The Brussels Ibis Regulation is to become by far the most prominent cornerstone of the European law of international civil procedure. Its imminence can be easily ascertained by every practitioner even remotely concerned with cross-border work in Europe. However arcane private international law in general might appear to practitioners - the Brussels I Regulation was a well-known and renowned instrument and the Brussels Ibis Regulation will become so as its proper heir. The so called Brussels system has proven its immeasurable and incomparable value for over forty years. The European Court of Justice and the national courts of the Member States have produced an abundance and a treasure of judgments interpreting the Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Regulation. The effort of completing a truly pan-European commentary mirrors the pan-European nature of its fascinating object. This commentary - which of course covers the jurisprudence of the ECJ in a comprehensive manner - assembles a team of very prominent and renowned authors from total Europe. The authors' geographical provenience stretches from Denmark in the North to Italy in the South and from Portugal and the United Kingdom in the West to Austria in the East. Now the time is ripe to start such an enterprise. This commentary is the first full scale article-by-article commentary in English to address the Brussels Ibis Regulation. It is truly European in nature and style. It provides thorough and succinct in-depth analysis of every single Article and offers most valuable guidance for lawyers, judges and academics throughout Europe. It is an indispensable working tool for all practitioners involved in this field of law.
Most bilateral investment treaties deal with the risks created by such investment by ... from the other “[s]ubject to its right to exercise 73 Vandevelde, ...
6.96 Plummer v IRC (1988)... 6.39, 6.58 Po, The (1991)... 2.34 Pocket Kings Ltd v Safenames Ltd (2010). . . 3.42 Polly Peck International plc (in administration) (No4), Re (1998)... 2.260 Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (1992).
Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law
9 IPRax 2004 , 339. Vgl . hierzu Juliana Mörsdorf - Schulte , Europäische Impulse für Namen und Status des Mehrstaaters , IPRax 2004 , 315 ff . zen , behandelt zu werden “ 10 . Dieses Ergebnis 159.
(Czech Republic), Mr. David Goldberg, Partner at White & Case LLP (United Kingdom), Dr. Beata Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz, President of Lewiatan Court of Arbitration and Managing Partner at GESSEL Law Firm (Poland), Dr. Crenguta Leaua ...
... to the cause of action may bring the action within such times as are before limited after the return of the absent person to the province.106 It would seem that the statute is not 101 Huber v . Steiner , supra , note 99 ; Harris v .
This research review discusses an important selection of research articles and papers on the cross-border enforcement of intellectual property rights.
To help readers come to grips with the necessity of approaching the subject from a transnational perspective, this book surveys the best available U.S. and foreign cases, statutes, and commentaries covering global Internet Law developments.
John E. Montgomery , Professor of Law , University of South Carolina . PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY , Third Edition ( 1984 ) , with 1984 Selected National Standards Supplement Thomas D. Morgan , Dean of the Law School , Emory University ...
The Conflict of Laws