- http://www.pietroortolani.com
- International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration Law, International Arbitration, Conflict of Laws, Diritto Internazionale Privato E Pocessuale, Arbitrato, and 19 moreInternational Law, Comparative Law, Civil Procedure, Diritto Processuale Civile, Procedura Civile, Comparative Civil Procedure, Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Private International Law, International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Civil Procedural Law, European Procedural Law, International Commercial Law - arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution, International Investment Arbitration, Arbitration (International and Domestic), International Investment Law, Procedural Law, and Bitcoinedit
The article explores the phenomenon of stateless justice. It proceeds as follows. After an introduction, Section 2 clarifies the relevant meaning of the word ‘justice’. Section 3 describes the emergence of stateless justice, using Bitcoin... more
The article explores the phenomenon of stateless justice. It proceeds as follows. After an introduction, Section 2 clarifies the relevant meaning of the word ‘justice’. Section 3 describes the emergence of stateless justice, using Bitcoin as a case study. Section 4 clarifies that the notion of stateless justice does not encompass international arbitration. Sections 5, 6 and 7 address the three challenges posed by stateless justice. Finally, Section 8 of the article proposes a new interpretative model for a better understanding of justice, beyond the theoretical framework of state-centrism.
Research Interests: International Law, Transnationalism, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Private International Law, and 18 moreCritical Legal Theory, Legal Theory, Arbitration Law, Legal Pluralism, Internet Law, International Commercial Arbitration, Comparative Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure, The Internet, Procedural Law, International Legal Theory, Diritto Processuale Civile, Procedura Civile, Bitcoin, Diritto Processuale Civile Comparato, Civil Procedural Law, Transnational litigation, and Arbitration (International and Domestic)
EU Parliament Study
Research Interests: European Law, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Arbitration Law, Foreign Direct Investment, and 8 moreInternational Commercial Arbitration, European Union Law, EU Law, International Investment Law, International Investment Arbitration, Foreign Direct Investment ( FDI ), International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, and Common Commercial Policy
EU Parliament Study
Research Interests: European Law, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Arbitration Law, Foreign Direct Investment, and 10 moreInternational Commercial Arbitration, European and International Law, European Union Law, EU Law, International Investment Law, International Investment Arbitration, International Commercial Law - arbitration, International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Common Commercial Policy, and International Trade and Investments Laws
(2015) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies The enforcement of outcomes in online dispute resolution (ODR) is a delicate problem. Since disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions are typically low in value, the traditional channels of... more
(2015) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
The enforcement of outcomes in online dispute resolution (ODR) is a delicate problem. Since disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions are typically low in value, the traditional channels of coercive enforcement are often not a viable option. The article argues that the Bitcoin system can be used as a source of inspiration to devise new models of self-enforcement. The article describes the legal framework of ODR and argues that the goal of self-enforcement can be attained through the use of technology. It then describes the relevant features of the Bitcoin system, underlining its potential as a new forum for the expression of private autonomy. It then investigates the features of Bitcoin adjudication, before arguing that Bitcoin must be regarded as an original and self-contained system of dispute resolution, whose characteristics can be used to theorise new models of self-enforcement. Next, it compares four alternative models of self-enforcement, two of which take Bitcoin adjudication as an example. Finally, it puts forth recommendations for all actors involved in the implementation of self-enforcing ODR mechanisms and argues that different models should be left free to compete.
Article available at http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/12/07/ojls.gqv036
The enforcement of outcomes in online dispute resolution (ODR) is a delicate problem. Since disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions are typically low in value, the traditional channels of coercive enforcement are often not a viable option. The article argues that the Bitcoin system can be used as a source of inspiration to devise new models of self-enforcement. The article describes the legal framework of ODR and argues that the goal of self-enforcement can be attained through the use of technology. It then describes the relevant features of the Bitcoin system, underlining its potential as a new forum for the expression of private autonomy. It then investigates the features of Bitcoin adjudication, before arguing that Bitcoin must be regarded as an original and self-contained system of dispute resolution, whose characteristics can be used to theorise new models of self-enforcement. Next, it compares four alternative models of self-enforcement, two of which take Bitcoin adjudication as an example. Finally, it puts forth recommendations for all actors involved in the implementation of self-enforcing ODR mechanisms and argues that different models should be left free to compete.
