Litigio o arbitraje: ¿una competencia? Disputa comercial transfronteriza de adjudicación en un mundo

Cross-border civil and commercial conflicts can be adjudicated by courts of sovereign states or in a private setting, namely by arbitration panels. Against the background of a globalizing world and an increase in popularity of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution ‘Europe’ (the European Union) faces the challenge to demarcate borderlines as litigation in court and arbitration tend to get in conflict more often. Conflicts may relate to the jurisdiction of courts versus the competence of arbitration panels (inter alia resulting in anti-suit court orders or even arbitral awards), as well as to the recognition of foreign court orders being capable of frustrating arbitral awards or vice versa. This contribution attempts to analyze how these clashes ought to be resolved under the reign of ‘new’ cross-border civil and procedural law in Europe (EU Regulation 1215/2012, or ‘Recast’) on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ (in force January 15, 2015). Two preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) though still interpreting EU Regulation 44/2001 (i.e. the legislative predecessor of the Recast), remain important to the law regime of the Recast. The final conclusion is that, even though the Recast respects the international law framework of notably the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, a considerable amount of legal uncertainty remains, as Recital 12 of the Recast Preamble contains ‘open-ended’ parameters leaving discretionary room for national law of each individual EU Member State and calling for further interpretative rulings of the CJEU.

1. M. Avbelj, Arbitration and Anti-Suit Injunctions in the European Union, The Law Quarterly Review 2009, p.365
2. J. Basedow, The Communautarisation of Private International Law RabelsZ 2009, p. 455
3. C. Bauer/M. Fornasier, Discussion Report: The Communautarisation of Private International Law – Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law, Hamburg, 7 June 2008, RabelsZ 2009, p. 660
4. M. Becker, Anti-suit injunction: La prohibition du droit communautaire s'applique même en matière d'arbitrage, Le droit maritime français 2009, p.217
5. A.C. Bing, Arbitrage et droit européen: une désunion irrémédiable?, Recueil Le Dalloz 2009 p. 983
6. S. Bollée, Le juge communautaire face au "Common Law". Réflexions autour de l'arrêt "Allianz", Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2009, p.291-303
7. A. Borrás Rodríguez/C. Pellisé/M. Requejo Isidro, Arbitrato comunitario e anti-suit injunctions nella sentenza West Tankers della Corte di Giustizia, Diritto del commercio internazionale 2009, p.351
8. S. Bourgois/V. Van Houtte, Het verloop van een arbitrage: de anti-suit injuction als instrument om voorrang te verlenen aan de beslechting van het geschil door arbitrage, Hommage à Guy Keutgen pour son action de promotion de l'arbitrage, Bruxelles) 2013, p.303
9. P.Callé, Revue critique de droit international privé 2009 p.379
10. R. Carrier, Arrêt "West Tankers Case": l'intentement ou la poursuite d'une procédure dans un Etat membre différent de celui désigné dans la convention d'arbitrage, Journal des tribunaux/droit européen 2009, p.100-102
11. B. Demirkol, Ordering cessation of court proceedings to protect the integrity of arbitration agreements under the Brussels I regime, ICLQ 2016, p. 379
12. R. Fentiman, West Tankers: la Corte di Regolamento Giustizia conferma l'inammissibilità delle anti-suit injunctions anche in un ambito escluso dall'applicazione del Bruxelles, I, Diritto del commercio internazionale 2008, p. 729
13. F. Fradeani, Jurisprudencia española y comunitaria de Derecho internacional privado, Revista española de Derecho Internacional 2009, p.187
14. J. Grierson, Rozsudok "West Tankers", Výber z rozhodnutí Súdneho dvora Európskych spoločenstiev 2009 nº 6, p.21
15. J.J. Van Haersolte-van Hof, J.J., Jurisprudence européenne, Revue de l'arbitrage 2009 p.413
