CASE HUB NOTE—appeals lodged before the General Court in Cases T- 873/16 and T- 358/18 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 31 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timetable, commentary and related cases. Note–an appeal was lodged by a third party against the Commission’s decision to accept commitments from Paramount–this was dismissed in Case T- 873/16 Groupe Canal + v Commission. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into restrictive agreements in the pay-TV services sector in relation to the licensing of film content by studios to pay-TV broadcasters (case number AT.40023). Latest development On 31 March 2021, the Commission announced it had withdrawn its decision, of 7 March 2019, which made commitments binding on Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures and Warner Bros and Sky. This withdrawal follows annulment by the Court of Justice of the Commission's earlier decision of 26 July 2016, which made similar commitments binding on Paramount Pictures (see further, Case C- 132/19).In light of the above ruling, the Commission

Family analysis: This case analysis examines how the Family Court approached jurisdiction and case management in a long-running cross-border child maintenance dispute to which the EU Maintenance Regulation applied, and the wider comments made by the judge about delay, access to legal aid and difficulties in international maintenance cases.

This Checklist identifies the key issues that need to be kept in mind when working on a derivatives transaction in which different jurisdictions are involved. This Checklist should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border derivative transactions—issues to consider. Issue What should be considered? Enforceability of the master agreement • Will the local law of a foreign counterparty to a derivative contract uphold the terms of an agreement in full? ◦ Will the standard contract provisions seen in derivatives’ markets such as netting, set-off or the use of a master agreement to govern multiple transactions be enforceable in foreign courts? ◦ Can the provisions of the agreement be challenged by a local insolvency practitioner in the event that a counterparty is in financial difficulty? Consider the

for the purposes of the Mediation Directive 2008/52/EC, a dispute in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than that of any other party on the date on which the parties agree to use mediation after the dispute has arisen/mediation is ordered by a court/an obligation to use mediation arises under national law

This Practice Note considers costs issues which may be relevant when involved in cross-border proceedings. Security for costs In litigation, the usual position in relation to costs is that the losing party will be ordered to pay the other side's recoverable costs. Such costs may be substantial, especially when dealing with cases involving a foreign element which gives rise to additional costs, eg travel, expert evidence on law, etc. While a defendant may be confident of their ability to defend the claim, they may nevertheless have concerns about potential difficulties in seeking to recover costs provided for in any costs order against the claimant. The purpose of a security for costs order, an interim remedy, is to alleviate that concern by requiring the claimant to pay money into court, or to provide some other form of security, as a precondition to being able to continue with the claim. Generally, the proceedings are not stayed, pending such payment or provision. In cases in which the claimant is outside the English court’s jurisdiction, CPR 25 contains a specific provision

This Practice Note provides a high level oversight of the key issues for consideration in commercial cross-border disputes. A cross-border dispute is a dispute involving parties, assets, events or legal issues connected with more than one country. Cross-border disputes require a structured strategy from the outset. They are rarely confined to the merits of the claim. They usually involve questions of applicable law, jurisdiction, service, evidence, interim relief, enforcement, sanctions, insurance and commercial leverage. Successful cross-border litigation depends on identifying the optimal/most realistic route for success and planning carefully how to get there. A failure to get things right can take time/hold things up which can have repercussions. A cross-border dispute should be assessed as an enforcement and risk management exercise from the start, not only as a litigation or arbitration problem. This is particularly important where the dispute arises from geopolitical disruption, supply chain interference, sanctions exposure, regulatory overlap or assets located in more than one jurisdiction. This Practice Note sets out the main principles that practitioners should consider at the outset

This Practice Note examines key procedural issues that may arise in the High Court in relation to cross-border litigation in an employment context where proceedings are commenced on or after 1 January 2021, including: • service of proceedings in cross-border employment matters (see: Service of proceedings in cross-border employment disputes, below), and • the scope for an injunction to restrain proceedings in other jurisdictions (anti-suit injunction) (see: Anti-suit injunctions in the employment context, below) For information: • on applicable law, ie which system of law is applicable to the contract of employment or employment relationship under consideration, see Practice Note: Applicable law—which system of law applies to the contract or employment relationship • on international jurisdiction, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide the case, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases • on the territorial scope of relevant mandatory law, ie how the courts and employment tribunals decide what statutory rights (if any) the employee has,

