Youseph Farah

Recasting West Tankers in the deep water: how Gazprom and recast Brussels I reconcile Brussels I with international arbitration

The central argument which is advanced by this article is that, whilst there is no outright obligation in Brussels I which prevents parallel proceedings between a court action and arbitration between the same parties and concerning a similar cause of action, the revisions in the recast Brussels I, along with the Gazprom interpretation of key non-revised parts of Brussels I, do certainly provide improved support for international commercial arbitration. These do so by giving more scope to national courts to restrict Parallel Proceedings; through anti-suit injunctions issued by an arbitral tribunal; through finding parties taking parallel court action to be in breach of the arbitration agreement; and by giving primacy to the arbitral award where it is irreconcilable with a parallel court judgment. The authors particularly demonstrate that this is made possible because of a changed (diminished) role which is given to the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) post Gazprom and Brussels I.

Frustrated at the Interface between Court Litigation and Arbitration? Don't Blame it on Brussels I! Finding Reason in the Decision of West Tankers, and the Recast Brussels I

The West Tankers decision was criticised for having a regressive impact on the system of international commercial arbitration. Many had hoped that the European Court would deliver a decision which would be informed by pragmatism, and one which would prevent numerous court and tribunal related parallel proceedings occurring across a number of jurisdictions within the EU. Instead, the European Court delivered a principled judgment declaring an anti-suit injunction prohibiting a party from continuing proceedings before a court of a Member State to be contrary to EU law. This chapter is significant because it introduces a complete account of the normative framework that regulates the interface between court litigation and arbitration. It identifies the approach under the system of the Brussels I Regulation, including the recent amendments brought by the revised version of Brussels I. The main finding of this chapter is that the reasoning of the European Court in West Tankers was consistent with EU jurisprudence and the core values of Brussels I. In particular it shows that the critiques of West Tankers often ignore important values that are fundamental to the system of Brussels I and EU constitutional values. It is submitted that West Tankers has essentially magnified the diversity and cultural distinction among Member States in their approach to parallel proceedings between a court and arbitration.

Research handbook on EU private international law

Contents: Preface 1. Internet Transactions and Activities Peter Stone 2. A Step in the Right Direction! Critical Assessment of Forum Selection Agreements under the Revised Brussels I: A Comparative Analysis with US Law Youseph Farah and Anil Yilmaz-Vastardis 3. Fairy is Back - Have you got your Wand Ready? Hong-Lin Yu 4. Frustrated of the Interface between Court Litigation and Arbitration? Dont Blame it on Brussels I! Finding Reason in the Decision of West Tankers, and the Recast Brussels I Youseph Farah and Sara Hourani 5. Does Size Matter? A Comparative Study of Jurisdictional Rules Applicable to Domestic and Community Intellectual Property Rights Edouard Treppoz 6. Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation on the Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice - Methodological Analysis, Considerations Gulin Guneysu-Gungor 7. International Sales of Goods and Rome I Regulation Indira Carr 8. The Rome I Regulation and the Relevance of Non-State Law Olugbenga Bamodu 9. The Interaction between Rome I and Mandatory EU Private Rules - EPIL and EPL: Communicating Vessels? Xandra E. Kramer 10. Choice of Law for Tort Claims Peter Stone 11. Defamation and Privacy and the Rome II Regulation David Kenny and Liz Heffernan 12. Corporate Domicile and Residence Marios Koutsias Index

ADR in the Administrative Law: A Perspective from the United Kingdom

Administrative ADR encompasses a number of grievance mechanisms that provide an alternative to court litigation. However, due to space constraints, the chapter focuses on three types of ADR, namely, “internal appeal,” “mediation,” and the “public Ombudsman.” A central claim of this work is that there exists a fine balance between PDR and the constitutional values that are intrinsic to a system of administrative justice. There is sufficient evidence, for instance, to suggest that public Ombudsmen, despite their shortcomings and need for reform, have the greatest potential to strike this fine balance between PDR and fundamental constitutional values. That said, there are many more issues that should be looked at here, some of which are fundamental, such as the place of ADR in common law and the issue of ADR specifically in public law, while one may still want to be cautious about the divide between public law and private law in the context of the common law. Finally, there is also an issue of balance to be sought between the use of ADR and the quality of administrative justice.