UK: The Recast Brussels Regulation: Reinforcing The Arbitration Exception

Last Updated: 5 February 2014
Article by Ian Chetwood and Reema Shour

The Brussels Regulation governs the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil matters in the EU. The basic rule is that a defendant should be sued in the courts of the EU Member State in which it is domiciled. The jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Regulation are stated to apply to court proceedings only and not to arbitration. Conflicts of jurisdiction have, however, arisen where proceedings are commenced in an EU member state, contrary to a contractual arbitration clause providing for arbitration in another Member State. Recent revisions to the Brussels Regulation, due to come into force in January 2015, seek to address these conflicts. Our article considers the revisions relating to the "arbitration exception" in the Brussels Regulation and the practical effect they might have for parties agreeing to arbitrate their disputes in an EU country.

Introduction

Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Brussels Regulation) governs jurisdictional issues between EU courts and provides for the mutual recognition of court judgments within the EU. The cross-border recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) rather than the Brussels Regulation; as a result, the Brussels Regulation expressly excludes arbitration from its ambit.

Since it came into force in March 2002, however, a number of concerns have arisen in relation to the practical application of the Brussels Regulation, not least the meaning and scope of the arbitration exception and whether court proceedings related to arbitration were governed by the Brussels Regulation.

As a result, a number of revisions to the Brussels Regulation were approved by the Council of the European Union in December 2012. Whilst the revised Regulation (EU Regulation 1215/2012) came into force on 9 January 2013, the majority of the reforms will only take effect as of 10 January 2015.

The key changes are aimed at:

  1. Reinforcing the arbitration exception and making it clear that it extends to court proceedings surrounding or in support of arbitration;
  2. Reinforcing jurisdiction agreements and preventing so-called "torpedo" actions, by requiring a Member State court to stay its proceedings where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of another Member State's court;
  3. Streamlining the process of enforcing Member State court judgments across the EU; and
  4. Extending the rules relating to jurisdiction agreements to non-EU parties in certain cases.

This article deals only with the revisions relating to the arbitration exception (point 1 above) and how they might work in practice. A future article, to be published in our Spring 2014 Shipping E-Brief, will consider the practical implications of the other key changes.

The arbitration exception

The case law

The uncertain relationship between arbitration and the Brussels Regulation has been highlighted in at least four cases, the Atlantic Emperor, Van Uden, the Front Comor and the Wadi Sudr (the latter two both Ince shipping cases).

In a sale contract dispute in 1992, the Atlantic Emperor, the Italian defendant commenced proceedings in Italy for a declaration of non-liability, notwithstanding a London arbitration clause in the sale contract, and refused to participate in London arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to an application by the claimant to the English Court to appoint an arbitrator in view of the defendant's lack of co-operation, an application that would have required the English court to also consider the validity of the arbitration agreement, the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ considered whether the arbitration exception in the Brussels Regulation applied to court proceedings concerning the appointment of an arbitrator and the arbitration process. It held that by excluding arbitration from the scope of the Regulation on the ground that it was already covered by the New York Convention and other international conventions, the Regulation excluded arbitration entirely, including court proceedings in which arbitration is the subject matter.

In 1998 in Van Uden, the ECJ endorsed the Atlantic Emperor and concluded that the subject matter of court proceedings is arbitration, if the proceedings serve to protect the right to have the dispute determined by arbitration.

Then came the Front Comor. In broad terms, the Front Comor involved a collision in Italy of a vessel under charter to the (oil refinery) owners of the jetty with which the vessel collided. Although the charterparty provided for disputes to be referred to London arbitration, the jetty owners' subrogated underwriters commenced court proceedings in Italy. In 2009, the ECJ held that, notwithstanding the London arbitration agreement in the charterparty, the English Court could not grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Italian proceedings in favour of English arbitration as this would be incompatible with the Brussels Regulation. Rather, it was for the Italian Court to rule on its own jurisdiction because "a preliminary issue concerning the applicability of an arbitration agreement, including in particular its validity, also comes within the scope of application" of the Brussels Regulation.

Also in 2009, in the Wadi Sudr, the claim was for damages for delivery of cargo short of destination. The bills of lading provided for English law and London arbitration but nonetheless, the cargo interests commenced court proceedings in Spain. The Spanish Court held that, as a matter of Spanish law, no arbitration agreement was validly incorporated into the bills of lading. The English Court of Appeal subsequently held that the Spanish Court judgment was within the scope of the Brussels Regulation and that it was bound to recognise it.

The problems

Notwithstanding the arbitration exception, therefore, conflicts have arisen between upholding a party's right to arbitrate pursuant to a contractual arbitration agreement and the obligation to permit courts in EU Member States to rule on their own jurisdiction.

