fdsdsds
The question therefore was whether non-statutory arbitration tribunals based on agreement by the parties could also submit relevant questions to the ECS for preliminary ruling.
The court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognized that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court ass the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is obtained”, the court of justice states, this is not sufficient to give the arbitrator the status of a “court of tribunal of a member state” within the meaning of Article 177 of the treaty.
3. Rules created & decision
The Court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognize that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court as the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is obtained. However, the court of Justice states, this is not sufficient to give the arbitrator the status of a “court of tribunal of a member state” within the meaning of Article 177 of the treaty.
Therefore, in its resolution, the court seems to close its doors to arbitrators by emphasizing the absence of elements meeting only in certain kind of cases.s
The question therefore was whether non-statutory arbitration tribunals based on agreement by the parties could also submit relevant questions to the ECS for preliminary ruling.
The court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognized that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court ass the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is
The court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognized that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court ass the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is obtained”, the court of justice states, this is not sufficient to give the arbitrator the status of a “court of tribunal of a member state” within the meaning of Article 177 of the treaty.
3. Rules created & decision
The Court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognize that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court as the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is obtained. However, the court of Justice states, this is not sufficient to give the arbitrator the status of a “court of tribunal of a member state” within the meaning of Article 177 of the treaty.
Therefore, in its resolution, the court seems to close its doors to arbitrators by emphasizing the absence of elements meeting only in certain kind of cases.s
The question therefore was whether non-statutory arbitration tribunals based on agreement by the parties could also submit relevant questions to the ECS for preliminary ruling.
The court of Justice denied his authority. Even though they recognized that “there are certain similarities between the activities of the arbitration tribunal in question and those of an ordinary court ass the arbitrator must decide according to law and his award has the force of res judicata, and may be enforceable if leave to issue execution is