Author: Att. Ezgi Babur
Anti-suit injunctions are issued by national courts or arbitral tribunals, used especially in common law jurisdictions, in order to protect the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, or to prevent the tribunal from assuming jurisdiction. The general explanations on anti-suit injunctions are analyzed in our Newsletter article published in February[1].
With regard to anti-suit injunctions, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rendered a decision on May 13th, 2015, in case numbered C-536/13. The case concerned the questions addressed to the CJEU by the Lithuanian Supreme Court that arose in a lawsuit between Gazprom OAO (“Gazprom”) and the Republic of Lithuania, with respect to the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals. The Gazprom decision of the CJEU is analyzed in this article.
Legal Background
The recognition and enforcement of anti-suit injunctions has always been an issue of debate. Anti-suit injunctions may be considered as an infringement of the mutual trust principle within the European Union, when filed by the court of a member state, concerning the proceedings to be initiated in another member state.
In 2009, the CJEU, in its West Tankers decision, ruled that anti-suit injunctions issued by courts of member states, which deprive the courts of another member state of the ability to rule in their own jurisdiction, would be inconsistent with Council Regulation No. 44/2001 (“Brussels I Regulation”).
The Brussels I Regulation sets forth that the Regulation does not apply to arbitration; however, it does not clarify the scope of this exception. On the other hand, the Recast Brussels Regulation that entered into force on January 10th, 2015, clarified that proceedings ancillary to arbitration agreements are not within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. The Gazprom decision of the CJEU should be considered within this framework.
