Статтю присвячено розв’язанню проблеми паралельних проваджень у сфері міжнародного
комерційного арбітражу, оскільки паралельні провадження є небажаним явищем як для сторін
арбітражного процесу, так і для арбітражного суду. Основну увагу в цій праці зосереджено на
дослідженні антипозовних заходів, тому що вони дають можливість уникнути відкриття
паралельних проваджень у міжнародному комерційному арбітражі та національних судах. Надано
визначення таких заходів, встановлено їхні види, досліджено правову природу та наведено приклади
їх практичного використання в континентальній та загальній правових системах. Крім того, в цій
статті надано відповідь на питання, чи має міжнародний комерційний арбітраж достатню
юрисдикцію виносити ухвали про антипозовні заходи і чи є такі заходи ефективним методом
уникнення паралельних проваджень. У результаті аналізу практичного застосування механізму
антипозовних заходів наведено доводи, чому антипозовні заходи не найкращий метод уникнення
паралельних проваджень, запропоновано альтернативний погляд на розв’язання цієї проблеми.
Parallel proceedings in the international commercial arbitration pose a number of challenges to all
parties of such proceedings. Therefore, as a means of avoiding the abovementioned problem, a mechanism
of anti-suit measures was developed. Nowadays, anti-suit measures are frequently used in such countries as
Great Britain, the United States, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Venezuela. At the same time, the use of the
above-mentioned measures in the countries of the European Union is limited.
It is necessary to emphasize that there are discussions about the very definition of "anti-suit measures".
The article offers such a definition and describes its types. The article contains examples of court decisions
for each type of the anti-suit measure.
Despite the fact that the purpose of anti-suit injunctions is to prevent parallel proceedings, the application
of such measures gives rise to many discussions. The question arises whether international commercial
arbitration has sufficient jurisdiction to issue such measures. The solution directly depends on defection of
the legal nature of the arbitration agreement itself. The article describes different approaches to the definition
of the legal nature of the arbitration agreement and states that if the arbitration agreement is comprehended
as a contract between the parties, arbitration has the power to issue such measures. When arbitration
agreement is understood as an instrument to give power to arbitration to review its jurisdiction over the
dispute, in such a case the use of anti-suit injunctions is prohibited.
As to the power of courts to issue such measures, the paper explains that anti-suit measures are frequently
used in a common law system but are limited in the continental law, namely in the EU. According to
numerous decisions of the European Court of Justice, the EU court cannot issue anti-suit injunctions toward
another EU court. So, there were developed two approaches to solve the problem of parallel proceedings.
Particularly these are competence-competence doctrine and lis alibi pendens.
The competence-competence doctrine is widely used in the continental law. This doctrine has both a
positive and negative effect. In accordance with the positive effect, the arbitrators have the right to decide
whether they have the competence to consider the present dispute or not. The negative effect of the
competence-competence doctrine applies to judges. According to this doctrine, judges must not consider
whether they have jurisdiction over the dispute until the arbitrators decide whether the arbitrators have
jurisdiction over the dispute.
In accordance with the principle of lis alibi pendens, if the case is filed in two different courts, the first
court to which the dispute was filed is the first one that has jurisdiction over the dispute.
As a conclusion, the article proves that anti-suit injunctions could not be the best solution for the parallel
proceedings issue. It is necessary for courts to find a compromise option, but not to restrict the jurisdiction
of each other. Such a compromise may be found in the registration of arbitration agreements in a single
online system, to which both courts and arbitrations may refer to in determination of the issue of their
jurisdiction.
