{"title":"欧洲法院对俄罗斯天然气工业股份公司(gazprom)的判决是否使布鲁塞尔一号条例下的反诉讼禁令的授予变得清晰?","authors":"J. Sundaram","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V27I0.1111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 13 May 2015 the CJEU delivered the much anticipated judgment in Gazprom OAO v Republic of Lithuania . The CJEU had before it issues relating to the grant of anti-suit injunctions by member state courts/arbitral tribunals to enforce arbitration agreements, and also, most importantly if the Brussels I Regulation would apply to the case at hand. The case gains in significance, as the Advocate General (AG) had in December 2014, while giving his opinion on the matter had proceeded to apply a ‘future law’ on a matter pending before the courts, strongly recommended that the CJEU reconsider its judgment handed down in Allianz v West Tankers (The Front Comor) . Earlier, i n the West Tankers case the CJEU ruled that it was incompatible with the Brussels Regulation for the court of a EU Member State to grant an injunction restraining a party from commencing or continuing court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the CJEU held that if proceedings were to come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, then a preliminary issue concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement also came within the scope of the Regulation.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DOES THE JUDGMENT OF THE CJEU IN GAZPROM BRING ABOUT CLARITY ON THE GRANT OF ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION?\",\"authors\":\"J. Sundaram\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/DLJ.V27I0.1111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 13 May 2015 the CJEU delivered the much anticipated judgment in Gazprom OAO v Republic of Lithuania . The CJEU had before it issues relating to the grant of anti-suit injunctions by member state courts/arbitral tribunals to enforce arbitration agreements, and also, most importantly if the Brussels I Regulation would apply to the case at hand. The case gains in significance, as the Advocate General (AG) had in December 2014, while giving his opinion on the matter had proceeded to apply a ‘future law’ on a matter pending before the courts, strongly recommended that the CJEU reconsider its judgment handed down in Allianz v West Tankers (The Front Comor) . Earlier, i n the West Tankers case the CJEU ruled that it was incompatible with the Brussels Regulation for the court of a EU Member State to grant an injunction restraining a party from commencing or continuing court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the CJEU held that if proceedings were to come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, then a preliminary issue concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement also came within the scope of the Regulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Denning Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V27I0.1111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V27I0.1111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
2015年5月13日,欧洲法院在Gazprom OAO诉立陶宛共和国案中做出了备受期待的判决。欧洲高等法院之前有成员国法院/仲裁法庭授予反诉讼禁令以执行仲裁协议的问题,而且,最重要的是,布鲁塞尔I规则是否适用于手头的案件。2014年12月,总检察长(AG)在就此事发表意见的同时,对法院悬而未决的问题提出了“未来法律”,并强烈建议欧洲高等法院重新考虑其在安联诉西油轮案(The Front Comor)中做出的判决,此案具有重要意义。早些时候,在West Tankers一案中,欧洲法院裁定,欧盟成员国法院颁发禁令,禁止一方当事人因违反仲裁协议而启动或继续法庭诉讼,这与《布鲁塞尔条例》不符。在作出这一决定时,欧洲法院认为,如果诉讼程序属于《布鲁塞尔规则1》的范围,那么有关仲裁协议有效性的初步问题也属于《规则》的范围。
DOES THE JUDGMENT OF THE CJEU IN GAZPROM BRING ABOUT CLARITY ON THE GRANT OF ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION?
On 13 May 2015 the CJEU delivered the much anticipated judgment in Gazprom OAO v Republic of Lithuania . The CJEU had before it issues relating to the grant of anti-suit injunctions by member state courts/arbitral tribunals to enforce arbitration agreements, and also, most importantly if the Brussels I Regulation would apply to the case at hand. The case gains in significance, as the Advocate General (AG) had in December 2014, while giving his opinion on the matter had proceeded to apply a ‘future law’ on a matter pending before the courts, strongly recommended that the CJEU reconsider its judgment handed down in Allianz v West Tankers (The Front Comor) . Earlier, i n the West Tankers case the CJEU ruled that it was incompatible with the Brussels Regulation for the court of a EU Member State to grant an injunction restraining a party from commencing or continuing court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the CJEU held that if proceedings were to come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, then a preliminary issue concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement also came within the scope of the Regulation.