The decision to expel him was thus, as a matter of domestic law, unlawful.

keywords applicable law arbitral awards award choice of law enforcement ordre public procedure public policy reasoned awards

keywords arbitral tribunal arbitration clause award enforcement of award recognition of court jurisdiction

keywords award arbitration agreement arbitrator court

keywords arbitral awards award award setting aside competence kompetenz kompetenz

keywords arbitral awards arbitral tribunal arbitration agreement arbitration agreement validity arbitration clause award award setting aside competence jurisdiction kompetenz kompetenz

Annex IV

Court . 58 66 13

keywords arbitral awards arbitration agreement arbitration agreement validity arbitration clause award setting aside competence jurisdiction kompetenz kompetenz remission of award

78. One change in the new Children apos s Act is the principle that the courts are to deliver rulings to resolve disputes between parents over the custody of a child except where the parties agree to seek the ruling of the Ministry of Justice in a custody dispute.

In addition, the decision of the high court committed the same breaches of fundamental rights as the decision of the lower court.

XI. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Many exercise this option and the courts consider and decide such cases on merit.

On 26 March 1996, in proceedings No. 334 95, the Constitutional Court ruled that the human rights treaties are not parameters of constitutionality.

While this appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court handed down a judgement in which it decided that a judge who indicted an accused could not participate in the judgement against the same accused.

He argues that remaining remedies are futile, as the District Office decided against the spirit of the decision of the Constitutional Court, and that a judgement by the Supreme Court could only overturn a decision from the District Office, without making a final determination.

The claimant applied to the Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on the basis of article 35 (1) MAL.

The decision was upheld at the Supreme Court

keywords arbitral tribunal award award setting aside interim award

In the Court's view, the setting aside proceedings under 1059 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ZPO), based on article 34 MAL, were in principle admissible, because no substantial distinction can be drawn between an award on jurisdiction and an award on the merits.

General and complete disarmament prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man portable air defence systems

That's for the court to decide, isn't it?

Unless the arbitral tribunal determines otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the case, the costs of the tribunal shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares.

The enforcement was granted on the basis of article 35 (1) MAL.

173. Since the decisions of the Tribunal were final and binding the Commission was informed that to give effect to the Tribunal s decision in the present case, it had two options

(e) Written substantiation of judicial decisions in all instances, except for purely procedural orders

In Japan and South Africa, the observance of a waiting period was at the discretion of the supervisors of the law enforcement official.

Judicial decisions as such are not a source of law, but the Court's dicta are unanimously considered the best formulation of the content of international law in force.

Acted as an Appeals Court from decisions of the Local Courts.

One Supreme Court judge was quoted as saying Courts sit in judgement every day and do rule independently but in sensitive political trials that is not so.

The lien statute did not prohibit arbitration but actually contemplated it.

20. Portugal declared that, in the absence of non judicial means for the settlement of disputes arising out of the application of the Convention, it would choose one of the following means for the settlement of disputes the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea the International Court of Justice an arbitral tribunal or a special arbitral tribunal.

France stated, by way of example, that there was no right to a review of verdicts of the Assize Court, or, in some cases, of the decisions rendered by the police court.

The Supreme Court found that the arbitral award was binding and enforceable, according to s. 29 of the Commercial Arbitration Act and article 35 (1) MAL.

The Court also added that an application under article 16 (3) MAL is not an appeal against the decision of the tribunal.

Those countries pointed out that a judicial decision was never subject to revision by any authority or by the judge who, or the court which, initially decided on the same matter, and that this was mandatory practice.

According to the authors, that issue had never been raised The decision of the Superior Court of Justice was inconsistent.

There is no appeal of the decisions of these courts.

5.3 On 19 October 2000, the Prague High Court overturned the decision of the Ministry of Interior of 17 June 1998 and determined that the case should be decided by reference to Decree 33 1945, that the impugned decision was illegal, that it defied the legally binding judgement of the Constitutional Court, and had violated essential procedural rules.

In the present case the Court declared admissible, but unfounded on the merits, a setting aside proceedings initiated against an award with which the arbitral tribunal had denied its jurisdiction.

In their ruling, the justices stated that they did not see fit to interfere with the findings of the judges of the district court, which were based mainly on the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

A party that had made an appearance before the Court had a legal and moral obligation to comply with its rulings, regardless of whether such rulings were inimical to their interests.

An appeal against this ruling shall be put to the vote immediately and the President apos s ruling shall stand unless overruled by a majority of the Parties present and voting.

That such tribunals are not impartial and lack the requirement of independence has been affirmed by two decisions of the African Commission.

It also states that disagreement with a court decision does not signify that it was handed down by an arbitrary judge lacking in sensitivity, unless the allegation is duly substantiated and justified.