Suchergebnisse

Abstract: On 24 January 2012, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales upheld the decision by the High Court to grant leave for the enforcement of the arbitral award issued in favour of West Tankers against Erg and its insurers, Allianz and Generali. The conciseness of the ruling is in sharp contrast with its relevance. By allowing, in an almost matter-of-fact way, the enforceability in principle of the award, the Court of Appeal has almost certainly set in motion the next chapter in the long-running West Tankers litigation. At stake are the exact boundaries of the rule that excludes arbitration from the 'Brussels I' or 'Jurisdiction' Regulation (JR). Résumé: Le 24 janvier 2012, la Cour d'Appel d'Angleterre et du Pays de Galles a confirmé la décision de la Haute Cour d'autoriser l'exécution de la sentence arbitrale prononcée en faveur de West Tankers contre Erg et ses assureurs, Allianz et Generali [1]. La concision de la décision contraste nettement avec sa pertinence. En permettant, d'une manière presque pragmatique, l'exécution de principe de la sentence arbitrale, la Cour d'Appel a entamé de manière presque certaine le prochain chapitre de la longue procédure West Tankers. L'enjeu, ce sont les limites exactes de la règle qui exclut l'arbitrage dans 'Bruxelles I' ou le Règlement sur la competence judiciaire ('Jurisdiction Regulation' ou 'JR'). Zusammenfassung: Am 24. Januar 2012 bestätigte der Court of Appeal für England und Wales die Entscheidung des High Court's , die Vollstreckung des Schiedsspruchs zu Gunsten von West Tankers im Rechtsstreit mit Erg und seinen Versicherern, Allianz und Generali, zu gestatten. Die geringe Aufmerksamkeit die der Gerichtsentscheidung zu Teil wurde, steht in einem deutlichen Widerspruch zu ihrer Bedeutung. In einer beinahe als gegebene Tatsache hinnehmenden Art und Weise erlaubte der Court of Appeal die Vollstreckung des Schiedsspruchs und eröffnete damit so gut wie sicher das nächste Kapitel des langwierigen West Tankers-Rechtsstreits. In Frage stehen die genauen Grenzen der Vorschrift bezüglich des Ausschlusses schiedgerichtlicher Verfahren der Brüssel-I-Verordnung (beziehungsweise der Verordnung über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit).

AbstractThis chapter reviews the regulatory innovation process in the European Union, with a focus on the environmental sector. It examines the EU documents on regulation and, in particular, the 'eight pillars of European governance' listed by the European Commission in its follow-up to the 2001 White Paper on European Governance, as a useful means of categorising the practical consequences which the European Union attaches to the different implications of the governance debate in the EU. It goes on to summarise the initiatives on regulatory innovation as kick-started by the White Paper on Governance, and to map the current state of each of these initiatives. It concludes that no fundamental reform is required, but rather only a slim number of targeted remedies; the only real solution to the regulatory fog is acceptance and deregulation.

Discussion on the EU definitions of 'waste', as well as 'recovery' and 'disposal' of waste have been, to paraphrase a standing expression, plentiful and hard on each other's heels. Ever since the 1991 amendments to the 1975 framework directive, attempts have been made to disprove the usefulness of the definition of waste, and to question the lack of proper definition of the concepts of recovery and disposal. In order to assess the recently issued Commission Proposal for a (renewed) directive on waste, this contribution reviews first of all, succinctly, the nature and limitations of the 'old' (existing) definitions, subsequently it reviews the proposed changes.