Traduction de «attorn to a jurisdiction » (Anglais → Français) :

exercise jurisdiction [ exercise a jurisdiction ]

attornment attornment

jurisdiction [ exclusive jurisdiction | jurisdiction of the courts | jurisdiction of the ordinary courts | legal jurisdiction | Competence of tribunals(ECLAS) ]

court having jurisdiction | court of competent jurisdiction | court with jurisdiction | forum of jurisdiction

competence in relation to the subject matter | jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter | jurisdiction ratione materiae | jurisdiction related to subject matter | material competence | subject-matter competence | subject-matter jurisdiction

territorial jurisdiction | competence of a court ratione loci

complete lack of jurisdiction of a court

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 e ...[+++]quivalent 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;

In the case of a trust that is a Financial Institution (irrespective of whether it is resident for tax purposes in a Member State, Liechtenstein or another Participating Jurisdiction), the trust is considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State, Liechtenstein or another Participating Jurisdiction if one or more of its trustees are resident in such Member State, Liechtenstein or another Participating Jurisdiction except if the trust reports all the information required to be reported pursuant to this Agreement or another agreement implementing the Global Standard with respect to Reportable Accounts maintained by the trust ...[+++]to another Participating Jurisdiction (being a Member State, Liechtenstein or another Participating Jurisdiction), because it is resident for tax purposes in such other Participating Jurisdiction.

The term “Participating Jurisdiction Financial Institution” means (i) any Financial Institution that is resident in a Participating Jurisdiction, but excludes any branch of that Financial Institution that is located outside such Participating Jurisdiction, and (ii) any branch of a Financial Institution that is not resident in a Participating Jurisdiction, if that branch is located in such Participating Jurisdiction.

How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly?