Abstract
The article analyses legal nature and some practical problems of anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals. One part of the article is dedicated to the tendencies of the European Court of Justice regarding the impact of Brussels I Regulation to the anti-suit injunctions granted by arbitral tribunals within the EU. The right of arbitral tribunal to grant anti-suit injunction consists of the right to decide on its own jurisdiction and the right to grant interim measures of protection. Such dual legal nature, on one hand, helps to apply anti-suit injunction flexibly, on the other hand, makes the relations between arbitration courts and national courts chaotic, due to different national legislation. With a view to unify the attitude of the states towards anti-suit injunction, as well as to encourage its effective implementation, it would be advisable, first of all, to unify the definition and establish clear procedural limits for anti-suit injunction, indicating when it has to be applied.Moreover, evaluation of the effect of parallel proceedings on the arbitral case should not be limited to identification of formal links. Also, it is neccessary to clarify criterions, which define abuse of arbitral process in the light of parallel proceedings, and to expand the list of sanctions in order to guarantee enforcement. Brussels I Recast was expected to bring a wider proarbitral perspective of EU and systemically remove all questions related to arbitration from the scope of the Regulation. Such step would confirm the legitimacy of anti-suit injunctions in EU. However, recent decision of European Court of Justice in Gazprom case left some doubts about the tendencies and interpretations of anti-suit injunctions and legal community is still in need of a clearer framework for anti-suit injunctions.
Highlights
Marija BliuvaitėStraipsnyje nagrinėjama arbitražo teismo teisės taikyti draudimą paraleliai bylinėtis kitame teisme
The article analyses legal nature and some practical problems of anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals
One part of the article is dedicated to the tendencies of the European Court of Justice regarding the impact of ‘Brussels I‘ Regulation to the anti-suit injunctions granted by arbitral tribunals within the EU
Summary
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama arbitražo teismo teisės taikyti draudimą paraleliai bylinėtis kitame teisme Kad visi iš sutarties kylantys ginčai būtų sprendžiami tos institucijos, dėl kurios šalys susitarė, arbitražo teismas gali taikyti draudimą paraleliai bylinėtis kituose teismuose[2]. Pagrindiniai keliami uždaviniai yra ištirti dvilypę arbitražo teismo teisės taikyti draudimą paraleliai bylinėtis teisinę prigimtį – arbitražo teismo teisę nuspręsti dėl savo jurisdikcijos remiantis „Kompetencijos – kompetencijos“ doktrina bei teisę ginti šalių arbitražinį susitarimą naudojantis draudimu kaip laikinąja apsaugos priemone, tokios teisės apimtį ir ribas, taikymo aspektus – aplinkybes, kai turėtų būti taikomas draudimas paraleliai bylinėtis, vykdymo klausimą ir sankcijas šalims, nevykdančioms įpareigojimo, draudimo paraleliai bylinėtis formą, ES Teisingumo Teismo poziciją dėl reglamento Briuselis I ir arbitražo santykio draudimo paraleliai bylinėtis kontekste bei Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo naujausią praktiką šia tema. Šios arbitražo teismo teisės drausti paralelius teismo procesus kituose teismuose prigimtis dvejopa: tokia teisė kildinama iš arbitražo teismo jurisdikcijos spręsti ginčą ir arbitražo teismo galios taikyti laikinąsias apsaugos priemones tame ginče
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
