Home - International Litigation Blog
0
blog,paged,paged-5,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

July 6, 2020 In Uncategorized By Quentin Decleve

European Parliament and Council Reach Political Agreement on EU Collective Representative Actions

DownloadPrint

On 22 June 2020, the European Parliament (the EP) announced that it reached a political agreement with the Council of the European Union (the Council) on the final text of the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (the Collective Representative Actions Directive) (See here, here and here). This agreement is the result of interinstitutional negotiations that started on 9 January 2020.

The Collective Representative Actions Directive will introduce harmonised rules that aim to facilitate redress for consumers in case of widespread infringements of their rights in more than one EU Member State, while at the same time provide safeguards against abusive recourses. Collective representative actions will enable consumers to seek redress in a wide range of areas such as general consumer law, data protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy, telecommunications, environment and health or train passenger rights.READ MORE

0
June 23, 2020 In Arbitrability, Arbitration agreement By Quentin Decleve

Belgian Court Confirms Arbitrability of Exclusive Distribution Agreements Governed by Foreign Law

DownloadPrint

On 19 May 2020, the Leuven (Belgium) Enterprise Court (the Leuven Court) ruled that, following the reform of the Belgian arbitration rules in 2013, arbitration clauses in exclusive distribution agreements were valid, even if these agreements were governed by foreign law (judgment of 19 May 2020 in case A/20/00034, Akron NV v. Amphenol (Maryland) Inc.).

The judgment was given in the context of a dispute between a U.S. supplier and its former Belgian distributor following the supplier’s decision to unilaterally terminate the distributor’s distribution agreement dated 1 April 2018 for serious misconduct. While the distribution agreement contained an arbitration clause pursuant to which any dispute had to be settled by arbitration proceedings in the USA in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the distributor initiated proceedings before the Leuven Court and claimed damages based on Title 3 of Book X of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), i.e., the Belgian mandatory rules on the unilateral termination of exclusive or quasi-exclusive distribution agreements of indefinite duration.READ MORE

0
June 10, 2020 In State immunity By Quentin Decleve

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Retroactivity of New FSIA Cause of Action

DownloadPrint

On 18 May 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) handed down its decision in Opati v. Republic of Sudan. It ruled that a new cause of action added in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the FSIA), which allowed plaintiffs to seek punitive damages from foreign governments who sponsor terrorist activities, could be applied retroactively.

The case at hand relates to the 1998 Al Qaeda bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania.

Following these terrorist attacks, several victims sued the Sudanese government in U.S. courts claiming damages, as Sudan had allegedly supported and protected Al Qaeda.

The plaintiffs relied on an exception to the FSIA’s general rule that foreign governments enjoy immunity and cannot, in principle, be brought before U.S. courts. According to that exception, the immunity enjoyed by foreign governments does not apply to acts of terrorism and to States that sponsored such terrorist activities. However, at the time, this exception did not allow plaintiffs to seek punitive damages.READ MORE

0
May 26, 2020 In Uncategorized By External Contributor

WTO and Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement: Searching for Right Medicine

DownloadPrint

By Thibaud Bodson – PhD candidate at the Human Rights Under Pressure program – Freie Universität Berlin & Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors only.

A group of World Trade Organisation’s members recently endorsed the Multi-party interim appeal arbitration arrangement. This arrangement aims to keep a two-tier adjudication system operating as long as the WTO’s Appellate Body is stalled. As such, it offers a short term fix to the jurisdictional arm whilst the membership tries to move ahead in its search for the right medicine. This blogpost discusses some of the arrangement’s main features.READ MORE

0
May 18, 2020 In Arbitration agreement, Jurisdictional issues By Quentin Decleve

CJEU Lacks Jurisdiction to Rule on Slovenia/Croatia Border Arbitration Dispute

DownloadPrint

On 31 January 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down its judgment in Slovenia v. Croatia (C-457/18), declaring that the CJEU lacked jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of an arbitral award settling the border dispute between the two countries.READ MORE

0
April 30, 2020 In Jurisdictional issues, State immunity By Quentin Decleve

CJEU’s Advocate General Issues Opinion on State Immunity and Summary Proceedings Involving International Organisations

DownloadPrint

On 2 April 2020, the Advocate General[1] to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe (AG Saugmandsgaard Øe), handed down an Opinion 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. The case also raised interesting issues relating to the interplay between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the immunity enjoyed by such international organisations.READ MORE

0
March 11, 2020 In Uncategorized By Quentin Decleve

ECtHR Rules on Impartiality of Turkish Arbitration Proceedings for Settling Football Disputes

DownloadPrint

On 28 January 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) ruled that Turkish arbitration rules applicable to the settlement of football disputes were incompatible with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the ECHR).

The case originated in five applications against Turkey lodged by Ali Rıza, (a dual British and Turkish citizen), and four Turkish nationals: one football referee (downgraded from top-level assistant referee to “provincial referee”) and three amateur football players (found guilty of match-fixing charges).

All five applicants complained that the proceedings before the legal committees of the Turkish Football Federation (the TFF) had not satisfied the requirements of independence and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 ECHR.READ MORE

0