Translation of "Commission de révision du droit de l'État de New York " (French → English) :

In particular, even though the 1958 New York Convention is generally perceived to operate satisfactorily, parallel court and arbitration proceedings arise when the validity of the arbitration clause is upheld by the arbitral tribunal but not by the court; procedural devices under national law aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of arbitration agreements (such as anti-suit injunctions) are incompatible with the Regulation if they unduly interfere with the determination by the courts of other Member States of their jurisdiction under the Regulation[25]; there is no uniform allocation of jurisdiction in proceedings ancillary to or su ...[+++]pportive of arbitration proceedings[26]; the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the courts in disregard of an arbitration clause is uncertain; the recognition and enforcement of judgments on the validity of an arbitration clause or setting aside an arbitral award is uncertain; the recognition and enforcement of judgments merging an arbitration award is uncertain; and finally, the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, governed by the NY Convention, is considered less swift and efficient than the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

In particular, actions shall comply with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Union data protection law, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the principle of fair treatment of third-country nationals, the right to asylum and international protection, the principle of non-refoulement and the international obligations of the Union and Member States arising from international instruments to which they are signatory such as the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New ...[+++]York Protocol of 31 January 1967.

This implies the use of identical and standardized clauses for all euro area Member States, harmonized in the terms and conditions of securities issued by the Members States. Their basis will be consistent with the CACs that are common in New York and English law .

45. Emphasises once more the primordial importance of the formulation of strong EU common positions, in order to harness the collective weight of the EU and its Member States; takes note, in this light, of the development of the capacity of the Council Working Group on Human Rights (COHOM) and the efforts to identify key priorities as well as efforts to clarify the division of labour which will help developing cross regional outreach and collaboration and on lobbying all moderate States including between Geneva and New ...[+++]York; welcomes the de facto COHOM based in Brussels and the proposal to have a yearly meeting of the COHOM in Geneva; supports the efforts to put across ‘one message, with many voices’, but deplores the fact that the search for common ground too often leads to an acceptance of the lowest common denominator, particularly in final Council Conclusions and calls for bolder, more ambitious action; in this connection, encourages the EEAS, particularly the EU's delegations in Geneva and New York, to increase its coherence, based on timely and substantive consultation, and the visibility of the EU's action in order to enhance its credibility in the world;