CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Kateřina zabloudilovÁ CYIL 12 (2021) only covers the means of communication used in 1958. 77 Therefore, UNCITRAL advocates interpreting the NY Convention in a way that the circumstances described therein are not exhaustive. 78 Thus, the term “ in the exchange of letters or telegrams ” should be interpreted widely as including modern means of communication (e-mails, faxes, data messages, etc.). 79 Furthermore, contracting states are recommended to assess the formal validity of arbitration agreements according to less stringent formal requirements available under their national laws or international treaties. 80 What is more, national legislation may not be applied if its requirements are stricter than those of the NY Convention. 81 The Brussels Ibis Regulation The Brussels Ibis Regulation contains an autonomous regulation of formal validity of jurisdiction agreements that cannot be modified by national courts – national courts are not allowed to add further requirements, nor can they vary requirements incorporated in the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 82 The Brussels Ibis Regulation admits five different forms of jurisdiction agreements: (a) in writing; (b) evidenced in writing; (c) shown by practices among the parties; (d) shown by international trade usage; (e) communicated by electronic means. If none of them are satisfied, the jurisdiction agreement is invalid and does not confer the jurisdiction onto the chosen court. 83 available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=564; see also: M/S Unissi (India) Pvt Ltd v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research , Supreme Court in India, judgment of 1 st October 2008, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1393; see also: Standard Bent Glass Corp. v. Glassrobots OY, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, judgment of 20 June 2003, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=418. 77 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 50; see also Rozehnalová, N. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 172. 78 UNCITRAL. Recommendation regarding the interpretation of Article II(2) and Article VII(1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 7 July 2006 at its thirty-ninth session. [online]. newyorkconvention.org . 2016. [cit. 30. 12. 2020], available at: http://www.newyorkconvention.org/11165/web/ files/document/1/5/15978.pdf; see also Rozehnalová, N. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 172; see also Ryšavý, L. Form of Arbitration Agreement in a Comparative Perspective. International and Comparative Law Review . 2020, č. 2, p. 49; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 128. 79 In case law Sheldon Proctor v. Leon Schellenber , Court of Appeal in Manitoba, Canada, judgment of 11 December 2002, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=903. In literature Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), pp. 688, 689; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 50; see also Kronke, H. (op. cit. sub 16), pp. 82, 83; see also UNCITRAL. UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). (op. cit. sub 15), p. 55; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 125. 80 UNCITRAL. Recommendation regarding the interpretation of Article II(2) and Article VII(1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York, 10 June 1958, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 7 July 2006 at its thirty-ninth session. (op. cit. sub 78). 81 Kronke, H. (op. cit. sub 16), pp. 45, 46; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 57. 82 In literature Dobiáš, P., Malacka, M. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 113; see also Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), p. 130; see also see also Hrnčiříková. Právní prava formy prorogčních doložek na pozadí požadavku písemnosti v mezinárodním právu soukromém , p. 206; see also Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 89. In case law also Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain , ECJ C-150/80, judgment of 24 June 1981. 83 Art. 25(1) and (2) Brussels Ibis Regulation; see also Kyselovská, T. Rozehnalová, N. (op. cit. sub 32), p. 423; see also Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 636.

408