In particular, there has been scope for parallel proceedings, with one party bringing arbitration proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement and the other party (very often for purely tactical reasons) challenging the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement in the courts of another Member State. In some instances, it could take many years for those court proceedings to produce a judgment either on the validity of the arbitration agreement and/or on the merits of the case.

Furthermore, while a party could continue with its arbitration proceedings even though court proceedings were also underway, there has been a clear risk of the arbitration award being inconsistent with the court judgment. In that event, a Member State court would face a conflict between enforcing the judgment under the Brussels Regulation and enforcing the arbitration award under the New York Convention.

A major concern has been that the effectiveness of arbitration in the EU might be undermined as a result.

The solutions?

The recast Regulation seeks to reinforce and clarify the arbitration exception by expressly confirming that the Regulation does not apply to any court actions or proceedings ancillary to arbitration. This means that the arbitration exception would extend to, for example, court proceedings relating to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, the powers of the arbitrators, the conduct of the arbitration, as well as any action or judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award. Also covered by the exception will be proceedings seeking or resisting the enforcement of an arbitration agreement, including disputes over the validity or enforceability of an arbitration agreement.

In addition, a Member State court retains the right to rule on the validity and scope of an arbitration agreement even if another Member State court has been asked to consider the issue first and is so considering it.

Finally, it is made clear that the New York Convention takes precedence over the Brussels Regulation. This appears to mean that a Member State court can in principle recognise and enforce an arbitration award even if it is inconsistent with another Member State court's judgment.

What does this mean in practice?

First, an EU Member State court will not be bound by the decision of another Member State court on the validity and scope of an arbitration agreement. Rather, each court can decide that issue independently and according to its national law. So, for example, in the Wadi Sudr, the Court in England would not be bound to recognise the Spanish court's decision that the arbitration clause in the bills of lading was invalid under Spanish law but could instead consider for itself whether it was valid and enforceable under English law.

Furthermore, where a party commences court proceedings in a Member State contrary to an arbitration clause and the other party subsequently commences proceedings in the Member State Court of the arbitral seat seeking a declaration that the arbitration agreement is valid and binding, the Court of the arbitral seat does not have to wait for the decision of the Court first seised on the validity of the arbitration agreement before itself making a decision on that issue and referring the parties to arbitration, if appropriate.

At first blush, these are positive changes. Certain difficulties can, however, still be envisaged. There may still be conflicting Member State court decisions on whether an arbitration agreement is valid and binding. A party that is faced with an unfavourable court decision in one Member State may seek a different decision from the courts of another Member State. Neither court's ruling will take precedence over the other, meaning there will continue to be the risk of parallel, even multiple, proceedings and a question mark over which decision will prevail.

There also remains the possibility of a conflicting court decision and arbitration award on the issue, for example where a Member State court decides the arbitration agreement is invalid but the arbitrators decide it is valid and that they have jurisdiction. A party seeking to enforce the arbitration award in that Member State may find the Court reluctant to enforce an arbitration award that conflicts with its own decision.

Furthermore, a third Member State court, if asked to enforce the conflicting award and/or judgment, will have to choose between the two. It is likely then to have to consider for itself whether the arbitration agreement is null and void or valid and binding. If that were to happen, there will then potentially be three separate findings on whether the arbitration agreement stands or falls. Given the recast Regulation emphasises that the New York Convention takes precedence over the Brussels Regulation, arguably the third Member State should enforce the arbitration award. Whether it will do so, however, remains uncertain because under the recast Regulation, Member State courts remain bound to enforce judgments on the merits of a dispute found not to be subject to a valid arbitration agreement by the courts of another Member State. In addition, the New York Convention sets out certain limited grounds for refusing to enforce an arbitration award e.g. that it would be contrary to public policy to do so, and a third Member State court may choose to rely on one of these exceptions to refuse enforcement. Until such time as a scenario of this type is played out in a Member State court, however, it is difficult to judge what the outcome might be.

Comment

Some commentators have suggested that these changes go some way to reversing the impact of the ECJ decision in the Front Comor. How accurate this view proves to be and how successful the attempts to reinforce the arbitration exception will be, remains to be seen after the reforms take effect next year.

In the meantime, it is worth noting that the recast Regulation does not directly address the issue of anti-suit injunctions. Pursuant to the Front Comor decision, an EU Member State court could no longer issue an anti-suit injunction to restrain court proceedings brought in another EU Member State in apparent breach of an arbitration agreement. Although it is not entirely clear, it would appear that anti-suit injunctions remain available only in relation to restraining proceedings brought outside the EU.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.