Advertisement

Romania: Interpretation and Effects of Optional Jurisdiction Agreements in International Disputes

  • Elena-Alina Oprea
Chapter
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 37)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of some essential issues regarding the admissibility and the obligatory and jurisdictional effects of non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements in international disputes in front of the Romanian courts. It clarifies the regime which regulates such agreements, and emphasizes the difficulties, the inconveniences and the uncertainties raised by the existing applicable norms.

References

  1. Ahmed M (2017) The legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the European Union. Eur Bus Law Rev 28(3):403–425Google Scholar
  2. Ancel P, Cuniberti G (2013) One sided jurisdiction clauses – a Casenote on Rothschild. Journal des Tribunaux Luxemburg 1:7–12Google Scholar
  3. Ancel ME, Marion L, Wynaendts L (2013) Reflections on one-sided jurisdiction clauses in international litigation (about the Rothschild decision, French Cour de cassation, 26 September 2012). Banque & Droit 2(148):3–9Google Scholar
  4. Bariatti S (2015) Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 197–211Google Scholar
  5. Beaumont P (2009) Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005: background, negotiations, analysis and current status. J Private Int Law 5(1):125–159Google Scholar
  6. Bonomi A (2015) Jurisdiction over consumer contracts. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 213–237Google Scholar
  7. Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuniberti G (2012) Bulgarian Court strikes down one-way jurisdiction clause, 13th November 2012. http://conflictoflaws.net. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  9. Cuniberti G, Requejo M (2010) La sanction des clauses d’élection de for par l’octroi de dommages et intérêts. ERA Forum 11:7–18Google Scholar
  10. D’Avout L (2015) Pour une réhabilitation des clauses attributives de juridiction dissymétriques. JCP G 21:995–999Google Scholar
  11. Deleanu I (2013) Tratat de procedură civilă, vol I. UJ, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  12. Deleanu I, Mitea V, Deleanu S (2013) Tratat de procedură civilă, vol III. UJ, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson A (2010) Surveying the proposed Brussels I bis regulation-solid foundations but renovation needed. Yearb Private Int Law 12:247–309Google Scholar
  14. Draguiev D (2014) Unilateral jurisdiction clauses: the case for invalidity, severability or enforceability. J Int Arbitration 31(1):19–46Google Scholar
  15. Droz GAL, Gaudemet-Tallon H (2001) La transformation de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 en règlement du Conseil concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale. Rev Crit DIP 90(4):601–652Google Scholar
  16. Esplugues Motta C, Palao Moreno G (2016) Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels I bis regulation. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 534–558Google Scholar
  17. Fentiman R (2010) International Commercial Litigation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Fentiman R (2013) Unilateral jurisdiction agreements in Europe. Cambridge Law J 72(1):24–27Google Scholar
  19. Fentiman R (2016) Section 9: Lis pendens – related actions. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels I bis regulation. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 712–778Google Scholar
  20. Fitchen J (2015) The refusal of recognition and enforcement. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 432–496Google Scholar
  21. Forner Delaygua Q (2015) Changes to jurisdiction based on exclusive jurisdiction agreements under the Brussels I Regulation Recast. J Private Int Law 11(3):379–405Google Scholar
  22. Garcimartín F (2015) Prorogation of jurisdiction. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–306Google Scholar
  23. Garnett R (2013) Coexisting and conflicting jurisdiction and arbitration clauses. J Private Int Law 9(3):361–386Google Scholar
  24. Gaudemet-Tallon H (2010) Compétence et exécution des judgements en Europe, 4th edn. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaudemet-Tallon H (2015) Compétence et exécution des judgements en Europe, Matières civile et commerciale, 5th edn. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartley T, Dogauchi M (2007) Explanatory report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention. HCCH PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  27. Heinze C (2011) Choice of courts agreements, coordination of proceedings and provisional measures in the reform of the Brussels I Regulation. RabelsZ 75(3):581–618Google Scholar
  28. Heiss H (2016) Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels I bis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 407–436Google Scholar
  29. Herranz Ballesteros H (2014) The regime of party autonomy in the Brussels I Recast: the solutions adopted for agreements on jurisdiction. J Private Int Law 10(2):291–308Google Scholar
  30. Jenard P (1979) Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968). OJ C 59/1Google Scholar
  31. Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdiction agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Private Int Law 11(3):345–378Google Scholar
  32. Lazic V (2014) Procedural justice for ‘Weaker Parties’ in cross-border litigation under the EU Regulatory Scheme. Utrecht Law Rev 10(4):100–117Google Scholar
  33. Leș I (2013) Noul cod de procedură civilă. Comentariu pe articole. CH Beck, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  34. Magnus U (2016) Prorogation of jurisdiction. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels Ibis Regulation – Commentary. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 583–669Google Scholar
  35. Mankowski P (2016) Principle of non-review of jurisdiction of the court of origin. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels I bis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 928–953Google Scholar
  36. Mankowski P, Nielsen P (2016) Jurisdiction over consumer contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1: Brussels I bis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 437–534Google Scholar
  37. Merrett L (2009) Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation: a comprehensive code for jurisdiction agreements. Int Comp Law Q 58:545–564Google Scholar
  38. Oprea A (2016) Regards sur opposabilité à l’égard des tiers des conventions attributives de juridiction dans les litiges internationaux. Perspect Bus Law J 5(1):33–46Google Scholar
  39. Oprea A (2017) Repères jurisprudentiels européens sur l’efficacité des conventions attributives de juridiction incluses dans les conditions générales d’affaires. Revue juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montreal 51:161–198Google Scholar
  40. Păncescu FG (2013) Competenta internationala a instantelor romane. In: Boroi G (ed) Noul cod de procedură civilă. Comentariu pe articole, vol 2. Hamangiu, Bucuresti, pp 679–700Google Scholar
  41. Perrella C, Massutti A (2013) Supreme Court considers unilateral jurisdiction clauses, International Law Office. http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Litigation/Italy/LS-Lexjus-Sinacta/Supreme-Court-considers-unilateral-jurisdiction-clauses. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  42. Pop L, Popa IF, Vidu SI (2015) Curs de drept civil. Obligațiile. UJ, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  43. Popovici S (2013) Procesul civil international in reglementarea noului Cod de procedura civila. Partea I: Competenta internationala a instantelor romane (art. 1064–1069). Revista Romana de Drept al Afacerilor 5:81–98Google Scholar
  44. Ratković T, Zgrabljić Rotar D (2013) Choice-of-court agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast). J Private Int Law 9(2):245–268Google Scholar
  45. Scherer M, Lange S (2013) The French Rothschild Case: a threat for unilateral dispute resolution clauses? 18th July 2013. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2013/07/18/the-french-rothschild-case-a-threat-for-unilateral-dispute-resolution-clauses/. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  46. Schlosser P (1979) Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice (Signed at Luxembourg, 9 October 1978). OJ C59/71Google Scholar
  47. Vasilescu P (2017) Drept civil, Obligații. Hamangiu, BucurestiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena-Alina Oprea
    • 1
  1. 1.Babeș-Bolyai University, Faculty of Law, Private Law DepartmentCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations