Vesna Lazić

The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in the Netherlands

Although there are some exceptions, in general, the Dutch courts are very well versed in applying the New York Convention. Besides, the Dutch arbitration statutory law, which has been recently revised, presents significant improvements regarding implementation of the New York Convention in Netherlands. This chapter, while indicating the changes brought by the new law, also provides extended discussions of cases that relate to the application of the New York Convention.

Brussels I bis in Relation to Other Instruments on the Global Level

This chapter will discuss the relationship between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and other international conventions which regulate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards in civil and commercial matters. Since a number of such conventions are in force, a possible collision with the Brussels Ibis Regulation may occur. As to the preceding Brussels I Regulation, the Court of Justice has already addressed the problem of conventions that may concur with the Regulation. This raises the question whether this case law remains untouched by the entry into force of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Also, the relationship of Brussels Ibis with the Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements of 2005 will be discussed, since this Convention has not been signed by Member States but instead by the Council on behalf of the European Union. Thus, a different approach to a possible collision between the two instrument may be required. Lastly, the position of the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 will be dealt with. Though explicitly excluded from the substantive scope of Brussels Ibis, arbitration has still been subject to some debate vis-a-vis its position in light of the Brussels I regime. The recent Gazprom case is an interesting example in this respect, which will be looked at in more detail.

Procedural Position of a ‘Weaker Party’ in the Regulation Brussels Ibis

This contribution discusses the changes introduced by the revised Regulation regarding cross-border disputes involving a policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary under the insurance agreements, a consumer or an employee. It addresses most important amendments particularly those relating to expanding the Regulation’s scope of application ratione personae, adjustments of the rule on tacit prorogation and on the revised rules on enforcement that have bearing on disputes involving parties with a weaker bargaining position.

Family Private International Law Issues Before the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons to Be Learned from Povse v. Austria in Revising the Brussels IIa Regulation

This contribution analyses the manner in which the 1980 Child Abduction Convention has been applied within the legislative framework of the Regulation Brussels IIa in the light of the decision Povse v. Austria. This factually and legally complex case reached both the CJEU and the ECtHR. It illustrates shortcomings and difficulties in applying and interpreting the existing procedural framework on international child abduction in the European Union. Possible solutions are suggested in the present paper on how to shape a legislative framework which would more appropriately accommodate the needs of actors in cross-border child abduction litigation in the best interest of the child.