The Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements Signatories

2. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraph, a Contracting State having two or more territorial entities in which different legal systems apply shall not be required to apply this Convention to situations which concern only those separate territorial entities. 3. A court of a territorial unit of a Contracting State with two or more territorial entities in which different legal systems apply shall not be required to recognize or enforce a decision of another State Party, merely because the judgment has been recognized or enforced in another territorial unit of the same State Party under this Convention. 4. This Article shall not apply to a regional economic integration organisation. Norton Rose Fulbright`s 2015 survey surveyed more than 800 business consultants representing companies from 26 countries about disputes and concerns. In the spirit of seeking a “lowest common denominator”, this work eventually led to the adoption of the Hague Convention in 2005. Finally, on 10 October 2014, the Ministers of Justice of the EU Member States approved a decision to ratify the Hague Forum Convention. (a) the Convention is void under the law of the State of the chosen jurisdiction; (b) a party has not been able to conclude the agreement under the law of the State of the court seised; (c) the implementation of the agreement would result in a manifest injustice or would be manifestly contrary to public policy in the State of the court seised; (d) for exceptional reasons which are not controlled by the parties, the contract cannot be reasonably performed; or (e) the chosen court has decided not to hear the case. 1.

The Hague Convention on Jurisdiction Agreements aims to establish a system for the recognition of judgments with the same degree of predictability and enforcement as the arbitral awards provided for in the New York Convention. A court of a Contracting State other than that of the elected court shall suspend or reject the proceedings to which an exclusive convention of first instance applies, unless – as the explanatory memorandum has timidly admitted, this is a solution only for the United Kingdom and there is no guarantee that the courts of other Contracting States will reply: 1. The declarations referred to in Articles 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26 may be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or at any time thereafter, and shall be amended or withdrawn at any time thereafter….

Comments are closed.