英语论文网

e [1998], itwas held that the subject matter is arbitration if theproceedings serve to protect the right to have thedispute determined by arbitration.Lord Hoffman's conclusion was that theproceedings before the House of Lords were toprotect the contractual right to have the disputedetermined by arbitration. As such, they fell outsidethe Regulation and could not be inconsistent withits provisions.There was no dispute that, under the Regulation,the Tribunale di Siracusa had jurisdiction to try theclaim. The arbitration clause was an agreement notto invoke that jurisdiction.That was to be contrasted with an exclusivejurisdiction clause which takes effect within theRegulation, and its enforcement must therefore bein accordance with the terms of the Regulation.However, an arbitration clause takes effect outsidethe Regulation, and its enforcement is not subjectto its terms.Although expressing this view, the House of Lordsdecided that the question should nevertheless bereferred to the ECJ for decision as it is a question“…of very considerable practical importance on whichdifferent views have been expressed by national judgesand writers.”

 

CONCLUSIONS https://www.51lunwen.org/InternationalBusinessLaw/2012/0321/1119068960.html
The decision to refer the question to the ECJ hasitself provoked some debate. There is real concernthat, if the ECJ rules that the courts of MemberStates cannot issue anti-suit injunctions to restraincourt proceedings in another EU state which arebeing commenced/prosecuted in breach of anarbitration agreement, this may have far-reachingimplications for arbitration in the whole of the EU.The English courts' historical willingness to orderanti-suit injunctions has contributed to theattractiveness of London as a forum forinternational arbitration. If the ECJ's generaldistrust of anti-suit injunctions is extended toarbitration, the likely losers in an arbitration mayseek to derail the whole process before it hascommenced by starting litigation in anotherMember State court where proceedings movemore slowly.This would result in the extra expense of two setsof proceedings in two separate places, with the riskof conflicting decisions. Further, the existence of litigation may prevent a successful claimant inthe arbitration from enforcing its award in thecourt where the litigation is proceeding.As a result of these uncertainties, parties may bedissuaded from using arbitration to resolve theirdisputes or at least from nominating London and/orany other EU venue as the seat of their arbitration.Some of these concerns were highlighted by LordHoffman, in making the referral to the ECJ, whenhe said:“But perhaps the most important consideration is thepractical reality of arbitration as a method of resolvingcommercial disputes. People engaged in commercechoose arbitration in order to be outside the proceduresof any national court. They frequently prefer theprivacy, informality and absence of any prolongation ofthe dispute by appeal which arbitration offers. Nor is itonly a matter of procedure. The choice of arbitrationmay affect the substantive rights of the parties, givingthe arbitrators the right to act as amiablescompositeurs, apply broad equitable considerations, evena lex mercatoria which does not wholly reflect anynational system of law. The principle of autonomy ofthe parties should allow them these choices.”It remains to be seen whether the ECJ takes noteof these concerns. Nevertheless, their decision willbe本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。