Article available at http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/12/07/ojls.gqv036
Research Interests: Internet Studies, Dispute Resolution, Transnationalism, International Arbitration, Arbitration, and 24 moreArbitration Law, International Commercial Arbitration, Online social networks, Comparative Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure, Payment Systems, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Online Dispute Resolution, The Internet, Comparative Legal Studies; Access to Justice; ADR; Comparative Family Law; Children's Rights; LGBTI rights, International Commercial Law - arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), ODR, PayPal, Lex Mercatoria, Bitcoins, Bitcoin, Civil Procedural Law, Credit Cards, eBay Inc. Strategic Management, E-Commerce, Cryptocurrency, Arbitration (International and Domestic), and Blockchains
The article focuses on the relationship between EU (European Union) state aid law and compliance with intra-EU investment arbitration awards. The first section investigates the problem of compliance with intra-EU awards in general and... more
The article focuses on the relationship between EU (European Union) state aid law and compliance with intra-EU investment arbitration awards. The first section investigates the problem of compliance with intra-EU awards in general and argues that the doctrine of imputability allows to rule out the existence of illegal state aid. The second section addresses the case of an arbitral award mandating the re-installment of illegal state aid: only under such specific circumstances, compliance with the award constitutes a violation of Article 107 TFEU. The consequences on the regime of circulation of awards are scrutinized: as for non-ICSID awards, the article advocates a restrictive interpretation of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. As for ICSID awards, it is argued that the Commission should refrain from requiring Member States to violate Article 54 of the Washington Convention, in light of the analogies between the case at hand and GATT 1947.
Research Interests:
As a result of the 2010 sovereign debt crisis and the subsequent restructuring operations, bondholders have pursued different dispute resolution strategies. Litigation before US courts has proved to be a viable option, as demonstrated by... more
As a result of the 2010 sovereign debt crisis and the subsequent restructuring operations, bondholders have pursued different dispute resolution strategies. Litigation before US courts has proved to be a viable option, as demonstrated by Argentine cases. State court litigation, however, is not the only available forum: in some cases, bondholders have commenced arbitration proceedings against the issuing State.
Arbitral case-law so far seemed to be consistent in concluding that the holders of sovereign bonds issued by the host State qualify as investors and thus have standing to bring investment treaty-based claims. The recent Poštová award, however, casts doubts as to whether holders of sovereign bonds qualify as investors for the purposes of international investment law.
This article illustrates the main problems revolving around the qualification of sovereign bond as investments for the purposes of international investment law. The article summarises the relevant legal framework and the solutions adopted by arbitral case-law so far. Subsequently, the contents of the Poštová decision are addressed in detail and the consequences of this decision are scrutinised.
Arbitral case-law so far seemed to be consistent in concluding that the holders of sovereign bonds issued by the host State qualify as investors and thus have standing to bring investment treaty-based claims. The recent Poštová award, however, casts doubts as to whether holders of sovereign bonds qualify as investors for the purposes of international investment law.
This article illustrates the main problems revolving around the qualification of sovereign bond as investments for the purposes of international investment law. The article summarises the relevant legal framework and the solutions adopted by arbitral case-law so far. Subsequently, the contents of the Poštová decision are addressed in detail and the consequences of this decision are scrutinised.
Research Interests: International Law, Sovereignty, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Arbitration Law, and 13 moreInternational Commercial Arbitration, International Investment Law, Sovereign Debt, International Investment Arbitration, International Commercial Law - arbitration, International Investmet Law, Bilateral Investment Treaties, International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Sovereign Debt restructuring, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, International Trade and Investments Laws, Arbitration (International and Domestic), and Isds
When the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament commissioned the authors of this article, along with other members of the Brunel Centre for the Study of Arbitration and Cross-Border Investment, to undertake a study of the... more
When the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament commissioned the authors of this article, along with other members of the Brunel Centre for the Study of Arbitration and Cross-Border Investment, to undertake a study of the “Legal Instruments and Practice of Arbitration across the EU”, it was decided that a central platform of that Study should be large-scale empirical research dedicated to identifying the realities of arbitral practice in each of the States in the European Union plus Switzerland.
