Translation of "original jurisdiction " (English → French) :

26. The Federal Court has original jurisdiction in respect of any matter, not allocated specifically to the Federal Court of Appeal, in respect of which jurisdiction has been conferred by an Act of Parliament on the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Canada or the Exchequer Court of Canada.

while stressing the need to increase worldwide access to financial services given their importance for growth and the economy, to exclude cross-border financial services from the EU’s commitments, including portfolio management, until there is convergence in financial regulation at the highest level, except in very limited and duly justified cases, such as those reinsurance services provided in a business-to-business context; to consider, in particular, that clear and sound rules and procedures for authorising companies established in third countries to provide such services in the EU and, where appropriate, the explicit recognition by the EU that these companies’ country of origin ...[+++] have an enforceable regulatory and supervisory framework equivalent to the EU’s are indispensable to ensure that no unsupervised entity is able to act in the Union and that a level-playing field between European and foreign companies, irrespective of their jurisdiction of establishment, is achieved; to take immediate action, in parallel to TiSA, to narrow the gap between the different ways in which countries currently recognise the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory regimes of other jurisdictions, which is currently causing fragmentation of global financial services markets, by achieving a common understanding that an equivalence decision should be the result of a transparent assessment of whether each jurisdiction’s rules achieve the same objectives and understanding that, though such a decision should follow early and frequent bilateral dialogues, it can be unilateral when mutual recognition is not possible;

v. while stressing the need to increase worldwide access to financial services given their importance for growth and the economy, to exclude cross-border financial services from the EU’s commitments, including portfolio management, until there is convergence in financial regulation at the highest level, except in very limited and duly justified cases, such as those reinsurance services provided in a business-to-business context; to consider, in particular, that clear and sound rules and procedures for authorising companies established in third countries to provide such services in the EU and, where appropriate, the explicit recognition by the EU that these companies' country of origin ...[+++] have an enforceable regulatory and supervisory framework equivalent to the EU’s are indispensable to ensure that no unsupervised entity is able to act in the Union and that a level-playing field between European and foreign companies, irrespective of their jurisdiction of establishment, is achieved; to take immediate action, in parallel to TiSA, to narrow the gap between the different ways in which countries currently recognise the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory regimes of other jurisdictions, which is currently causing fragmentation of global financial services markets, by achieving a common understanding that an equivalence decision should be the result of a transparent assessment of whether each jurisdiction’s rules achieve the same objectives and understanding that, though such a decision should follow early and frequent bilateral dialogues, it can be unilateral when mutual recognition is not possible;

The competent authority, in whose jurisdiction the suspension or removal originated, shall require that regulated markets, other MTFs, other OTFs and systematic internalisers, which fall under its jurisdiction and trade the same financial instrument or derivatives referred to in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to this Directive that relate or are referenced to that financial instrument, also suspend or remove that financial instrument or derivatives from trading, where the suspension or removal is due to suspected market abuse, a take-over bid or the non-disclosure ...[+++] of inside information about the issuer or financial instrument infringing Articles 7 and 17 of Regulation (EU) No ./2014 except where such suspension or removal could cause significant damage to the investors' interests or the orderly functioning of the market.

2. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, the court to which the application was submitted shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, with one very narrow exception, no review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin would be permitted, even in the limited circumstances currently envisioned by the Brussels I Regulation (non-compliance with consumer, insurance or exclusive jurisdiction requirements).