References
- 1. Bermann, George A. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards the Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts. Springer, 2017.10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0
- 2. Besson, Sebastien. “Arbitration and Human Rights.” ASA Bull. 24 (2006): 395–406.10.54648/ASAB2006051
- 3. Bordas, Albert. Des judgements susceptible d’appel. Paris, 1904.
- 4. Born, Gary. International Commercial Arbitration. Volume 1. Wolters Kluwer, 2009.
- 5. Chainais, Cécile. “Exigences du procès équitable et arbitrage existence et essence du droit à un procès arbitral equitable”: 265–322. In: L. Milano, ed. Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et droit de l’entreprise. Nemesis/Anthemis, 2016.
- 6. Derains, Yves, and Laurence Kiffer. “National Report for France (2013 through 2018)”. In: Lise Bosman, ed. ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitratio. 2018.
- 7. Dickson, Moses Oruaze. “Party autonomy and justice in international commercial arbitration.” International Journal of Law and Management 60(1) (2018): 114–134.10.1108/IJLMA-12-2016-0184
- 8. Fry, Jason, Simon Greenberg, and Francesca Mazza. The Secretariat’s Guide to ICC Arbitration. Paris: ICC Publishing SA, 2012.
- 9. Hodges, Paula. “The relevance of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of arbitration proceedings.” International Arbitration Law Review 10(5) (2007): 163–169.
- 10. Jokubauskas, Remigijus, Mykolas Kirkutis, Egidija Tamošiūnienė, and Vigintas Višinskis. Ginčų nagrinėjimas komerciniame arbitraže. Vilnius: MRU, 2020.
- 11. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, and Antonio Rigozzi. International Arbitration Law and Practice in Switzerland. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- 12. Kunz, Catherine A. “Waiver of right to challenge an international arbitral award is not incompatible with ECHR: Tabbane v. Switzerland.” European International Arbitration Review (2016): 125–132.
- 13. Lau, Christopher, and Christin Horlach. “Party Autonomy – The Turning Point?” International dispute resolution Vol. 4, No. 1 (2010): 121–130.
- 14. Mavunduse, Davis, and Camilla Andersen. “Party autonomy in international commercial arbitration: a look at freedom, delimitation and judicialization.” International Trade Law & Regulation 25(2) (2019): 92–106.
- 15. Menaker, Andrea. International Arbitration and the Rule of Law–Contribution and Conformity, ICCA Congres Series No. 19. Wolters Kluwer, 2017.
- 16. Petkutė-Gurienė, Jurgita. “Komercinis arbitražas ir teisingo bylos nagrinėjimo garantijos pagal Europos žmogaus teisių konvencijos 6(1) straipsnį.” Jurisprudence 24 (2) (2017): 465–489.
- 17. Schabas, William A. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- 1. Arbitration Rules of International Chamber of Commerce. 2017.
- 2. Cour d”appel Paris, 19.05.1993, Sté. Labinal v. Sté. Mors et Westland Aerospace. Rev. arb.1993.
- 3. ECHR judgment of 1 March 2016 in case Tabbane v. Switzerland. Petition No. 41069/2012.
- 4. ECHR judgment of 12 September 1982 in case Bramelid and Malmström v. Sweden. Petitions No. 8588/79; 8589/79.
- 5. ECHR judgment of 16 December 2003 in case Transado-Transportes Fluviais Do Sado, S.A, v. Portugal. Petition No. 35943/02.
- 6. ECHR judgment of 17 September 2010 in case Scoppola v. Italy (No. 2). Petition No. 10249/03.
- 7. ECHR judgment of 2 December 1991 in case Jakob BOSS Söhne KG v. Germany, petition No. 18479/91.
- 8. ECHR judgment of 2 October 2018 in case Mutu and Pechsteins v Switzerland. Petitions No 40575/2010; 67474/2010, para. 113.
- 9. ECHR judgment of 21 February 1990 in case Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden. Series A. No. 171, petition No. 12585/86.
- 10. ECHR judgment of 23 February 1999 in case Suovaniemi and others v. Finland. Petition No. 31737/96.
- 11. ECHR judgment of 27 February 1980 in case Deweer v. Belgium. Petition No. 6903/75.
- 12. ECHR judgment of 28 October 2010 in case Suda v. Czech Republic. Petition No. 1643/06.
- 13. ECHR judgment of 8 July 1986 in case Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom. Petitions No. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81;9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81.
- 14. Judgment of 30 September 2019 of Juzgado de lo Mercantil, Sentencia 000266/2019.
- 15. Judgment of Cour de cassation chambre civile 1 of 28 March 2013 in case No. 11-27770.
- 16. Judgment of Federal Court of Germany of 25 January 2011 in case No. XI ZR 350/08.
- 17. Judgment of Singapore High Court in Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd. [2009] SGCA 24.
- 18. Judgment of the Cour de Cassation Civ. 1re of 20 February 2001 in case Cubic Defense Systems c. CCI. D. 2001. 99-12.574.
- 19. Judgment of the High Court judgment of 22 March 2013 in case HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings Pte Ltd. [2013] S.G.H.C.R. 5.
- 20. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of 20 March, 2003 in case Desputeaux c. Éditions Chouette. (1987) inc. SCC 17, 2003 CSC 17, 2003 Carswell Que 342.
- 21. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of 4 April 2019 in case TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman Supreme. 2019 CSC 19, 2019 Carswell Ont 4913.
- 22. Judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales judgment of March 26 in case American Diagnostica Ltd v Gradipore Ltd. 1998 SC, 26 March 1998 44 NSWLR 312.
- 23. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 29 November 2018, in case No. e3K-3-278-313/2018.
- 24. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 8 July, 2018, in case No. e3K-3-365-969/2016.
- 25. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 9 February 2010, in case No. 3K-3-64/2010.
- 26. UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.