University of Montenegro Faculty of Law in Podgorica, with the support of the GTZ organize the Fifth Annual Conference: “Private International Law and Protection of Foreign Investors” (Me?unarodno privatno pravo i zaštita stranih investitora).

The program includes the following speakers and topics:

Maja Stanivukovi?: Clause Concerning the Observation of All Commitments which the State Assumes Towards the Foreign Investor (the Umbrella Clause) in Bilateral Investment Protection Treaties (Klauzula o ispunjenju svih obaveza koje je država preuzela prema stranom ulaga?u (kišobran klauzula) u dvostranim ugovorima o zaštiti investicija)

?or?e Krivokapi?: Some Modern Clauses in Investment Agreements (Neke moderne klauzule u investicionim ugovorima)

Uglješa Gruši?: Effects of Choice of Court Clauses in European, English and Serbian Law (Dejstvo prorogacionih sporazuma u evropskom, engleskom i srpskom pravu)

Mirela Župan: Widening Party Autonomy to Non-State Law (Širenje strana?ke autonomije na izbor ne državnog prava)

Ivana Kunda: Internationally Mandatory Rules: Defining their Notion in European Private International Law (Me?unarodno prisilna pravila: odre?enje pojma u europskom ugovornom me?unarodnom privatnom pravu)

Bernadet Bordaš: Certain Issues of Resolving Investment Disputes as an Investor Protection Instrument (Neka pitanja rešavanja investicionih sporova kao instrumenta zaštite investitora)

Vesna Lazi?: Suitability of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

Michael Wietzorek: Arbitration of Investment Disputes

Toni Deskoski: The Importance of the Right to be Heard in International Arbitration Proceedings

Vladimir Savkovi?: Internet Arbitrations as a Model for Resolving Disputes Arising Out of the Electronic Contracts – Pros and Cons (Internet arbitraže kao model za rješavanje sporova proizašlih iz elektronskih ugovora – pro et contra)

Christa Jessel Holst: The Directive 2005/56/EC of 26 October 2005 on Cross-Border Mergers of Limited Liability Companies and Its Implementation in Member-States with Restrictions in the Legal Transactions of the Real Properties

Vlada ?olovi?: The Status of Foreign Investors in Domestic Insolvency Proceedings (Položaj stranih investitora u ste?ajnom postupku na doma?oj teritoriji)

Milena Jovanovi?-Zattila: Investor Protection on the Capital Market (Zaštita investitora na tržištu kapitala)

Davor Babi?: Law Applicable to Takeover of Joint Stock Companies (Pravo mjerodavno za preuzimanje dioni?kih društava)

Predrag Cvetkovi?: International Legal Regime for Foreign Investments: The Role of the World Trade Organisation (Me?unarodno-pravni režim stranih ulaganja: o ulozi i zna?aju Svetske trgovinske organizacije)

Valerija Šaula: On the Occasion of a Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina – The Issue of Service Being Made Abroad as a Condition for Recognition of a Foreign Judgement (Povodom jedne odluke Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine-Problem dostavljanja u inostranstvo kao uslov za priznanje presude stranog suda)

The conference is to be held from 18 to 20 October 2007 in the Hotel Bellevue Iberostar in Be?i?i (Montenegro). The proceeds from the conference will be published by the Faculty of Law in Podgorica.

The contact person is:
Professor Dr. Maja Kosti?-Mandi?
Faculty of Law
Ul. 13. jula br. 2
81 000 Podgorica
Montenegro
tel: +381 81 481 110
e-mail: majak@cg.yu

Recently, the latest issue of the German legal journal Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht (“

NIGEL PETER ALBON (T/A N A CARRIAGE CO) v (1) NAZA MOTOR TRADING SDN BHD (A company incorporated with limited liability in Malaysia) (2) TAN SRI DATO NASIMUDDIN AMIN [2007] EWHC 1879 (Ch). The Lawtel summary:

The applicant (Y) applied for an injunction restraining the respondent Malaysian company (N) from pursuing arbitration proceedings in Malaysia. Y alleged that the underlying agreement between the parties was an oral agreement made in England subject to English law. N alleged that there was a joint venture agreement signed by the parties in Malaysia governed by Malaysian law and containing a provision for arbitration in Malaysia. N denied concluding the English agreement as alleged by Y. Y contended that his signature on the joint venture agreement had been forged. Y had obtained permission to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction and an order for alternative service. N had applied unsuccessfully for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration proceedings in Malaysia, the court holding that the issue of the authenticity of the joint venture agreement should be determined by the English court rather than in the arbitration proceedings. Y had obtained on an application without notice an order restraining N from pursuing the arbitration proceedings in Malaysia but that injunction had been discharged as the sanction for failure by Y to comply with a court order. Y then made a further application for an injunction. Y contended that the court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction and should grant an injunction barring N from taking any further steps in the arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of the English proceedings. N contended that the relief should be limited to barring N from inviting the arbitrators to rule on the authenticity of the joint venture agreement but should leave it to the arbitrators to decide whether to proceed with the arbitration in the interim without prejudice and subject to any determination by the English court on the issue of authenticity and accordingly of the arbitrators’ jurisdiction.

Lightman J. held that the grant of an anti-suit injunction in connection with a contract governed by English law was a claim made in respect of the latter contract within CPR r.6.20(5)(c), Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Co Ltd (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 102 applied. If that was wrong, the court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction on the basis of N’s application for a stay, Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc (No3) (2002) EWCA Civ 528, (2002) 2 All ER (Comm) 1 considered. N was a foreign party brought into the jurisdiction by answering a claim within CPR r.6.20: it had not willingly submitted to the jurisdiction without reservation and it had not brought a counterclaim. But it had applied for a stay, and that application was ongoing and required the court to adjudicate on the authenticity of the joint venture agreement.

In those circumstances, the court had power to protect its processes in the course of and for the purposes of determining the claim to the stay, and that included where necessary the power to grant an injunction restraining N from taking steps within or outside the jurisdiction which were unconscionable and which might imperil the just and effective determination of the claim to the stay, Grupo Torras SA v Al-Sabah (No1) (1995) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 374 considered. The pleaded claim to an injunction fell within the gateway relied on and the necessary permission was granted to serve the amended claim form and amended particulars of claim in Malaysia. (2) The injunction sought was necessary to protect the interests of Y in the instant proceedings. For N to prosecute the arbitration proceedings or to allow the arbitrators to proceed with them pending determination whether N had forged Y’s signature on the joint venture agreement was to duplicate the instant proceedings. That was oppressive and unconscionable, Tonicstar Ltd (t/a Lloyds Syndicate 1861) v American Home Assurance Co (2004) EWHC 1234 (Comm), (2005) Lloyd’s Rep IR 32 considered. Both sets of proceedings would be concerned with exactly the same subject-matter, Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA (2007) EWHC 571 (Comm), (2007) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 8 considered. The court declined to frame the injunction so as to leave it open to N to proceed with the arbitration inviting the arbitrators to determine what, if any, steps to take in the interim and without prejudice to the determination of authenticity by the English court.

View the full judgment on BAILII. Source: Lawtel.

Arbitral awards remain delocalized under the French law of international arbitration. They can be recognised and enforced in France irrespective of the decision of the court of the seat of the arbitration to set them aside. F.A. Mann, and many in England are of the opinion that arbitration only exists if the seat of the […]

Here’s a seminar announcement from the