Translation of "Für zuständig erklären" in English

Generally, several courts may potentially declare themselves competent.

It took 3 years for the judges to declare themselves as having no jurisdiction!

It is right and appropriate to show that we are responsible and accountable.

Where applications are made for the same act to be declared void, the Court of First Instance may also decline jurisdiction in order that the Court of Justice may rule on such applications.

The courts of that other Member State may, where this is in the best interests of the child, accept jurisdiction within one month from the time they are seized.

The courts of that Member State may, where this is in the best interests of the child, accept jurisdiction during the time period set in paragraph 2.

The term ‘holder of parental responsibility’ is then used in Articles 4, 5, 6, 13 and 17 (where his consent is required for the court to assume jurisdiction, or where he has the right to ask for the transfer of the case or for the assistance of a central authority).

This leads to positive conflicts, where the courts in several States declare themselves to be competent, or negative conflicts, where no court declares itself to be competent.

Cases where the American courts decline to rule on claims by creditors residing within their geographical jurisdiction will be relatively few and far between as recent legislation has determined a fairly extensive list of cases in which they can accept the jurisdiction for maintenance obligations even though the debtor resides abroad.

In the United States, for example, the courts for the creditor’s domicile or residence consider that the American constitutional principle of due process does not allow them to accept the jurisdiction if they do not have a sufficient connection with the debtor.

If a preliminary analysis of those matters shows that it is necessary to interpret the content of one or more contracts concluded between the parties in question in order to establish whether the applicant’s claims are well founded, those courts are required at that point to halt their examination of the dispute and declare that they have no jurisdiction to rule thereon in the absence of an arbitration clause in the said contracts.

To prevent any abuses in its application, this Article has been given a subsidiary role in relation to Articles 3-6 (that is, it would apply only if no court of a Member State can assume jurisdiction pursuant to these Articles).

Where the parties have designated a particular court or courts to resolve their dispute, the proposal gives priority to the chosen court to decide on its jurisdiction, regardless of whether it is first or second seised.

It may be argued that the most apparent means to overcome the difficulty of multiple filings would have been to provide for Commission jurisdiction in cases where otherwise a notification would have been required to two or more Member States.

Paragraph 2 allows the courts of the child’s new habitual residence to assume jurisdiction only if all holders of parental responsibility have accepted the situation.

In the event that, having regard to the answer given to its first question, the referring court is not required to declare that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the complainants in the main proceedings based directly on Direct- ive 1999/70, it is necessary to answer the fourth question, by which the referring court queries, in essence, whether it is under an obligation, by virtue of its obligation to interpret domestic law in conformity with Community law, to give the 2003 Act retrospective effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed.

In the event that, having regard to the answer given to its first question, the referring court must declare that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim based directly on Directive 1999/70, it is necessary to answer the fifth question, by which the referring court asks whether ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4 of the framework agreement include conditions of an employment contract relating to remuneration and pensions.

It may also rule in all cases which relate to the subject matter of this Treaty where jurisdiction is conferred upon it by the law of a Member State.

Unlike in the case of immovables, there is no rule preventing an English court from taking jurisdiction in an action in personam concerning movables in a foreign country, even if the plaintiff's cause of action raises the question of title to the goods.

It may also rule in all cases which relate to the subject-matter of this Treaty where jurisdiction is conferred upon it by the law of a Member State.

The Länder can choose whether to appoint their own ombudsmen or to assign responsibility to the federal level.

Where the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance are seised of cases in which the same relief is sought, the same issue of interpretation is raised or the validity of the same act is called in question, the Court of First Instance may, after hearing the parties, stay the proceedings before it until such time as the Court of Justice has delivered judgment or, where the action is one brought pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty or pursuant to Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty, may decline jurisdiction so as to allow the Court of Justice to rule on such actions.

Whilst this provision applies to contracts between the Bank and third parties established on Community territory (5), the EIB does in contrast submit its contractual relations with third parties established outside the Member States to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice:pursuantto Article 181 EEC, the EIB can in effect agree an arbitration clause in a contract or one attributing jurisdiction to the Court.

Where ap plications are made for the same act to be declared void, the Court of First Instance may also decline jurisdiction in order that the Court of Justice may rule on such applications.