Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORT2SeealsoNationalNavigationCo.v.EndesaWestTankers2010FulbrightInternationalArbitrationReportIssue1WestTankerse.g.e.g.TheCommissionsProposaltForsomethisrulinghadtheunintendedeffectoffacilitatingbad-faithattemptstoderailarbitrationproceedingsbyallowingpartiestopursueparallelcourtlitigationinaconvenientjurisdictiontheso-calledItaliantorpedo.InadditiontotheextentcourtsinEUMemberStatescannotenjoinpartiesfrompursuinglitigationthatcontravenesanarbitrationagreementtheymaybreachtheStatesobligationunderArticleII1oftheNewYorkConventionwhichrequirescontractingstatestorecognizeanagreementinwritingunderwhichthepartiesundertaketosubmittoarbitrationanydisputesbetweenthem.TheSagaContinuesp.7.EvenbeforevariousEUbodiesconsideredreformingtheRegulationtodefinemoreclearlythecontoursofthearbitrationexclusion.RecommendationshaverangedfromentirelyabolishingthearbitrationexclusionsothattheRegulationwouldapplytoallarbitration-relatedcourtproceedingsseetheHeidelbergStudyJLSC4200503FinalversionSeptember2007toestablishingspecicprocedurestodeterminetheappropriatejurisdictionincourtproceedingsrelatedtoarbitrationseeEuropeanCommissionreportandGreenPaperECDocumentsCOM20090174FINandCOM20090175FINApril212009.TheEuropeanParliamentissuedaresolutionlastyearsuggestingthattheRegulationshouldbeleftuntouchedstronglyopposingtheevenpartialabolitionoftheexclusionofarbitrationfromthescope.EuropeanParliamentresolutionof7September2010ontheimplementationandreviewofCouncilRegulationECNo.442001onJurisdictionandEnforcementofJudgmentsinCivilandCommercialMatters20092140INI.Eachofthesesuggestionshasbeenmetwithitsshareofsupportandcriticism.InresponsetosuggestionsforreformtheEuropeanCommissionissueditsProposallastDecember.InanExplanatoryMemorandumaccompanyingtheProposaltheCommissionstatedthatwhilethereweredivergentviewsregardingthebestwayforwardfortheinterfacebetweentheRegulationandarbitrationmoststakeholdersexpressedgeneralsatisfactionwiththeoperationofthe1958NewYorkConventionwhichshouldnotbeunderminedbyanyEuropeanUnionactiononthematter.Proposalp.5.TheProposalretainsthearbitrationexclusionbutlimitsitsreachbyallowingcertainarbitration-relatedcourtproceedingstofallwithinthescopeoftheRegulation.UndertheProposaltheRegulationdoesnotapplytoarbitrationsaveinthelimitedcaseprovidedfortherein.Inparticularitdoesnotapplytotheformexistencevalidityoreffectsofarbitrationagreementsthepowersofthearbitratorstheprocedurebeforearbitraltribunalsandthevalidityannulmentandrecognitionandenforcementofarbitralawards.ProposedWhereasNo.11.ThetextofthenewarbitrationexclusionifadoptedwouldprovidethisRegulationshallnotapplyto...darbitrationsaveasprovidedforinArticles29paragraph4and33paragraph3....TheproposedrevisiontoArticle29ismeanttoaddresstheproblemoftheItaliantorpedo.IftheseatofarbitrationisinanEUMemberStatethecourtsofotherMemberStateswhosejurisdictionischallengedbasedontheexistenceofanarbitrationagreementshallstayproceedingswheneither1acourtoftheMemberStatewheretheseatofarbitrationislocatedor2thearbitraltribunalhavebeenseisedofproceedingstodetermineastheirmainobjectorasanincidentalquestiontheexistencevalidityoreffectsofthatarbitrationagreement.Anarbitraltribunalisdeemedtobeseisedwhena