The essay is concerned with Gazprom case: it considers not only the decision by the ECJ, but more generally the whole dispute between Gazprom and the Lithuanian Ministry of Energy, taking place before both the arbitral Tribunal, whose seat is in Stockholm, and the Lithuanian courts. In particular, the A. critically analyses the “anti-suit award”, with which the arbitral Tribunal ordered to the Ministry of Energy to renounce to some claims in the proceedings it started before the Lithuanian courts. Then the ECJ judgment on the case is taken into consideration, in which the Court hold that Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a court of a Member State from recognising and enforcing, or from refusing to recognise and enforce, an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State. The A. points out that the decision has two differents rationes decidendi. The first one is based on the scope of application of the principle of mutual trust, limited to the relations between the courts of different Member States, with the exclusion of the relations between a national court and an arbitral Tribunal. The second one (more pragmatic and, on the A.’s view, preferable) takes into consideration the differences between an anti-suit injunction issued by a national court (relevant in West Tankers’ case), whose effectiveness is granted by the contempt of court’s sanctions and the “anti-suit award”, whose effectiveness is not guaranteed in any way.
Il caso Gazprom: uno scontro transfrontaliero tra giudici statali e arbitri sullo sfondo della guerra per il prezzo del gas in Lituania
PENASA, LUCA
2015
Abstract
The essay is concerned with Gazprom case: it considers not only the decision by the ECJ, but more generally the whole dispute between Gazprom and the Lithuanian Ministry of Energy, taking place before both the arbitral Tribunal, whose seat is in Stockholm, and the Lithuanian courts. In particular, the A. critically analyses the “anti-suit award”, with which the arbitral Tribunal ordered to the Ministry of Energy to renounce to some claims in the proceedings it started before the Lithuanian courts. Then the ECJ judgment on the case is taken into consideration, in which the Court hold that Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a court of a Member State from recognising and enforcing, or from refusing to recognise and enforce, an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State. The A. points out that the decision has two differents rationes decidendi. The first one is based on the scope of application of the principle of mutual trust, limited to the relations between the courts of different Member States, with the exclusion of the relations between a national court and an arbitral Tribunal. The second one (more pragmatic and, on the A.’s view, preferable) takes into consideration the differences between an anti-suit injunction issued by a national court (relevant in West Tankers’ case), whose effectiveness is granted by the contempt of court’s sanctions and the “anti-suit award”, whose effectiveness is not guaranteed in any way.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
