Burkhard Hess

The Brussels I - Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001: The Heidelberg Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in 25 Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03)

A) Summary B) Introduction C) Statistical Data on the Application of the Judgment Regulation D) Report on the Application of the Judgment: Regulation in the Member States E) Overview Policy Recommendations.

Introduction to the special issue on Data Science in Europe

It is our great pleasure to welcome the reader to this collection of papers devoted to current issues in Data Science viewed from aEuropean perspective. This special issue of the Journal of Data Science and Analytics has its origin in the European Data Science Conference (EDSC), an invitationonly event organised by Professor Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt and her team in November 2016 in Luxembourg as the inaugural conference of the European Association for Data Science (EuADS). We thank the JDSA Editor-in-Chief, Professor Longbing Cao, for the opportunity to guest-edit this collection. The conference programmeofEDSCconsisted of selected plenary talks, symposia, workshops and panel discussions on the following topics:

The Implementation of the New Insolvency Regulation: Improving Cooperation and Mutual Trust

The study is a result of a collaborative research project addressing “The Implementation of the New Insolvency Regulation – Improving Cooperation and Mutual Trust”. The project was undertaken by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Vienna and the University of Milan, and co-funded by the European Union as part of the Commissions Action Grants 2013 for Civil Justice. The focus of the study concerns specific issues of cross-border insolvencies under the recast of the Insolvency Regulation which already has been prepared by a large part of the contributing authors in the Heidelberg-Vienna-Luxembourg Report. The study is comprised of three major topics: 1.The Regulations extended scope of application, including pre-insolvency and hybrid proceedings, the relationship between Article 1(1) of the Regulation and its Annex A, as well as the interplay between the Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels Ibis Regulation; 2.the cooperation between main and secondary insolvency proceedings, the new instruments, such as “synthetic proceedings”, destined to avoid or postpone the opening of secondary proceedings, further the cooperation between administrators and courts of different proceedings as well as protocols to enhance cooperation; 3.insolvencies of groups of companies, with a particular focus on jurisdiction, COMI-migration, “group coordination proceedings” and other instruments of coordination.

Mediation in Germany: Finding the Right Balance between Regulation and Self-Regulation

This chapter explores the current legal framework of mediation in Germany. The Mediation Law of 2012, implementing the Mediation Directive, now regulates a variety of important aspects, but many provisions governing mediation are found in other statutes as well. It may be said that the law has a broad scope but little content: On the one hand, it establishes a uniform system for both domestic and cross-border mediation; on the one hand, it confines itself to regulating minimum requirements, especially as far as the structure of the mediation process, default rules for mediation agreements and the enforcement of mediated settlements are concerned. This goes back to the idea that on the one hand, mediation puts forward the autonomy of the conflicting parties and should therefore not be pressed into a rigid procedure, and on the other hand, there is a need for reliable rules for the interplay between mediation and court proceedings. One German particularity is the existence of an in-court mediation scheme conducted by a “conciliation judge” who is not entitled to decide the case, which has been quite successful.

Mediation Judges in Germany : Mutual Interference of EU Standards and National Developments

Three key trends can be identified in procedural law in Europe: a growing competition between the national procedural systems, the increasingly multi-layered character of procedural law and an expansion of different methods of dispute resolution. Within this context, the chapter examines the phenomenon of court mediation in Germany. It shows how a global development (‘mediation’) is transferred to a local level. In its beginnings, the German judicial mediation movement was a kind of grassroots movement of judges who were convinced that mediation was the right technique to promote settlement within their courts. When legislation stepped in, the different interests of judges and lawyers resulted in an open conflict. However, the open structure of the EU Directive on Mediation made it possible that the legal-political debate ended with a positive outcome and an open model of dispute resolution which corresponds with the interests of the parties could be found. All in all, the story of the German mediation judges shows that European and national law-making in procedural law can benefit from each other in order to finally achieve a balanced result.

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und europäisches Zivilprozessrecht

Das Verhaltnis der Brussel I-VO zur Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit gehort zu den umstrittensten Fragen des europaischen Zivilprozessrechts. Der Beitrag untersucht die Neuregelung der Schnittstellen beider Regelungsbereiche in der reformierten Verordnung (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussel I-VO n.F.) anhand der jungsten Rechtsprechung. Zudem werden weitere Schnittstellen angesprochen: die Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit und die anstehenden Urteile des EGMR zur Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit.