We have regularly covered the Hague Convention of Choice of Court Agreements on this blog. From a German, and indeed from a European perspective, a major breakthrough in terms of practical relevance of the Convention would be the ratification of the convention by the United States, given that there currently is no treaty in place between Germany and its biggest non-European trading partner that deals with recognition of judgments. Ted Folkman on his blog lettersblogatory.com is probably the best source for coverage of the Convention’s road towards ratification in the United States. This is what Ted has to Report: Continue reading
We have covered the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on several occasions (see, most recently, here and here). Now, the Convention is about to get a new party, and Patrick Dahm, a partner in my firm’s Singapore office, has the details:
On April 14, 2016, the Singapore Parliament has passed the Choice of Court Agreements Bill, about a year after Singapore signed the Convention on March 2015. The Bill is pending presidential assent and publication in the Government Gazette, which will bring it into force.
With this, the number of Convention parties will increase to three nominally, but effectively to 28: prior to Singapore, the Convention had been signed and ratified by Mexico and the European Union (spanning the EU itself and its members except Denmark). Signatories which have yet to ratify the Convention are the USA and Ukraine. Continue reading
In earlier posts, we reported on the decisions of the lower courts, and finally of the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), on the legality of the continued publication of a search notice on lostart.de concerning Man in an Oriental Costume, a painting attributed to Jouderville, a pupil of Rembrandt, even after the painting had been located. I had written that the judgment did not convince me legally, nor did I think it did the parties a service. The last post on the subject reported a case note of Boas Kümper who reached the same conclusion. In doing so, Kümper reviewed the decision in the light of the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) dealing with information provided and disseminated by state institutions (staatliches Informationshandeln).
The colourful background of the dispute between van Diemen & Co, the “Jewish” art trading company that auctioned the work off in 1935, and the “Jewish” bank, Jacquier & Securius, that had financed van Diemen’s partent company Margraf & Co is discussed in a 2011 BBC Feature.
Henning Kahmann, who acted for the subpoenaed participants (Beigeladene) which were ultimately was sucessful in these proceedings, had kindly offered to defend the Federal Administrative Court.* In addition, he provided me with an English translation of the judgment. Continue reading