Suchergebnisse

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.