The Imperative of Revising the Arbitration Exception in the Brussels I bis Regulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.17.1.23-37.2025Keywords:
arbitration exception, Brussels I bis Regulation, arbitration, EU civil procedure, private international law, court litigationAbstract
Arbitration represents a popular alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the European Union (EU). However, the coexistence of arbitration and court litigation in the EU legal area has been proven to be quite difficult to regulate. At the EU level, the Brussels I bis Regulation, i.e., the main instrument governing jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, explicitly states that arbitration does not fall under its scope. This ‘arbitration exception’ has led to difficulties in practice, many of which have found their way to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). However, as the CJEU case law shows, it only led to new questions. As these issues will keep emerging, a different solution must be found. The perfect moment for such change is now, as the reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation is ongoing. This paper thus presents the intricacies of the ‘thorny’ interplay of arbitration and court litigation in the EU. In order to remedy the existing problems in practice, two potential solutions are suggested.
Povzetek članka v slovenskem jeziku (abstract in Slovene language):
Arbitraža je v Evropski uniji (EU) priljubljen mehanizem alternativnega reševanja sporov. Vendar se je izkazalo, da je soobstoj arbitraže in sodnih postopkov na pravnem področju EU precej težko urediti. Na ravni EU je v uredbi Bruselj I bis, tj. glavnem instrumentu, ki ureja pristojnost ter priznavanje in izvrševanje sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, izrecno navedeno, da arbitraža ne spada na njeno področje uporabe. Zaradi te „arbitražne izjeme“ so se v praksi pojavile težave, od katerih jih je veliko prišlo do Sodišča EU (SEU). Vendar je, kot kaže sodna praksa Sodišča EU, privedla le do novih vprašanj. Ker se bodo ta vprašanja še naprej pojavljala, je treba najti drugačno rešitev. Idealen trenutek za takšno spremembo je zdaj, ko poteka reforma uredbe Bruselj I bis. V tem prispevku so tako predstavljene zapletene podrobnosti „kočljivega“ prepletanja arbitraže in sodnih postopkov v EU. Za odpravo obstoječih težav v praksi sta predlagani dve možni rešitvi.
Downloads
References
Bermann, George. (2015) “The Gazprom Case.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22(6): 888-907.
Bermann, George. (2011) “Reconciling European Union Law Demands with the Demands of International Arbitration.” Fordham International Law Journal 34(5): 1193-1216.
Brand, Ronald. (2014) Transaction Planning Using Rules on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments. Hague Academy of International Law.
Briggs, Adrian. (2022) “Humpty-Dumpty, Arbitration, and the Brussels Regulation: A View from Oxford.” EAPIL. https://eapil.org/2022/06/23/humpty-dumpty-arbitration-and-the-brussels-regulation-a-view-from-oxford/ (Accessed on 26th February 2025).
Brouwer, Evelien and Gerard, Damien, eds. (2016) Mapping Mutual Trust: Understanding and Framing the Role of Mutual Trust in EU Law. EUI Working Papers MWP.
Cambien, Nathan. (2017) “Mutual Recognition and Mutual Trust in the Internal Market.” European Papers 2(1): 93-115.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2001) OJ L 12/1.
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1972) OJ L 299.
Cuniberti, Gilles. (2022) “London Steam-Ship Owners: Extending Lis Pendens to Arbitral Tribunals?” EAPIL. https://eapil.org/2022/06/23/london-steam-ship-owners-extending-lis-pendens-to-arbitral-tribunals/ (Accessed on 26th February 2025).
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters [2008] OJ L 136/3.
Farah, Youseph and Hourani, Sara. (2018) “Recasting West Tankers in the Deep Water: How Gazprom and Recast Brussels I Reconcile Brussels I with International Arbitration” Journal of Private International Law 14(1): 96-129.
González-Bueno, Carlos and Lozano, Laura. (2015) “Anti-suit Injunction: Where Does Gazprom Leave Us?” Iurgium [previously Spain Arbitration Review] 24: 91-103.
Hartley, Trevor. (2014) “Antisuit Injunctions in Support of Arbitration: West Tankers Still Afloat.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 64(4): 965-975.
Heidelberg report - Report (JLS/2004/C4/03) on the application of the Brussels I Regulation in the Member States presented by B. Hess, T. Pfeiffer and P. Schlosser, Study JLS/C4/2005/03, Final version September 2007, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.
