US jurisdiction over European cases Sample Clauses

US jurisdiction over European cases. Possibilities to litigate Holocaust-related art claims in the US would seem to be a positive development in terms of ensuring access to justice. Moreover, it facilitates the clarification of standards by US courts. From a European perspective, however, it may have undesirable consequences, namely that cases that concern European collections and European parties, are being brought before US courts.137 Some examples will be given below. 133 Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act of 2016 (114th Congress, HR 6477). See X. Xxxxxx, ‘An Art Museum Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’ (2017) Lawfare <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/art-museum-amendment-foreign-sover eign-immunities-act>. 134 Xxxxx v Republic of Hungary (2016) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-7082: ‘Such takings, did more than effectuate genocide or serve as a means of carrying out genocide. Rather, we see the expropriations as themselves genocide.’ 135 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951) UNGA Res 260 A (III). 136 De Csepel et al v Republic of Hungary, et al (n. 129) 112. 137 See, on the expected favourable consequences of this act for claimants: X.X. Xxxxx, ‘A Suit Over Xxxxxxx Drawings Invokes New Law on Nazi-Looted Art’ (27 February 2017) The New York Times <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/2017/02/27/arts/design/a-suit-over-xxxxxxx-draw ings-invokes-new-law-on-nazi-looted-art-html>. See also X’Xxxxxxx (2017). The Xxxxxxx case, concerning six Klimt paintings as discussed above, is perhaps the most well-known example.138 Although the claim was later settled by international arbitration in 2006, this was enabled by the fact that Xxxxxxx was authorised by the US Supreme Court in 2004 to proceed with a civil action against Austria.139 The litigation regarding Xxxx Xxxxxxx’x Portrait of Xxxxx in Vienna’s Leopold Museum collection, which ran from 1998 to 2010, is another well-known example.140 The case was initiated while Portrait of Xxxxx was on loan in New York in 1998, and eventually ended after the parties agreed to settle their dispute by way of payment of US $19 million to the heirs of the former owners.141 As in the Xxxxxxx case, the case of Xxxxxxxx v City of Amsterdam concerned a collection on a temporary loan to the US, this time a collection of Xxxxxxxx paintings from the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam.142 Although Nazi-lootin...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to US jurisdiction over European cases

  • Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court The Parties agree that, after entry of Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the Parties, Action, and the Settlement solely for purposes of (i) enforcing this Agreement and/or Judgment, (ii) addressing settlement administration matters, and (iii) addressing such post-Judgment matters as are permitted by law.

  • REGULATORY JURISDICTION Subject to Section 19.01, nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the rights of the Parties to file a complaint with or submit any action to the Commission or any other appropriate regulatory authority under relevant provisions of the Federal Power Act or other relevant statutory provisions, nor shall anything in this Agreement affect the jurisdiction of the Commission or any other regulatory authority over matters arising under this Agreement.

  • Governing Laws and Jurisdiction This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed and to be performed within the State of California and shall be construed and governed by the internal laws of the State of California. Any legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in Sacramento County, California.

  • Laws and Jurisdiction 12.1.Unless otherwise specified in a CTC, the Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the following countries and their courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute which arises under or in connection with the Agreement. Where the Buyer is Unilever Supply Chain Company AG, Unilever Business and Marketing Support AG or Unilever Americas Supply Chain Company AG, the applicable law and jurisdiction is English. Where the Buyer is Unilever Asia Private Limited, the applicable law and jurisdiction is Singapore. In all other cases the applicable law and jurisdiction is that of the country where Buyer is registered. The application of the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods is excluded. Annex A - Specific provisions for the supply of Products These clauses apply to the extent the Supplier supplies Products.

  • APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISDICTION 7.1. The usage of EHSAN AUCTIONEERS SDN. BHD. website together with the terms and conditions hereof shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Malaysia.

  • WORK JURISDICTION Par. 1. It is agreed by the parties to this Agreement that all work specified in Article IV shall be performed exclusively by Elevator Constructor Mechanics, Elevator Constructor Helpers, Elevator Constructor Apprentices and Elevator Constructor Assistant Mechanics in the employ of the Company.

  • Jurisdictional Disputes 17.01 A xxxx-up meeting will be held with each Contractor not later than the commencement of the Contractor's work on all projects and no assignments shall be made before this xxxx- up. Xxxx-up assignments shall also apply to all sub-contractors. If a jurisdictional dispute arises once the work has commenced, assignments will be made in accordance with procedures, rules and regulations of the National Joint Board Building Trades Department, A.F.L. & C.I.O. The work assignment shall not be completed until a meeting on site has been convened with all Parties involved and until a subsequent meeting (not later than twenty-four (24) hours) has taken place, at which the Contractor shall present the work assignment on paper to all Parties.

  • 000 JURISDICTION 8.100 Project maintenance conditions do not always justify adherence to craft lines which, in itself, does not establish precedent or change the appropriate jurisdiction of the crafts involved. Composite crews may be formed where conditions warrant, but this is not to be construed under regular operating conditions as the Company's prerogative to assign men out of their usual skill classification.

  • Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction THIS DPA WILL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF THE LEA, WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS OF LAW PRINCIPLES. EACH PARTY CONSENTS AND SUBMITS TO THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE COUNTY OF THE LEA FOR ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS DPA OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

  • WORK STOPPAGES, SECONDARY BOYCOTTS, AND JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 16.1 There will be during the term of this Agreement and as to any work covered hereby, no slowdown, no stoppage of work, no strike and no lockout, it being the good faith and intention of the parties hereto that by the execution of this Agreement, industrial peace shall be brought about and maintained, that the parties shall cooperate to the end that work may be done efficiently and without interruption. In the case of any violation of this Agreement the Employer and the Union shall be notified immediately.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.