Texte remanié de: Thèse de doctorat--Faculté des Lettres--Université de Fribourg, Suisse, 2004. / Bibliogr. p. [31-49.

Dissertation--Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät--Universität Freiburg Schweiz, 2005. / IZPR = internationales Zivilprozessrecht. Bibliogr. p. XVII- XXX.

Texte remanié de: Th. doct.--Droit--Limoges, 2000. / En appendice, Convention de Bruxelles et textes réglementaires. Bibliogr. p. 381-405. Index.

Impact of Brexit on Private International Law Abstract The thesis deals with the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union (Brexit) and analyses its consequences on private international law. Prior to Brexit, private international law in Czech-British relations was covered mostly by EU regulations. Great Britain ceased to apply regulations such as Brussels Ibis, Rome I and Rome II under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement from 1 January 2021. The aim of the thesis is to identify and analyse possible substitutes for those no longer applicable EU regulations. Instruments eligible to ensure continuity of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters are the existing or newly concluded international treaties or the national laws. The thesis first examines the membership of Great Britain in the EU in a broader legal context, the procedure of the withdrawal, the position of Great Britain as a third state, the impact of Brexit on legal systems of Great Britain and on so-called EU external agreements. The following chapters focus on three essential issues of private international law - applicable law, international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions. The issue of the law applicable to contractual and non- contractual obligations has been resolved by the retention...

Through this thesis I explore how a train station can serve as the platform for an experience that is more profound than simply coming and going, and instead can provide a moment that allows travelers to appreciate the location that they are traveling to or from. A train station is almost uniquely positioned to serve as the first or last building any train traveler encounters in a city, serving as the gateway to the modern city. This presents an opportunity where the station itself will have a direct influence on a traveler's initial or final experience of the city. And so, I propose a station that, through its architecture and relationship to the site, provides the traveler a space where they can stop, look, and take in the view of the city from which they are about to depart or at which they are just now arriving. It allows those new to the city to get an understanding of the basic urban layout and its relationship to its surroundings. It becomes a destination in itself, that allows the local population to regain knowledge of their city and to reinterpret what they already know about their home. / Master of Architecture

Diss., Politecnico Federale di Zurigo, 1994. / Indice. S. 149-151.

The EU jurisdictional scheme, known as the “Brussels Regime”, confers competence to national courts to adjudicate over international matters. The main rule in Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation sets out that the defendant should generally be sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled. For certain subject matters, the scheme allows the action to be brought elsewhere. The raison d’être is to provide an adequate counterbalance to the one-sided rule of Article 4(1). Articles 7(1) and (2) enable the claimant to launch the suit, “in matters relating to a contract”, at the court of the Member State where the contractual obligation was to be fulfilled, and, in “matters relating to tort”, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. Whether to invoke Article 7 is entirely the claimant’s choice, but the final decision on its interpretation is vested in the Court. Thereby, the manner in which the Court views the provisions will effectively decide the extent of the claimant’s choice to invoke so-called special jurisdiction. It also means that greater emphasis on special jurisdiction will reduce the importance of the main rule in Article 4. Conversely, if the Court were to interpret Article 7 narrowly, its intended effect within the system would be denied. In both cases, the balance between Articles 4 and 7 has been upset. In the former case, the claimant is favoured because of the increased possibilities to choose the forum for the dispute, while in the latter case, the defendant is favoured because he retains the advantage of litigating in his home turf. The starting point for this essay is this very idea of a purported balance between litigants’ interests in EU cross-border litigation. The thesis analyses whether the Court’s case-law on general vis-à-vis special jurisdiction has transitioned from being generally defendant-friendly to claimant-friendly. It is argued that already from the first judgments rendered on the original Brussels Convention in 1976, increasingly more disputes have been launched at special fora, which has amounted to a claimant-friendly scheme. It is also argued that this development has been at the expense of the defendant. Greater choice for the claimant means in turn that the defendant’s ability to foresee before what courts he may be sued has been largely impaired. The thesis highlights how this imbalance is the result of inherent challenges in the Brussels Regime, particularly in relation to how the relevant connecting factors are designated. It is proposed that the unwanted effects of the Court’s practice as well as the shortcomings of the scheme itself are to be considered in the Commission’s evaluationof the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is presently in the works.