CASES 2020/2021
WEEK 3
1. West Tankers- A vessel collided. An English court upheld an arbitration clause by granting an anti-suit
injunction; Anti-suit injunction, EU Reg 44/2001; The question upon the validity of an arbitral agreement
falls within the scope of Reg 44/2001, because it is a preliminary question, but an anti-suit injunction
cannot be given
The rule, that the court first seised decides upon the validity of jurisdiction agreements also applies to
arbitration agreements Granting an anti-suit injunction is incompatible with Reg 44/2001
2. Nori Holding- In Nori Holdings Ltd v Public Joint-Stock Co Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation, the
claimants’ application for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Russia and Cyprus met with
mixed success. While the court was willing to grant the anti-suit injunction to restrain Russian court
proceedings, it refused to do the same in relation to proceedings in Cyprus, holding that the Court of
Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgment in West Tankers, on so-called intra-EU anti-suit
injunctions, remained good law.
3. Merck Canada- The pharma company Merck Canada brought an action before a compulsory arbitral
tribunal, which asked the ECJ a question; Can arbitral tribunals bring questions to the ECJ? In addition to
the requirements of the Belov Case, the tribunal is established by a law, permanent and its procedure is
governed by law - so allowed to ask the ECJ for help
4. Gazprom - The Lithuanian Ministry of Energy brought action against a company of the gas supplier
Gazprom despite arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal ordered the first via arbitral award to drop
the action; Anti-suit Injection via arbitral award, EU Reg 44/2001; Anti-suit injunctions of arbitral tribunals
do not fall within the scope of EU Reg 44/2001, but it might be recognized and enforced by a court by
using rules of the MS (e.g. NY Convention) Legislative answer after Gazprom in the Recitals Anti-Suit
Injunction, replacement of Reg 44/2001 Arbitration does not fall into the scope of the Recast. = same
conclusion as in Gazprom
5. Granarolo-Ambrosi- ECJ; The 2 parties had a long-term business relationship established through a
row of individual contracts; Can a long-term business relationship without a framework contract lead to
an action of non- contractual tort? Long-term business relationships can lead to a tacit contractual
relationship, where a contractual claim has to be brought
6. Madrid case- Madrid Court of Appeal; Spanish truck dealership and Dutch truck manufacturer entered
into contracts with optional dispute resolution clause allowing either arbitration or litigation; Optional
dispute resolution clauses; Arbitration clauses combined with other alternatives are international practice
and therefore, valid and in compliance with Reg 1/2003
7. US Bristol-Myers Squibb- US Supreme Court; Plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries associated
with a drug of BMS; Minimum contact doctrine for jurisdiction in the US; There is too little contact to
establish jurisdiction, even if foreign plaintiffs bring exactly the same claims to the court than residents of
California. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction because of lack of minimum contact
WEEK 3
1. West Tankers- A vessel collided. An English court upheld an arbitration clause by granting an anti-suit
injunction; Anti-suit injunction, EU Reg 44/2001; The question upon the validity of an arbitral agreement
falls within the scope of Reg 44/2001, because it is a preliminary question, but an anti-suit injunction
cannot be given
The rule, that the court first seised decides upon the validity of jurisdiction agreements also applies to
arbitration agreements Granting an anti-suit injunction is incompatible with Reg 44/2001
2. Nori Holding- In Nori Holdings Ltd v Public Joint-Stock Co Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation, the
claimants’ application for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Russia and Cyprus met with
mixed success. While the court was willing to grant the anti-suit injunction to restrain Russian court
proceedings, it refused to do the same in relation to proceedings in Cyprus, holding that the Court of
Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgment in West Tankers, on so-called intra-EU anti-suit
injunctions, remained good law.
3. Merck Canada- The pharma company Merck Canada brought an action before a compulsory arbitral
tribunal, which asked the ECJ a question; Can arbitral tribunals bring questions to the ECJ? In addition to
the requirements of the Belov Case, the tribunal is established by a law, permanent and its procedure is
governed by law - so allowed to ask the ECJ for help
4. Gazprom - The Lithuanian Ministry of Energy brought action against a company of the gas supplier
Gazprom despite arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal ordered the first via arbitral award to drop
the action; Anti-suit Injection via arbitral award, EU Reg 44/2001; Anti-suit injunctions of arbitral tribunals
do not fall within the scope of EU Reg 44/2001, but it might be recognized and enforced by a court by
using rules of the MS (e.g. NY Convention) Legislative answer after Gazprom in the Recitals Anti-Suit
Injunction, replacement of Reg 44/2001 Arbitration does not fall into the scope of the Recast. = same
conclusion as in Gazprom
5. Granarolo-Ambrosi- ECJ; The 2 parties had a long-term business relationship established through a
row of individual contracts; Can a long-term business relationship without a framework contract lead to
an action of non- contractual tort? Long-term business relationships can lead to a tacit contractual
relationship, where a contractual claim has to be brought
6. Madrid case- Madrid Court of Appeal; Spanish truck dealership and Dutch truck manufacturer entered
into contracts with optional dispute resolution clause allowing either arbitration or litigation; Optional
dispute resolution clauses; Arbitration clauses combined with other alternatives are international practice
and therefore, valid and in compliance with Reg 1/2003
7. US Bristol-Myers Squibb- US Supreme Court; Plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries associated
with a drug of BMS; Minimum contact doctrine for jurisdiction in the US; There is too little contact to
establish jurisdiction, even if foreign plaintiffs bring exactly the same claims to the court than residents of
California. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction because of lack of minimum contact