This empirical research took the form of a Survey of arbitration practitioners across the European Union and Switzerland, consisting of 95 questions, and addressing such diverse topics as the backgrounds of arbitration practitioners, the procedures used in the arbitrations in which respondents had been involved, the considerations important for recommending arbitration and for selecting an arbitrator, and environmental questions such as the attitude of judges towards arbitration and the desirability of action by the European Union to harmonize arbitration law across the European Union.
The present article reports on and discusses the results of this Survey with respect to six States collectively described here as constituting “Southern Europe”: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain. While these States share an obvious geographic proximity, it is important to emphasize that the decision to collect them into a single article was made not just on this geographic basis, but also due to certain cultural and legal elements shared by these States that might be thought to impact on local arbitral practice.
The goal of this article is not merely to report the results of the Survey, but is instead to use the results of the Survey, interpreted in the light of the additional information developed in the course of the Study, to generate a picture of arbitration in each of these States. In this way the article seeks to deviate from the norm of concentration upon elite international arbitration practice, in order to provide important new information on the realities of and variations that exist in the practice of arbitration across Southern Europe. Recognizing and appreciating this reality of diversity provides an important foundation for enriching the academic study of arbitration beyond this single article and these six States, moving such study away from an exclusive focus on elite arbitral practice, towards an appreciation of the significant variations that do indeed often characterize the reality of arbitration around the world.
This empirical research took the form of a Survey of arbitration practitioners across the European Union and Switzerland, consisting of 95 questions, and addressing such diverse topics as the backgrounds of arbitration practitioners, the procedures used in the arbitrations in which respondents had been involved, the considerations important for recommending arbitration and for selecting an arbitrator, and environmental questions such as the attitude of judges towards arbitration and the desirability of action by the European Union to harmonize arbitration law across the European Union.
The present article reports on and discusses the results of this Survey with respect to six States collectively described here as constituting “Southern Europe”: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain. While these States share an obvious geographic proximity, it is important to emphasize that the decision to collect them into a single article was made not just on this geographic basis, but also due to certain cultural and legal elements shared by these States that might be thought to impact on local arbitral practice.
The goal of this article is not merely to report the results of the Survey, but is instead to use the results of the Survey, interpreted in the light of the additional information developed in the course of the Study, to generate a picture of arbitration in each of these States. In this way the article seeks to deviate from the norm of concentration upon elite international arbitration practice, in order to provide important new information on the realities of and variations that exist in the practice of arbitration across Southern Europe. Recognizing and appreciating this reality of diversity provides an important foundation for enriching the academic study of arbitration beyond this single article and these six States, moving such study away from an exclusive focus on elite arbitral practice, towards an appreciation of the significant variations that do indeed often characterize the reality of arbitration around the world.
Research Interests: Comparative Law, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Arbitration Law, International Commercial Arbitration, and 16 moreCyprus, Comparative Civil Procedure, Greek Law, Civil Procedure, Italian Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Comparative Legal Studies; Access to Justice; ADR; Comparative Family Law; Children's Rights; LGBTI rights, Procedural Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Procedura Civile, Malta, Arbitraje Internacional, Spanish Law, Portuguese Law, Civil Procedural Law, and Arbitraje
The article investigates whether, under the Recast Brussels I Regulation, anti-suit injunctions should still be regarded as incompatible with EU law. The paper proceeds in three parts: firstly, it analyses the problem of the compatibility... more
The article investigates whether, under the Recast Brussels I Regulation, anti-suit injunctions should still be regarded as incompatible with EU law. The paper proceeds in three parts: firstly, it analyses the problem of the compatibility of anti-suit injunction with the Recast Regulation in general. It is argued that anti-suit injunction should still be regarded as incompatible with EU law since they hinder the unification of the rules of conflict of jurisdiction, thus undermining the effectiveness of the Brussels I system. Secondly, the article addresses the specific case where the anti-suit injunction has been issued by arbitrators in the form of an arbitral award. The article contends that the same problems of compatibility with Brussels I arise, irrespective of whether the injunction has been issued by a State court or by an arbitral tribunal. Thirdly, the relevance of the principle of mutual trust is scrutinized: in this context, it is argued that Member State courts can deny recognition and enforcement of an anti-suit injunction issued in the form of an arbitral award on grounds of public policy.
