 2020. On 4 November 2020, the Council adopted its position at first reading, which has now been formally approved by the EP and has since also been published in the Official Journal (Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, O.J. (2020) L 409/1).

The CRD establishes an EU-wide “class action” or “representative action”. It covers infringements of EU law which are harmful to the collective interests of natural persons in their capacity as consumers, regardless of whether those consumers are referred to in the relevant instruments as “consumers”, “travellers”, “users”, “customers”, “retail investors”, “data subjects” or otherwise. Accordingly, representative actions may be brought not only for infringements of general EU consumer law, but also of EU rules pertaining to the protection of personal data, geo-blocking, financial services, energy and telecommunications.READ MORE

0

CJEU’s Advocate General Hints at Invalidity of Intra-EU ISDS Disputes Based on Energy Charter Treaty

DownloadPrint

I wanted to publish a short note on an Opinion handed down by Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in which he provides his own personal answer to one of the most highly debatable questions among EU and arbitration practitioners. Namely, the impact of the Achmea judgment on intra-EU Investor-State disputes (ISDS) conducted pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).READ MORE

0

U.K Supreme Court Clarifies Rules To Determine Arbitration Agreements’ Governing Law

DownloadPrint

On 9 October 2020, the U.K. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) handed down a judgment in which it ruled on the law governing an arbitration agreement.

Building on previous decisions handed down by English courts (in particular the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA), the judgment of the Supreme Court provides greater clarity in respect of the test to be applied to determine the governing law of an arbitration agreement, especially when the law applicable to the underlying contract containing that arbitration agreement differs from the law of the seat of arbitration.READ MORE

0

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Whether Domestic Doctrines Bind Non-Signatories to Int’l Arbitration Agreement Under New York Convention

DownloadPrint

By Erico Bomfim de Carvalho – Partner at Advocacia Velloso in Brasília (Brazil).

On 1 June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) issued its unanimous decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC.

The issue of the case can be summarized as follows: whether the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), conflicts with domestic doctrines (such as equitable estoppel) that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by non-signatories.

The Supreme Court answered in the negative: the New York Convention does not conflict with such domestic doctrines. Therefore, under the New York Convention, individuals or entities that have not signed an arbitration agreement (i.e., non-signatories) are allowed to compel arbitration under the domestic doctrine of equitable estoppel.

The decision is important in many aspects. Most notably, the decision reaffirms the New York Convention’s pro-arbitration policy and shines light on the symbiotic interaction between Chapters 1 and 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA).READ MORE

0

Singapore Convention on Mediation Enters Into Force

DownloadPrint

On 12 September 2020, the Singapore Convention on Mediation (also known as the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation – the Convention) entered into force.

Pursuant to its Article 14, the Convention entered into force six months after the third signatory State (i.e., Qatar) completed its ratification process (i.e., on 12 March 2020). Thus far, the Convention has been signed by 53 signatories and has been ratified by 6 countries (Singapore, Fiji, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Ecuador).READ MORE

0

CJEU Rules on Immunity and Application of Brussels Ibis Regulation to International Organisations

DownloadPrint

On 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment in a case which raised very interesting issues relating to the interaction and application of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Ibis Regulation) in summary proceedings involving international organisations, in particular when such international organisations invoke their immunity. The judgment follows the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe handed down earlier this year.READ MORE

0