Wolters Kluwer: International Arbitration & Mediation’s Post

At the top of the European Interoperability Framework is the Legal Layer. We're talking about legal interoperability, which ensures that the laws, norms, and rules governing an interoperability framework are aligned among all stakeholders participating in this context. When discussing member states and European institutions, it's vital to ensure that they don’t end up suing each other over misinterpretations of the law, something that, unfortunately, occurs quite frequently. Essentially, the first layer is about ensuring that lawyers don’t sue each other and that they speak the same language. In the context of European directives and member states, we must ensure that the member states implement directives coherently. Another scenario to consider is when two companies need to interoperate. They must ensure no conflicts in the contracts and legal frameworks they operate. Takeaway - The Legal Layer of the European Interoperability Framework ensures that legislation, rules, and norms are harmoniously aligned.

New: 'Artificial Intelligence and the Future of International Law - Bridging Rights, Trade, and Arbitration' by Abbas Poorhashemi provides a nuanced examination of AI’s impact on essential domains of international law. You can find the brief here: https://lnkd.in/eKj7mtkH

In litigation or arbitration, evidence is often viewed as “data”. In light of Mainland China’s legal framework for cross-border data security, Tom Fu, Raymond Yang FCIArb, FHKIArb and Evan Z. look into commercial dispute resolution scenarios and discuss compliance obligations, practice developments and compliance insights regarding the transfer of evidence from Mainland China. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gTF9p4AY #DisputesResolution #Data #China

🆕 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 Is the future of #arbitration digital? The UNCITRAL: United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's recent Colloquium on e-awards highlights the ongoing debate. Joanna Iwanicka's new article explores the hurdles to #eaward adoption - and reveals the benefits waiting to be unlocked. Read more 👇 #TechInLaw #LegalTech #DisputeResolution

I constantly emphasize the importance of choosing the right dispute resolution mechanism for businesses. Commercial Arbitration is increasingly becoming the go-to method for resolving complex commercial and cross-border disputes. I’ve just compiled a comprehensive presentation that delves deep into Commercial Arbitration, packed with insights and strategies that every legal professional and business leader should be aware of. Key Highlights Confidentiality & Flexibility: Arbitration allows parties to maintain privacy and customize proceedings to their needs. Global Enforceability: Arbitral awards are enforceable in over 160 countries, offering a reliable mechanism for cross-border disputes. Emerging Trends: The rise of virtual hearings, third-party funding, and the integration of AI in document review are reshaping arbitration, making it more accessible and efficient. Tips for Drafting Arbitration Clauses: Ensure your arbitration clauses cover essential aspects like the seat of arbitration, governing law, and scope of disputes to avoid costly pitfalls. Whether you're an in-house counsel or a business leader, mastering arbitration can provide your company with the tools to resolve disputes effectively while maintaining control and confidentiality. #CorporateLaw #CommercialArbitration #DisputeResolution #InHouseCounsel #BusinessLaw #GlobalTrade #ArbitrationInsights

The PDF version of the programme for the 18th Annual IBA Competition Mid-Year Conference is now available! 📄✨ What to expect: - Enforcers roundtable. - Cross border deal execution: the changing regulatory landscape. - Sustainability and competition law - where are we today? - Competition law and labour markets. - Global digital markets and artificial intelligence: a regulatory race? - The role of the courts in enforcing competition law. - Competition in-house counsel perspective on the challenges ahead. View the programme here: https://lnkd.in/ec3esk7V This is a prime opportunity to engage with leading experts, broaden your professional network, and gain deep insights into the evolving landscape of competition law. Book here: https://lnkd.in/gC2En-kQ #IBAComp #law #lawfirm #antitrust #competitionlaw #legal #networking

International data regulations continue to evolve apace. Huge operational impact here in the international legal sector.