Research Interests: International Arbitration, Arbitration, Private International Law, Arbitration Law, International Commercial Arbitration, and 8 moreConflicts of Law, European Procedural Law, Comparative Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws, International Commercial Law - arbitration, Civil Procedural Law, and European Civil Procedure
While issues of gender and ethnic diversity have become prominent in all areas of law, there is reason to believe that the insular nature of the arbitration community, combined with the importance of personal connections to receiving... more
While issues of gender and ethnic diversity have become prominent in all areas of law, there is reason to believe that the insular nature of the arbitration community, combined with the importance of personal connections to receiving career opportunities in arbitration will make diversity a particularly complex matter in arbitration as a field of professional practice. That is, while there is no evidence that arbitration practitioners are as a group any more likely to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or gender than other legal professionals, fields in which career progression is tightly linked to receiving the support of "gatekeepers" can present particular obstacles for non-Male and minority practitioners, who may be less likely to make strong social connections with those gatekeepers, and so be less likely to receive opportunities for career progression.
In 2014 a team at Brunel University, as part of a study being conducted for the European Parliament, undertook a large-scale survey of arbitration practitioners across the European Union and Switzerland. While this Survey was not primarily focused on questions of diversity, all respondents were asked to self-identify both their gender and their ethnicity, with selection of multiple ethnicities being permitted. Consequently, although the Survey aimed at offering a comprehensive picture of arbitration in all EU Member States and Switzerland, rather than focusing on the specific question of diversity, it generated information on both the levels of non-Male and ethnic minority involvement in arbitration, and, through cross-analysis of data, on career progression within arbitration of non-Male and ethnic minority arbitration practitioners. This article will provide a brief overview of these results, which do indeed indicate ongoing diversity-related problems within arbitration.
Note: This is an in-process draft of an article that will be finalised later in 2015. It has been made available in this form through Transnational Dispute Management in order to facilitate the access of arbitration practitioners to the data it reports, as part of this Special Edition. However, it remains an early, rough draft. Consequently, all analysis, commentary and drafting remains in-process, and will be further developed in the final draft of the article.
In 2014 a team at Brunel University, as part of a study being conducted for the European Parliament, undertook a large-scale survey of arbitration practitioners across the European Union and Switzerland. While this Survey was not primarily focused on questions of diversity, all respondents were asked to self-identify both their gender and their ethnicity, with selection of multiple ethnicities being permitted. Consequently, although the Survey aimed at offering a comprehensive picture of arbitration in all EU Member States and Switzerland, rather than focusing on the specific question of diversity, it generated information on both the levels of non-Male and ethnic minority involvement in arbitration, and, through cross-analysis of data, on career progression within arbitration of non-Male and ethnic minority arbitration practitioners. This article will provide a brief overview of these results, which do indeed indicate ongoing diversity-related problems within arbitration.
Note: This is an in-process draft of an article that will be finalised later in 2015. It has been made available in this form through Transnational Dispute Management in order to facilitate the access of arbitration practitioners to the data it reports, as part of this Special Edition. However, it remains an early, rough draft. Consequently, all analysis, commentary and drafting remains in-process, and will be further developed in the final draft of the article.
Research Interests: Legal Profession, International Law, Diversity, International Arbitration, Arbitration, and 9 morePrivate International Law, Race and Ethnicity, Arbitration Law, Gender, Gender Equality, International Commercial Arbitration, Gender Discourse, Racial and ethnic discrimination, and International Investment Arbitration
(2015) 4 YAR 34
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Ventiquattrore Avvocato, 2011, fasc. 12, 84
Ventiquattrore Avvocato, 2012, fasc. 10, 88
Ventiquattrore Avvocato, 2014, fasc. 4, 72
in CECCHELLA, Claudio (ed.), Diritto Processuale Civile – Il Processo Civile dopo Venti Anni di Riforme (1990-2010), Milano, Sole 24 Ore, 2010
in CECCHELLA, Claudio (ed.), Diritto Processuale Civile – Il Processo Civile dopo Venti Anni di Riforme (1990-2010), Milano, Sole 24 Ore, 2010
in CECCHELLA, Claudio (ed.), Diritto Processuale Civile – Il Processo Civile dopo Venti Anni di Riforme (1990-2010), 2010
in DE LUCA TAMAJO, Raffaele & MAZZOTTA, Oronzo (eds.), Commentario breve alle leggi sul lavoro, 5th edn., Padova, Cedam, 2013
in LUISO, Francesco Paolo & VACCARELLA, Romano (eds.), Le Impugnazioni Civili, Torino, Giappichelli, 2013