This Practice Note considers the enforcement of judgments in Scotland or Northern Ireland of the courts of England and Wales (English courts) under section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The distinction between the process of enforcing any money provisions in a judgment and non-money provisions in a judgment is addressed, including the different documents required in order to complete the necessary registration. Registration itself is also discussed as well as the process of obtaining those documents under CPR 74 and CPR PD 74A, including the evidence required in applying for those documents and the form they take. For general considerations when seeking to enforce a judgment of the courts of England and Wales out of the jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement of English judgments—principles. Definitions The following definitions are used throughout this Practice Note: • CJJA 1982—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 • judgment—defined in CJJA 1982, s 18 for the purposes of enforcing UK judgments in other parts of the UK. Note this includes

This Practice Note considers relevant factors when seeking to enforce a judgment of the courts of England and Wales outside of the jurisdiction (Scotland and Northern Ireland are regarded as outside the jurisdiction). The various enforcement regimes that may apply to a given jurisdiction are set out and the differences in the definition of ‘judgment’ for the purposes of those regimes is discussed. For convenience, England and Wales/English/Welsh are referenced as England and English in this Practice Note. General considerations When seeking to enforce an English court judgment outside of the jurisdiction, there are a number of practical considerations: • is there a reciprocal enforcement regime (ie a formal arrangement) in place with the country where enforcement is being sought: ◦ for guidance on the various regimes that could apply, see: Enforcement regimes below ◦ different regimes may use different terminology as to what is meant by a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of enforcement under a given regime—for guidance, see: What is a judgment? below ◦ if there are no reciprocal arrangements, fresh proceedings

This Practice Note considers the relevant procedural rules in the courts of England and Wales (English courts) that will need to be followed when seeking to enforce a judgment of those courts outside the UK. These procedural rules are found in CPR 74 and CPR PD 74A. Depending on the enforcement regime, specific documents may be required. This Practice Note explains the process for applying under CPR 74.12 for a certified copy of a judgment and, where required, the relevant certificate for enforcement abroad. The CPR 74.12 process applies to applications under section 10 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920, section 10 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and section 12 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. Section 12 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 is relevant where enforcement is sought under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 or the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. It is important to note that the enforcement process (and the relevant rules) depends on the

This Practice Note considers the process to enforce an English court judgment overseas where transitional provisions following Brexit apply. It considers the transitional provisions and when they are applicable together with the process to be undertaken for enforcement. Enforcement will need to be in compliance with the procedural rules in Old Part  74 and old practice direction  74A as in force on 31 December 2020. For detailed guidance on enforcing a judgment of the English courts: • within the UK, ie in Scotland or Northern Ireland, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement of English judgments—enforcing in Scotland or Northern Ireland • outside the UK in cases in which Brexit transitional provisions are not applicable, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement—process to enforce English judgments overseas which should be consulted in light of the post-Brexit enforcement landscape, including the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention For specific guidance on the changes to the CPR, including to Part  74, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived], including in particular Part

This Practice Note considers the position under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are brought in the courts of England and Wales and there is a question as to whether the judgment debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The relevant provisions in CJJA 1982, s 33 are set out and consider when actions taken by the judgment debtor in the foreign proceedings will not be taken to have amounted to a submission to a foreign court’s jurisdiction. Insight is also provided into the different bases on which a defendant may be found to have submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction: voluntary submission, submission by entering a counterclaim, submission by an appeal on the merits of the foreign judgment or submission by agreement. Note: for ease of reference, the courts of England and Wales or England and Wales are referred to as the English courts or England. CJJA 1982, s 33—no submission to a foreign court’s jurisdiction When