AN ADAPTED VERSION OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS: A POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL IMPORT FOR WESTERN BALKANS

See Article 80 of the Yugoslavian Private International Law Act (1982), still applicable for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo;

Article 19 of Montenegro PIL Act (2012),

Article 93 of Macedonia PIL Act (2007).

However, Albania’s civil code provide no duty of lis pendens for cases that are being adjudicated in a foreign court; See Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania.

Thalia Kruger, Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the EU and Their Impact on Third States, Oxford University Press (2008):265-266.

Id. pg. 266.

Ronald A. Brand, “Challenges to Forum Non Conveniens,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 45, no. 3 (2013): 1003.

Gary Born, International civil litigation in United States courts: commentary & materials, Kluwer Law International, (1996):289-365.

Ronald A. Brand, “Comparative Forum Non Conveniens and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments,” Texas International Law Journal 37 (2002): 482-487.

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd 1987 A.C. 460 (1987);

the standard used up to the twentieth century was set by Atlantic Star v. Bona Spes 1 App. Cas. 436(1974), was that a stay would be granted only if the seized forum was found to be “oppressive and vexatious” to the defendant.

Martine Stuckelberg, “Lis pendens and Forum Non Conveniens at the Hague Conference,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 26, no. 3 (2001): 955.

Ronald A. Brand and Scott R. Jablonski, eds., Forum non conveniens: history, global practice, and future under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Vol. 3., Oxford University Press (2007):35,

citing Paul Beaumont and Ronald A. Brand “Forum non conveniens/Lis pendens” (2001), paper presented at an International Lawyers Association seminar.

Kruger, supra note 2, pg. 280.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S. Ct. 839, 91 L. Ed. 1055 (1947).

Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S. Ct. 828, 91 L. Ed. 1067 (1947), paras. 524-525.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S. Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981); often referred to as the ‘Reyno case’.

Id. paras. 248-256;

see Alexander Reus, “Judicial Discretion : A Comparative View of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 16 (1994): 467.

Ronald A. Brand, “Comparative Forum Non Conveniens and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments,” Texas International Law Journal 37 (2002): 481.

Voth v. Manildra Flous Mills 171 C.L.R. 538 (1990)

confirming a prior holding of the court in Oceanic Sun Line v. Fay 165 C.L.R. 197 (1988) where the court refused to adopt the Spiliada “most suitable forum” standard.

Oceanic Sun Line v. Fay 165 C.L.R. 197 (1988): 248.

See for comparisons of models Peter Prince, “Bhopal, Bougainville and OK Tedi: Why Australia’s Forum Non Conveniens Approach Is Better,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 47, no. 03 (2008): 573–98,

Chye Sian Leow, “Forum Non Conveniens: English or Australian Approach?” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 2 (1990): 41–51,

and Stuckelberg, supra note 11.

Article 22 of the Preliminary Draft of the Convention, available at http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf (last visited Saturday, 12 july 2014)

See Reus, supra note 19, pg. 499-450;

see Richard G. Fentiman, “Jurisdiction, Discretion and the Brussels Convention,” Cornell International Law Journal 26 (1993): 71,

referring to German Constitution (Basic Law) Article 101(1).

See Barry J. Rodger, “Forum Non Conveniens Post-Owusu,” Journal of Private International Law 2, no. 1 (2006): 90-91 referring to numerous cases where these principles were upheld.

See Gregoire Andrieux, “Jurisdiction in a Future International Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments — How Can We Benefit from Past Experiences in Conciliating the Two Doctines of Forum Non Conveniens and Lis pendens,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 27 (2005):165. The US courts may issue “anti-suit injunctions” which bar the other parties from suing elsewhere but they are not subject of this paper.

Andreas F. Lowenfeld, “Forum Shopping , Antisuit Injunctions , Negative Declarations , and Related Tools of International Litigation,” The American Journal of International Law 91, no. 2 (1997): 320.

See Preamble of Brussels I;

also see Effer SpA v. Kantner 1982 E.C.R.I. 825 (1982),

Somafer SA v. Saar-Fermgas AG 1978 E.C.R.I. 205 (1987).

See Stuckelbeg, supra note 8, pg. 950.

Wendy Kennet, “Forum Non Conveniens in Europe,” Cambridge Law Journal 54, no. 3 (1995): 552–77 and 556-557.

Trevor C Hartley, “The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 4 (January 17, 2008): 816.

The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v. The owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’, 1994 E.C.R.I. 05439 (1994).

Lowenfeld, supra note 23, pg. 319.

See Crueger, supra note 2,

citing A. Nuyts, “L’exception de forum non conveniens” (2003);

see Peter McEleavy and Gilles Cuniberti, “Forum Non Conveniens and the Brussels Convention,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 04 (January 17, 2008): 974

Peter Schlosser, Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northen Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol , 1978.

Owusu v. Jackson, 2005 E.C.R. I. 1383 (2005).

Fatih Ibili, “Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgements in Europe; At Last: The EC Court of Justice on Forum Non Conveniens,” Netherlands International Law Review 53, no. 01 (2006): 136,

citing L. Collins, “Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention,” 106 LQR (1990) pp. 538-539;

Peter Kaye, “The EEC Judgments Convention and the Outer World: Goodbye to Forum Non Conveniens?,” Journal of Business Law (1992) pg. 74 etc.

Peter McEleavy and Gilles Cuniberti, “Forum Non Conveniens and the Brussels Convention,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 04 (2008): 974.

Kruger, supra note 2, pg. 295 and 293.

Stuckelberg, supra note 11, pg. 951.

See Civil Code of Albania, Chapters II and III of;

Law on Contested Procedure of Macedonia, Article 15;

Law on Civil Procedure of Montenegro, Article 19;

Civil Code of Serbia, Article 16;

Kosovo Law on Contested Procedure Nr. 03/L-006, Article 18.

See Petar Šarčević, “The New Yugoslav Private International Law Act,” American Journal of Comparative Law 33 (1985): 294-295.

See Christa Jessel-Holst, “Introduction to the (Draft) Regional Convention for CEFTA-States on Jurisdiction and the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” unpublished paper presented in May 2013 in Tirana.

See Preliminary Draft of the Convention, Articles 21 and 22 available at http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf (last visited Saturday, 12 july 2014) and

Stuckleberg, supra note 11 pg. 972-979.

See also Roland A. Brand, “Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law: A View from the United States,” Journal of Law and Commerce 21 (2002): 191–208.