APC Code of Practice meaning

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf , decision of 17 June 2024, 26 W 7/24 What are the practical implications of this case? Although the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf reaffirmed the established approach of German courts to (anti-) anti-suit injunctions, the ruling gains special significance because it addresses Russia. During the last two and a half years, the EU has introduced sweeping sanctions on Russia following Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Since then, arbitration proceedings brought by EU entities against their former Russian business partners have grown significantly. To offset EU sanctions and safeguard their positions, Russian parties possess a potent tool: Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation confer a right to seek an anti-suit injunction where foreign arbitration has been commenced against a Russian respondent and either that respondent’s access, or the access to justice of persons involved, is hindered by restrictive measures at the chosen seat of arbitration. In effect, these rules enable Russian parties to unilaterally erode arbitration agreements...

Recent shifts have influenced how public policy and reciprocity are construed, and how arbitral neutrality is evaluated. This synopsis briefly surveys the legal architecture and principal patterns visible in Russian enforcement practice since 2022. Legal framework for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and judgements Russia is a Party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), which requires contracting states to acknowledge and execute arbitral awards issued or rendered in other contracting territories. Until 2022, Russian courts were largely seen as supportive of arbitration, though they occasionally at times applied an expansive view of public policy when declining recognition and enforcement. In addition, Russian law contains distinct specific rules addressing the enforcement of foreign court judgments. Under Article 241(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code (APC), decisions of foreign courts in disputes arising from commercial and other economic activities must be recognised and enforced in Russia where such recognition is expressly authorised by: (i) an international treaty to which the...

For other frequently used film and TV terms, see the following: Film and TV glossary C–D Film and TV glossary E–H Film and TV glossary I–L Film and TV glossary M–P Film and TV glossary R–S Film and TV glossary T–W Abandonment When a commissioning producer acquires takeover rights and, then or later, at any time, decides in their sole and absolute discretion that completing the film is not financially viable, they may, by notice in writing, delivered to the film production company itself, formally declare the production of the film abandoned and thereby bring the film’s production to a formal end. Acquisition agreements These agreements are intended for use in circumstances where a company obtains from the film’s owner rights across multiple separate media for a specified territory. See: Acquisition agreement—film—rights in a number of separate media for a designated territory—owner of film: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [58]. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ...

—the legal framework The applicable rules depend on the dispute type and/or the parties’ legal status: either the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC) or the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (CPC) will apply. Under paragraph 1 of Article 241 APC, decisions of foreign courts and arbitral tribunals are recognised and enforced within the Russian Federation where such recognition and enforcement are provided by international treaties and federal laws. Chapter 45 of the CPC sets out equivalent provisions. As a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, Russia assures recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards domestically in accordance with the binding rules of the Law of the Russian Federation On International Commercial Arbitration No. 5338-1 of 7 July 1993 (the Law on ICA). Article 17 of the Law on ICA provides that interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal are binding on the parties to the arbitration. However, unlike the latest version of the UNCITRAL...

NOTE—to check if notification thresholds in French Polynesia and worldwide are reached, see: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in French Polynesia? French Polynesia, a French overseas territory, benefits from enhanced autonomy from mainland France under a special status. Consequently, since 2015 it has had its own merger control regime, set out in Articles LP 310-1 et seqq. of the Code de la concurrence de la Polynésie française (CCPF), and applied from 2016 by the Autorité Polynésienne de la Concurrence (APC). In 2017, the APC issued dedicated guidance on the scope and procedure of merger control (the APC Guidelines), updated in 2019. Despite being distinct, the regimes are closely aligned and the two competition authorities work together. As a result, the APC regularly cites in its decisions the decisional practice of the French Competition Authority (FCA). Although French Polynesia does not form part...