Text of the 2019 Judgments Convention of the Hague Conference is now available online

by THOMAS JOHN on JULY 3, 2019

Posted on behalf of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

The full text of the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is now available online. The HCCH released the text of the Convention on its website.

You can it find it here.

Additional information, including the final version of the Explanatory Report to the Convention will be available soon.

Notícia disponível em: <http://conflictoflaws.net/2019/text-of-the-2019-judgments-convention-of-the-hague-conference-is-now-available-online/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+conflictoflaws%2FRSS+%28Conflict+of+Laws+.net%29>. Acesso em 04 jul. 2019.

HCCH Revised Preliminary Explanatory Report on the Judgments Project is available now

by MAYELA CELIS on MAY 5, 2018

A revised Preliminary Explanatory Report on the Judgments Project in both English and French is now available via the Hague Conference website. This Report has been drawn up (and revised) by Professors Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain and Geneviève Saumier, McGill University, Canada.

A track-changes version of the Preliminary Explanatory Report has also been made available. See in particular the amendments contained in paragraphs 201-224 in relation to intellectual property rights, which is a subject that has been somewhat controversial. Other important additions are the declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to governments (see paragraphs 344-352) and the declarations with respect to common courts (such as regional courts, see paragraphs 353-360).

Disponível em: <http://conflictoflaws.net>. Acesso em: 05 maio 2018.

Lessons for the USA from the Hague Principles

Uniform Law Review 2017, 1-13

NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-30

14 Pages Posted: 15 Aug 2017 

Linda Silberman

New York University School of Law

Date Written: August 2017

Abstract

In this article, Professor Silberman offers a review of US choice of law approaches that address party autonomy in international commercial contracts. She explains that choice of law rules in the United States are the province of state, not federal law, and to that end gives examples from two states that have codified choice of law and identifies several states that have an absolute autonomy rule for situations when the parties choose forum law. However, the focus is on the provision in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws dealing with party autonomy in contracts because most states in the United States have adopted that approach. Professor Silberman criticizes the existing Restatement rule for its failure to distinguish between interstate and international contracts and observes that several US. Supreme Court decisions would seem to support broader autonomy for parties to an international contract to choose the applicable law to govern the contract. 

Professor Silberman also explains that there is an ongoing American Law Institute project to revise the Restatement (Second) – the Restatement (Third) – and she suggests that the recent Hague Principles offer several features that might be included in a revision of the Restatement provision on party autonomy in contracts. In particular, she points to elimination of the requirement that there be a geographical connection to the applicable law chosen and distinguishing between commercial and other types of contracts.

Professor Silberman then compares the Hague Principles and the present Restatement provisions in their treatment of other limitations on the parties’ ability to choose the applicable law in an international commercial contract. She criticizes several of the specific options offered in the Hague Principles and concludes that the present Restatement approach in this area is more desirable for courts in the United States.

Referência:
Silberman, Linda. Lessons for the USA from the Hague Principles (August 2017). Uniform Law Review 2017, 1-13; NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-30. Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3017295>. Acesso em: 20 set. 2017.

The fifth meeting of the Working Group charged with preparing the Hague Judgments Convention

Copiado de: <http://conflictoflaws.net/>. Acesso em: 23 nov. 2015.

The report of the fifth meeting of the Working Group established by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to prepare proposals in connection with “a future instrument relating to recognition and enforcement of judgments, including jurisdictional filters” is now available through the Conference’s website (see here for an account of the previous meeting).

The Working Group proceeded on the basis that the Convention should: (a) be a complementary convention to the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 30 June 2005, currently in force for the EU and Mexico; (b) provide for recognition and enforcement of judgments from other contracting States that meet the requirements set out in a list of bases for recognition and enforcement; (c) set out the only grounds on which recognition and enforcement of such judgments may be refused; and (d) not prevent recognition and enforcement of judgments in a contracting State under national law or under other treaties, subject to one provision relating to exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement (covering matters in the fields of intellectual property rights and immovable property).

The proposed draft text of the Convention prepared by the Working Group is annexed to the report.

The Working Group recommended to the Council on General Affairs and Policy (which is expected to meet in March 2016) that the proposed draft text be submitted for consideration to a Special Commission “to be held, if possible, in June 2016″.

It also recommended that matters relating to direct jurisdiction (including exorbitant grounds and lis pendens) be considered by the Experts’ Group in charge of the Judgments Project “with a view to preparing an additional instrument”. In the Working Group’s view, the Experts’ Group “should meet soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention”.