Hess, Burkhard et al. (2024) “The Reform of the Brussels Ibis Regulation - Additional Proposals.” Vienna Research Paper 1-48.
Hietanen-Kunwald, Petra, Koulu, Riikka, Turunen, Santtu. (2017) “The New Brussels I Regime and Arbitration – Finding an Interface.” LeXonomica 8(2): 93-114.
Kronke, Herbert. (2010) “The New York Convention Fifty Years on: Overview and Assessment.” In Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. A Global Commentary on the New York Convention, edited by Herbert Kronke, Patricia Nacimiento, Dirk Otto and Nicola Christine Port. Kluwer Law International.
Kruger, Thalia. (2010) “Civil Jurisdiction and the Issue of Legislating for the EU.” Journal of Private International Law 6(2): 499-518.
Kruger, Thalia. (2004) “The Anti-Suit Injunction in the European Judicial Space: Turner v Grovit.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53(4): 1030-1040.
Leandro, Antonio. (2015) “Towards a New Interface Between Brussels I and Arbitration?” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 6(1): 188-201.
Lenaerts, Koen. (2017) “La Vie Apres L'Avis: Exploring the Principle of Mutual (Yet Not Blind) Trust.” Common Market Law Review 54(3): 805-840.
Nový, Zdenek. (2017) “Lis pendens between international investments tribunals and national courts.” Czech Society of International Law 8: 536-549.
Radicati di Brozolo, Luca. (2012) “The Relation between Courts and Arbitration: Support or Hostility.” Opinio Juris in Comparatione 1: 1-12.
Redfern, Alan and Hunter, Martin. (2004) Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. 4th ed. Sweet & Maxwell.
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (2012) OJ L 351/1.
Report by Mr P. Jenard on the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 1979. OJ C 59: 1-65.
Rogerson, Pippa and Mankowski, Peter. (2023) “Article 1.” In European Commentaries on Private International Law (Commentary): Brussels Ibis Regulation, edited by Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt KG.
Sattler, Maximilian. (2016) “Abandon Ship? West Tankers, Gazprom, and Anti-Suit Injunctions under ‘Brussels Ia.’” ASA Bulletin 34(2): 342-354.
Savin, Andrej. (2010) “The Arbitration Exception and Protection of Arbitration Agreements in the EU.” Pravni zapisi 1: 74-96.
Schlosser, Peter. 1979. Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice. OJ C 59/72.
Storskrubb, Eva. (2018) “Mutual Trust and the Dark Horse of Civil Justice.” Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 20: 179-201.
Sundaram, Jae. (2015) “Does the Judgment of the CJEU in Gazprom Bring about Clarity on the Grant of Anti-Suit Injunctions under the Brussels I Regulation.” Denning Law Journal 27: 303-322.
The New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958.
Tičić, Martina. (2024) “The Notion of “Judgment” in the EU Regulations on Cross-Border Collection of Monetary Claims: A Change in Understanding?” European Papers 9(2): 557-592.
Van Houtte, Hans. (2005) “Why Not Include Arbitration in the Brussels Jurisdiction Regulation?” Arbitration International 21(4): 509-522.
Van Houtte, Hans. (2001) “Parallel proceedings before state courts and arbitration tribunals. - Is there a transnational lis alibi pendens - exception in arbitration or jurisdiction conventions?” ‘Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts. Who must defer to whom?’ ASA Special Series 15: 35-54.
Zilinsky, Marek. (2017) “Mutual Trust and Cross-Border Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters in the EU: Does the Step-by-Step Approach Work?” Netherlands International Law Review 64: 115-139.
Case-law
[2023] England and Wales High Court 2473 (Comm).
Case C-700/20, The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain (2022) EU:C:2021:1026, Opinion of Advocate General Collins.
Case C-700/20, London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain (2022) EU:C:2022:488.
Case C-536/13, "Gazprom" OAO v Lietuvos Respublika (2015) EU:C:2015:316.
Case C-185/07, Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc. (2009) ECR I-663.
Case C-159/02, Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA (2004) ECR I-3565.
Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another (1998) ECR I-7091.
Case C-190/89, Marc Rich & Co. AG v Società Italiana Impianti PA (1991) ECR I‑3855.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta, Univerzitetna založba
Prosti pristop