Research Interests: European Law, International Arbitration, Arbitration, Arbitration Law, Foreign Direct Investment, and 11 moreInternational Commercial Arbitration, European and International Law, European Union Law, EU Law, International Investment Law, International Investment Arbitration, International Commercial Law - arbitration, Foreign Direct Investment ( FDI ), International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Common Commercial Policy, and International Trade and Investments Laws
European Civil Procedure - Jean Monnet Module
Date: 25-26 February 2016 Venue: Erasmus University Rotterdam, campus Woudestein, Tokyo room (M1-17) Fee: 50 EUR, 100 EUR if you wish to attend the conference dinner. (to register go to... more
Date: 25-26 February 2016
Venue: Erasmus University Rotterdam, campus Woudestein, Tokyo room (M1-17)
Fee: 50 EUR, 100 EUR if you wish to attend the conference dinner. (to register go to http://www.esl.eur.nl/congressen/gepland/from_common_rules_to_best_practices_in_european_civil_procedure/#Registration)
On 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference on the theme “From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure” will be held at Erasmus University Rotterdam. The conference is organised jointly by Prof. Xandra Kramer at Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Max Planck Institute for European, International and Regulatory Procedural Law in Luxembourg. The conference aims at bringing together experts in the field of civil procedure from the European Union and beyond, including academics, practitioners, legislators, and policy makers. It seeks to facilitate in-depth discussion and sharing of knowledge, practical experiences, and solutions, with the aim of reinforcing mutual trust and contributing to the further development of European civil procedure.
In the past fifteen years a considerable harmonisation of civil procedure has been achieved in the EU with the aim of furthering judicial cooperation. In recent years, the focus has shifted from minimum standards and harmonised rules to the actual implementation, application, and operationalisation of the rule. Important constituents in this discourse are the interaction between European civil procedure and national law, e-Justice judicial, ADR, and best practices in civil procedure.
The conference will focus on how to move beyond common rules and towards best practices that give body to mutual trust and judicial cooperation, which can in turn feed the further development of the European civil procedure framework from the bottom up. The conference will consist of four panels:
Panel 1: The need for common standards of EU civil procedure and how to identify them: do we need harmonisation to achieve harmonious cooperation?
Panel 2: Procedural innovation and e-justice: how can innovative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to cooperation in the field of civil justice?
Panel 3: How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective access and enforcement in cross-border cases?
Panel 4: How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?
Many distinguished specialists (academics, practitioners and policy makers) have confirmed their participation. All those interested in the area of civil procedure, EU law and judicial cooperation are cordially invited to attend the conference. A final programme will soon be posted on this website.
Programme
25 February 2016
9:30 : Registration and coffee/tea
10:00 - 10.45 : Opening conference and Introductory speech
Xandra Kramer, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam
Burkhard Hess, director Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg
10.45 - 12.00 : Common rules and best practices from the perspective of the EC and the Parliament
Norel Rosner, Legislative Officer, Unit Civil Justice Policy, DG Justice, European Commission
Robert Bray, Head of Unit, Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament
12:00 - 13:15 : Lunch
13:30 - 15:30 : Panel 1
The need for common standards of EU civil procedure and how to identify them: do we need harmonisation to achieve harmonious cooperation?
Chair: Neil Andrews, Cambridge University, England/Alan Uzelac, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Remo Caponi , University of Florence, Italy (speaker)
Remco van Rhee, University of Maastricht, Netherlands (discussant)
Marta Requejo, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg (speaker)
Monique Hazelhorst, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands (discussant)
Chris Whytock, University of California, Irvine, USA (speaker, US perspective)
Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg, Germany (discussant)
15:30 - 16:00 : Coffee Break
16:00 - 18:00 : Panel 2
Procedural innovation and E-justice: how can innovative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to cooperation in the field of civil justice?
Chair: Eva Lein, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, England
Marco Velicogna and Giampiero Lupo, IRSIG-CNR, Bologna, Italy
John Sorabji, Principal Legal Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, University College London, England
Ernest Steigenga, Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, Netherlands
Jin Ho Verdonschot, Hiil, The Hague, Netherlands
Eva Storskrubb, University of Uppsala, Sweden
19:15 : Conference dinner
26 February 2016
9:30 : Coffee and tea
10:00 - 12:00 : Panel 3
How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective enforcement in cross-border cases?