16. T.C. Hartley, Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration: West Tankers still afloat, ICLQ 2015, p. 965
17. C.A. Heinze, Arbitration and the Brussels Regulation, Cambridge Law Journal 2007, p.493
18. M. Illmer, Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas, Revista Jurídica de Catalunya 2009, p.269
19. J. Israel, Conflicts of Law and the EC after Amsterdam. A Change for the Worse?, MJ 2000, p. 1, 81
20. M. Jánošíková, Les transports: activités, contrats et responsabilités. CJCE, 10 février 2009, aff. C-185/07, West Tankers: anti-suit injunctions et droit communautaire, La Semaine Juridique - entreprise et affaires 2009 nº 1973 p.33
21. C. Kessedjian, Arbitrage et "anti-suit injunction", Europe 2009, Avril Comm. nº 176 p.32
22. J. Klučka. Zitimata symvatotitas tis anglosaxonikis antiagogikis diatagis (anti-suit injuction) me ton EK 44/2001, Efarmoges Astikou Dikaiou 2009, p.356
23. K. Kreuzer, Zu Stand und Perspektiven des Europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht – Wie Europäisch soll das Europäische Internationale Privatrecht sein?’ RabelsZ. 2006, p. 1
24. C. Legros, Anti-suit injunctions zur Durchsetzung von Schiedsvereinbarungen in Europa - der letzte Vorhang ist gefallen, IPRax 2009, p.312
25. E.Merlin, Le anti-suit injunctions, anche "a protezione" dell'arbitrato internazionale, tra incompatibilità con il sistema processuale comunitario e riconoscimento quale legittimo rimedio a salvaguardia delle clausole di deroga alla giurisdizione, Int'l Lis 2009 p.123
26. C. Michailidoua, Englische Prozessführungsverbote zum Schutz von Schiedsvereinbarungen im europäischen Zivilprozess, ZeUP 2010, p.170
27. A. Mourre/A. Vagenheim, Incompatibilité des anti-suit injunctions avec le règlement (CE) nº 44/2001 du 22 décembre 2000, La Semaine Juridique -édition générale 2009 nº 227 p.49-52
28. H. Muir Watt, Aux frontières du règlement 44/2001: arbitrage, injonction et confiance mutuelle ..., Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 2009, p.357
29. A Nuyts, ‘La refonte du règlement Bruxelles I’ (2013) 102(1) Revue critique de droit international privé 1, 11
30. C.P. Ojiegbe, From West Tankers to Gazprom: anti-suit injunctions, arbitral anti-suit orders and the Brussels I Recast, Journal of Private International Law 2015, p. 267
31. G. Papachristou, Anti-suit injuctions - Diaitisia kai Kanonismos "Vryxelles I" - Skepseis me aformi tin apofasi tou DEK epi tis ypotheseos Allianz/West Tankers, Dikaio Epicheiriseon & Etairion 2009, p.986
32. E. Peel, Proroghe pattizie e principio di "pari autorità" nell'accertamento della competenza internazionale nel Reg. CE 44/2001,Rivista di diritto processuale 2009, p.971
33. T. Pfeiffer/H. Wais Die Stärkung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen in der Neufassung der EuGVO, Ed., Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR) 2015, p. 142
34. C. Price, Arbitration and Antisuit Injunctions in Europe, The Cambridge Law Journal 2009 p.278-281
35. M. Requejo Isidro, Comment on West Tankers Inc. v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta S.p.A. (The Front Comor), Journal of International Arbitration 2009, p.891
36. H.P Schroeder, Droit de l'arbitrage, Petites affiches. La Loi / Le Quotidien juridique 2009 nº 53 p.16-17
37. D.H. Sharma, Anti-suit injunctions - weg ermee! Arbtrage-exceptie - weg ermee!, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2009 p.161
38. N. Sifakis, Nikiforos,G Gemeinschaftswidriges gerichtliches Verbot der Klageerhebung wegen Schiedsvereinbarung, EWiR 2009 p.218
39. J. Sundaram, Does the judgment in CJEU Gazprom bring about clarity on the grant of anti-suit injunctions under the Brussels I Regulation?, Denning Law Journal 2015, p. 303
40. A. Van Waeyenberge, A propos de la portée de l'exclusion de l'arbitrage dans le règlement nº 44/2001, notamment après l'arrêt West Tankers de la CJCE, Gazette du Palais 2009 nº 198-199 II Doct. p.208