Privacy and confidentiality Privacy is usually an implied term in a contract and only appears in some of the arbitration rules as an express term80. Other arbitration rules provide the parties with the choice, specifying that unless the parties agree otherwise, the arbitration is private and only parties, legal representatives, witnesses or other people concerned with the arbitration are permitted into the hearing room81. A result of privacy should be confidentiality. However, although privacy is a hallmark of arbitration, some jurisdictions, such as Australia and Sweden, do not subscribe to the inherent confidentiality of arbitration proceedings82. In jurisdictions which do recognise the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, such as England and Wales, neither the award nor any of the evidence or information from the arbitration can be divulged to anyone not involved with the arbitration. Confidentiality means that a company knows that its trade secrets, balance sheets, and predictions for the future are revealed only to the other party, and then only as far as the case requires. If the award is challenged in court, some of these jurisdictions even provide that the challenge will be heard by the court sitting in private (‘in camera’). Confidentiality may also mean that the findings in an award and the evidence of witnesses cannot be referred to in any legal or other proceedings against a third party. Even where confidentiality is the norm, it is limited – by the parties’ obligations to their shareholders, for example, or because of statutory duties which may bind them. A state court judge may decide that there is an overriding interest of justice that requires that a document be divulged. This ‘interest of justice’ might arise if it appears that a fraudulent act has been committed but is being hidden by confidentiality agreement or rule: Glidepath BV v Thompson (2005). Understanding the nature of the privacy and confidentiality provisions that apply in the arbitration is important for the arbitral tribunal, as these provisions will have an impact on how the arbitration is handled.

#EUlitigation Is it possible to request access to confidential documents of the other party in private enforcement procedures? The EFTA Court said yes, in a very interesting judgement in which even the European Commission participated as intervener (case E-11/23). The origin of this case is a private enforcement procedure before the ´Norwegian courts. A Norwegian company brought civil proceedings against another Norwegian company on the grounds that the defendant had allegedly abused its dominant position. In the context of those proceedings, the applicant requested access to a number of documents that were considered confidential and, according to the defendant, also contained trade secrets within the meaning of Directive 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets. However, the EFTA Court stated that there is a legitimate interest that could justify the disclosure of confidential information, including trade secrets, pursuant, inter alia, to the principle of effective judicial protection, the right to a fair trial, the rights of defence, the principle of equality of arms, as well as the right of access to a court or tribunal. Furthermore, the effective private enforcement of the EEA competition rules is also a legitimate interest that could justify the disclosure of confidential information, including, once again, trade secrets. However, the EFTA Court also considers necessary to strike a balance between the requirements of an effective legal protection, or the interest of a due examination of the substance of a claim, and the safeguarding of business confidentiality. A confidentiality ring, formed solely of the parties’ legal advisers, could be an effective method of facilitating disclosure in a manner that strikes a balance between all the interests involved. This should be possible, not only in the absence of an express legal basis for such confidentiality rings under national law, but also, according to this judgement, in cases where national law prevents such solutions. In light of the principles and fundamental rights involved, this seems a rather sensible solution. It is also consistent with the approach to these matters in Art. 103 of the Regulation of the General Court of the EU (inter alia). It seems highly desirable that a similar approach is carried out by national courts in private enforcement proceedings. However, there is one point in which I would disagree. The EFTA Court seems to limit the members of the confidentiality ring to the parties’ legals advisers. It could be insufficient, in my opinion: at least, the parties’ economic experts should also be included. As an EU law practitioner, I pay little to no attention to the judgements of the EFTA Court. This judgement proves me wrong. Roberto Vallina Hoset Emma Enriquez Sirvent #EUlitigation #EFTAcourt #privatenforcement #confidentiality #EEA law https://lnkd.in/eVJGVVhW  

#www.nhalhammadi.com #How are the DIAC Arbitration Rules of 2022 fundamentally based on the UN UNCITRAL MODEL LAW on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by UN Commission on International Trade Law of 1985 ? (amended in 2006) 💡 The DIAC Arbitration Rules of 2022 are largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, while they share some fundamental principles including: 💡 Neutrality and impartiality of arbitrators (DIAC Article 14) 💡 Confidentiality of proceedings (though some exceptions may apply) 💡 Party autonomy in choosing applicable rules and procedures (to a certain extent) 💡 Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards ✅ However, it should also be noted that the DIAC Rules also incorporate additional features which are not necessarily in the Model Law, such as: ☑ Expedited procedures for smaller claims (Article 32) ☑ Disclosure requirements for third-party funding (Article 22) ☑ Virtual hearing options (promoted throughout the Rules)