Chair: Burkhard Hess
Chris Hodges, Oxford University, England (speaker)
Stefaan Voet, Leuven University, Belgium (discussant)
Pablo Cortes, University of Leicester, England (speaker)
Fernando Gascon Inchausti, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain (discussant)
Jolanda Girzl, director ECC Sweden (speaker)
Lorenz Ködderitzsch, Johnson & Johnson, Brussels (discussant)
12:00 - 13:15 : Lunch
13:15 - 15.15 : Panel 4
How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?
Introductory speech and moderator: Gilles Cuniberti, University of Luxembourg
Discussion panel
Alexander Layton, QC, London, England
Larisa Alwin, Judge District Court The Hague, Netherlands
Ilse Couwenberg, Judge Court of Appeal Antwerp, member EJN, Belgium,
Karim Mahari, French Chamber of Commerce
Arturo Picciotto, Judge Court of Trieste, Italy
Alina Ontanu, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
15:15 - 15.30 : Closing of conference
Drinks at the Pavilion
Venue: Erasmus University Rotterdam, campus Woudestein, Tokyo room (M1-17)
Fee: 50 EUR, 100 EUR if you wish to attend the conference dinner. (to register go to http://www.esl.eur.nl/congressen/gepland/from_common_rules_to_best_practices_in_european_civil_procedure/#Registration)
On 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference on the theme “From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure” will be held at Erasmus University Rotterdam. The conference is organised jointly by Prof. Xandra Kramer at Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Max Planck Institute for European, International and Regulatory Procedural Law in Luxembourg. The conference aims at bringing together experts in the field of civil procedure from the European Union and beyond, including academics, practitioners, legislators, and policy makers. It seeks to facilitate in-depth discussion and sharing of knowledge, practical experiences, and solutions, with the aim of reinforcing mutual trust and contributing to the further development of European civil procedure.
In the past fifteen years a considerable harmonisation of civil procedure has been achieved in the EU with the aim of furthering judicial cooperation. In recent years, the focus has shifted from minimum standards and harmonised rules to the actual implementation, application, and operationalisation of the rule. Important constituents in this discourse are the interaction between European civil procedure and national law, e-Justice judicial, ADR, and best practices in civil procedure.
The conference will focus on how to move beyond common rules and towards best practices that give body to mutual trust and judicial cooperation, which can in turn feed the further development of the European civil procedure framework from the bottom up. The conference will consist of four panels:
Panel 1: The need for common standards of EU civil procedure and how to identify them: do we need harmonisation to achieve harmonious cooperation?
Panel 2: Procedural innovation and e-justice: how can innovative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to cooperation in the field of civil justice?
Panel 3: How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective access and enforcement in cross-border cases?
Panel 4: How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?
Many distinguished specialists (academics, practitioners and policy makers) have confirmed their participation. All those interested in the area of civil procedure, EU law and judicial cooperation are cordially invited to attend the conference. A final programme will soon be posted on this website.
Programme
25 February 2016
9:30 : Registration and coffee/tea
10:00 - 10.45 : Opening conference and Introductory speech
Xandra Kramer, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam
Burkhard Hess, director Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg
10.45 - 12.00 : Common rules and best practices from the perspective of the EC and the Parliament
Norel Rosner, Legislative Officer, Unit Civil Justice Policy, DG Justice, European Commission
Robert Bray, Head of Unit, Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament
12:00 - 13:15 : Lunch
13:30 - 15:30 : Panel 1
The need for common standards of EU civil procedure and how to identify them: do we need harmonisation to achieve harmonious cooperation?
Chair: Neil Andrews, Cambridge University, England/Alan Uzelac, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Remo Caponi , University of Florence, Italy (speaker)
Remco van Rhee, University of Maastricht, Netherlands (discussant)
Marta Requejo, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg (speaker)
Monique Hazelhorst, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands (discussant)
Chris Whytock, University of California, Irvine, USA (speaker, US perspective)
Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg, Germany (discussant)
15:30 - 16:00 : Coffee Break
16:00 - 18:00 : Panel 2
Procedural innovation and E-justice: how can innovative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to cooperation in the field of civil justice?
