skip to Main Content

Hague Choice Of Court Agreement Convention

(a) the State Party that made the declaration; (b) in other contracting states where an exclusive forum agreement refers to the courts or one or more specific courts of the state that made the declaration. 1. In this agreement, “judgment” refers to any decision on a court`s reasoned benefits, regardless of the reference it may have, including an order or order, and a finding of costs or expenses by the court (including a court official), provided the decision refers to a decision on the merits that can be recognized or enforced under this convention. A provisional protection measure is not a judgment. 2. For the purposes of this agreement, a corporation or person other than a natural person is considered to be established in the State- (a) the agreement was, under the law of the State of the elected jurisdiction, null and void, unless the chosen jurisdiction established the validity of the agreement; (b) a party was unable to conclude the agreement in accordance with the required state law; (c) the document that opened the procedure or an equivalent document, including the essential elements of the claim, the UK`s accession at the end of the transitional period would allow the Hague Convention to apply to disputes involving an EU Nexus, unless another agreement is reached between the EU and the United Kingdom, such. B as a UK agreement on membership of the Lugano Convention8 (which is also considered the Hague Convention). , because they are not exclusive jurisdictional agreements) or a bespoke agreement between the UK and the EU on the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments. The convention was most relevant to the United Kingdom where there is an exclusive choice of judicial agreement with a link with Mexico, Montenegro or Singapore. The effect of the Convention is limited when there is a link with an EU Member State, since the Brussels reform regulation4 has been a priority. (a) any reference to the law or procedure of a state must be interpreted as referring, if necessary, to the law or procedure in force in the territorial unit concerned; (b) any reference to stay in a state must be interpreted as referring, if necessary, to the stay in the territorial unit concerned; (c) any reference to the jurisdiction or jurisdiction of a state must be interpreted as referring, if necessary, to the courts of the territorial unit concerned; (d) Any reference to a link with a state should be interpreted as referring, if necessary, to a link to the territorial unit concerned.

Some observers argue that the trend towards arbitration in international business transactions could shift in favour of litigation, following the entry into force of a treaty last year, which facilitates the application of court decisions (or “forum selection clauses”) and foreign court decisions. The Hague Convention on the Choice of Judicial Agreements aims to establish a system of recognition of court decisions with the same degree of predictability and opposability as the arbitration awards under the New York Convention. 1. The court or courts of a contracting state designated in an exclusive forum agreement have jurisdiction to rule on a dispute to which the agreement applies, unless the agreement is sharp under that state`s law. 2. A court competent under paragraph 1 does not reject jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute should be decided in a court of another state. 3. The previous paragraphs do not affect the provisions – the convention includes the rules of jurisdiction relating to the determination of jurisdiction before a case; the obligations of a court when an appeal is brought in violation of an exclusive agreement of for the place in favour of another court; Recognition and enforcement of decisions made by other contracting states.

Back To Top