41. D. Wiegandt, Kommentar zu EuGH (Große Kammer), 13.05.2015 - Rs. C 536/13 Gazprom OAO, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2015, 430
42. A. Williams, Anti-suit injunctions, West Tankers survives judicial challenge – for now, Int.Arb.Quarterly 2015, p. 2
43. M. Winkler, The Advocate General's opinion in The Front Comor: bad news for London arbitration?, Shipping and Trade Law 2008, p.1
44. On line publications:
45. C. Ambrose, Recast Brussels I Regulation, and V. Selvaratnam QC, Anti-suit injunctions and the Gazprom case. The enforcement of London arbitration agreements – London Shipping Law Centre Maritime Business Forum, 2015 conference, http://www.shippinglbc.com/content/uploads/members_documents/Enforcement_Arb_Agreements_161115.pdf.;
46. Cf. also M. Aquilina, Lawsuits in the European Union: Disarming the „Italian Torpedo with the Recast Brussels Regulation‟, Business Lawyer (26 June 2015), http://hazlolaw.com/articles/law-suits-in-the-european-union-disarming-the-italian-torpedo-with-the-recast-brussels-regulation/
47. J. Basedow, EU Law in International Arbitration: Referrals to the European Court of Justice, Max Planck Research Paper Series 15/16, p. 368, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642805 (last revised April 2016)
48. A-C Bing, Arbitrage et droit de l’Union Européenne – Rapport de recherche, Annee 2014-2015, http://www.lepetitjuriste.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rapport-de-recherche-CEJI-2014-2015-Anne-C%C3%A9cile-BING.pdf
49. ICLG Blog, http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/international-arbitration-/international-arbitration-2015/11-arbitration-in-the-eu-an-overview-of-recent-developments. (last visited late June 2016)
50. A. Doudko/V. Astashonak, “Thou shall not sue!”- Who decides, YoungICCA blog, 2015, http://www.youngicca-blog.com/thou-shall-not-sue-who-decides/
51. S. Gault, Do the LMAA Terms 2012 give tribunals enough powers to enforce their jurisdiction?, in: The enforcement of London arbitration agreements – London Shipping Law Centre Maritime Business Forum, 2015 conference, http://www.shippinglbc.com/content/uploads/members_documents/Enforcement_Arb_Agreements_161115.pdf. , p. 60.
52. J von Hein, The Protection of Arbitration Agreements within the EU after West Tankers, Gazprom, and the Brussels I Recast, http://conflictoflaws.net/2015/the-protection-of-arbitration-agreements-within-the-eu-after-west-tankers-gazprom-and-the-brussels-i-recast/.
53. I. Haramati, http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiSwIK8uZXNAhVjFMAKHYrTCL4QFgg_MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gtlaw.com%2Fportalresource%2Flookup%2Fwosid%2Fcontentpilot-core-401-27635%2FpdfCopy.name%3D%2FGT%2520Alert%2520-%2520CJEU%2520Judgment%2520on%2520Gazprom%2520Offers%2520No%2520Guidance%2520Revised%2520Brussels%2520I%2520Regulation.pdf%3Fview%3Dattachment&usg=AFQjCNF_NaI4rIfkfY_zhvUppav_kq052A
54. S. Lacey, Kluwer arbitration blog, http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/05/14/are-anti-suit-injunctions-back-on-the-menu-part-2-the-cjeus-decision-in-gazprom/.; J. von Hein, http://conflictoflaws.net/2015/the-protection-of-arbitration-agreements-within-the-eu-after-west-tankers-gazprom-and-the-brussels-i-recast/
55. P. Ortolani, Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration under the Recast Brussels I regulation, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for international, European and regulatory procedural law – Working paper series 2015, available at www.mpi.lu.
56. E. Poulton/M. Totman/D. Bruce-Smith, What the Gazprom ECJ judgment means for the arbitration community, http://www.globelawandbusiness.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=40b9f60e-9a14-425e-9478-9870c5d285e1.
57. H. de Verdelhan, Chronique de jurisprudence – Arret de Gazprom, Revue Internationale de droit économique 2016, p. 35; E. Guichard, arret dans l’affaire Gazprom, Justice Civile Européenne, 2015, https://justicecivileeuropeenne.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/arret-dans-laffaire-gazprom/.