Chair: Eva Lein, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, England
Marco Velicogna and Giampiero Lupo, IRSIG-CNR, Bologna, Italy
John Sorabji, Principal Legal Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, University College London, England
Ernest Steigenga, Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, Netherlands
Jin Ho Verdonschot, Hiil, The Hague, Netherlands
Eva Storskrubb, University of Uppsala, Sweden
19:15 : Conference dinner
26 February 2016
9:30 : Coffee and tea
10:00 - 12:00 : Panel 3
How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective enforcement in cross-border cases?
Chair: Burkhard Hess
Chris Hodges, Oxford University, England (speaker)
Stefaan Voet, Leuven University, Belgium (discussant)
Pablo Cortes, University of Leicester, England (speaker)
Fernando Gascon Inchausti, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain (discussant)
Jolanda Girzl, director ECC Sweden (speaker)
Lorenz Ködderitzsch, Johnson & Johnson, Brussels (discussant)
12:00 - 13:15 : Lunch
13:15 - 15.15 : Panel 4
How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?
Introductory speech and moderator: Gilles Cuniberti, University of Luxembourg
Discussion panel
Alexander Layton, QC, London, England
Larisa Alwin, Judge District Court The Hague, Netherlands
Ilse Couwenberg, Judge Court of Appeal Antwerp, member EJN, Belgium,
Karim Mahari, French Chamber of Commerce
Arturo Picciotto, Judge Court of Trieste, Italy
Alina Ontanu, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
15:15 - 15.30 : Closing of conference
Drinks at the Pavilion
Research Interests: European Law, European Union Law, EU Law, Comparative Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure, and 11 moreCivil Procedure at 18th and 19th Century, Diritto Processuale Civile, Procedura Civile, Derecho Procesal Civil, Droit processuel, Diritto Processuale Civile Comparato, Italian civil procedure, Diritto E Procedura Civile, Diritto Processuale Civile Europeo, Droit Européen, and European Civil Procedure
Research Interests: International Arbitration, Arbitration, Private International Law, Arbitration Law, International Commercial Arbitration, and 13 moreConflicts of Law, Mediation, Comparative Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure at 18th and 19th Century, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict of Laws, International Investment Arbitration, Conflict Mediation Strategies, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Diritto Internazionale Privato E Pocessuale, International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, and Arbitration (International and Domestic)
One of the main purposes of private international law is the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil matters. In the European Union (EU), this goal is pursued by an articulate body of Regulations, forming part of what is usually... more
One of the main purposes of private international law is the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil matters. In the European Union (EU), this goal is pursued by an articulate body of Regulations, forming part of what is usually labelled as ‘European procedural law’ or ‘European civil procedure’. In criminal law, by contrast, no such system exists: although Eurojust aims at resolving conflicts of jurisdiction by facilitating the identification of the jurisdiction that should prosecute cross-border crimes, no hard-law instrument regulates this matter in a binding fashion.
Having noted this legislative gap, in January 2013 the European Law Institute accepted a project proposal dealing with the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law. One of the tasks of the Working Group focusing on this project was a comparison between private international law and criminal matters, so as to assess whether and to what extent the solutions adopted in the former field could be successfully transposed to the latter. This Chapter presents some reflections of the topic, triggered by the Working Group’s meetings and discussions.
The Chapter proceeds in three parts. The first part preliminarily highlights some fundamental differences between civil and criminal justice, which must be taken into account. As the Chapter will show, the differences at hand constrain, to a certain extent, the feasibility of a cross-sectoral comparative exercise, but they by no means make it impossible. The second part looks at private international law in general and argues that some of its basic principles should be adopted in the field of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law too. Finally, the third part draws some specific lessons from European civil procedure in particular.
Having noted this legislative gap, in January 2013 the European Law Institute accepted a project proposal dealing with the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law. One of the tasks of the Working Group focusing on this project was a comparison between private international law and criminal matters, so as to assess whether and to what extent the solutions adopted in the former field could be successfully transposed to the latter. This Chapter presents some reflections of the topic, triggered by the Working Group’s meetings and discussions.
The Chapter proceeds in three parts. The first part preliminarily highlights some fundamental differences between civil and criminal justice, which must be taken into account. As the Chapter will show, the differences at hand constrain, to a certain extent, the feasibility of a cross-sectoral comparative exercise, but they by no means make it impossible. The second part looks at private international law in general and argues that some of its basic principles should be adopted in the field of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law too. Finally, the third part draws some specific lessons from European civil procedure in particular.