Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

The Enforcement of Anti-Suit Injunctions: A ‎Comparative ‎Study in the EU, French, and Iranian ‎Law

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Mohammed Mjed Kabry 1
Azam Ansari 2
Abdollah Khodabakhshi 2
Reza Maboudi Neishabouri 2
1 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law & Political Science of Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law & Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
One way of dealing with parallel litigation for the courts of common law countries is ‎to issue an anti-suit injunction preventing one of the disputing parties from initiating or ‎continuing proceedings in the courts of another country. Civil law countries believe that ‎this remedy interferes with the proceedings in their courts and violates their national ‎sovereignty. This study aims to examine the attitude of the EU, French, and Iranian law ‎towards the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions. The study contends that in the EU, an ‎anti-suit injunction rendered by a third country is enforceable in an EU member state as ‎long as it accepts the enforcement of such an injunction under its national law and its ‎jurisdiction is not based on EU regulations. In French law, anti-suit injunctions are ‎traditionally unenforceable. However, when parties agree to grant jurisdiction to a ‎foreign court, the French courts enforce such injunctions and dismiss the proceedings in ‎favor of the foreign-selected court. On the other hand, when the French courts assert ‎exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute, they may react to an anti-suit injunction by ‎issuing an anti-anti-suit injunction. In Iranian law, an anti-suit injunction cannot be ‎enforced under Article 169 of the Enforcement of Civil Judgments Code. As a result, ‎there is no mechanism for the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions in Iran. However, ‎due to the advantages of enforcing anti-suit injunctions, the study contends that the lack ‎of a mechanism should not be an obstacle to the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions in ‎Iran.‎
Keywords
parallel litigation
exclusive jurisdiction clause
exclusive jurisdiction
‎anti-‎anti-suit injunction
civil law countries.‎

Subjects

۶.منابع
۱-۶.منابع فارسی
الف) کتب
۱. پیری، فرهاد. (1395). حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل در رویه قضایی ایران، تهران، انتشارات جاودانه، جنگل.
۲. غمامی، مجید و محسنی، حسن. (1386). اصول آدین دادرسی مدنی فراملی، تهران، میزان.
ب) مقالات
۳. انصاری، اعظم و کابری، محمدمجد (1398)، «ایراد امرمطروحه در دعاوی خصوصی بین‌المللی با نگاهی به حقوق ایران». مجله حقوق خصوصی، دوره 16، شماره 2، صص317-318.
۴. سربازیان، مجید؛ هاشمی، سیدرضا؛ صالحی، مذکور (1398)، «آثار صدور قرار منع اقامه یا پیگیری دعوا در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی»، مجله حقوق خصوصی، دوره 16، شماره 2، صص 404-407.
۵. کابری، محمدمجد و انصاری، اعظم (1399)، «امکان سنجی توافق بر سلب صلاحیت بین‌المللی دادگاه در حقوق ایران»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 63، صص 359-360.
۶. کابری، محمدمجد و انصاری، اعظم (1400)، «آثار انتخاب دادگاه در حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی ایران و کنوانسیون لاهه 2005»، مجله حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 8، شماره 1، ص142-143.
۷. مقصودی، رضا (1394)، «توافق بر دادگاه صالح در قراردادهای بین‌المللی: توجیه و نقد رویه قضایی»، فصلنامه رأی: مطالعات آرای قضایی، شماره 11.
ج) آراء قضایی
۸. دادنامه شماره(۹۴۰۹۹۷۰۲۲۷۲۰۰۷۶۵) به تاریخ (۲/۹/۱۳۹۴)، صادره از (شعبه ۱۲ دادگاه عمومی حقوقی مجتمع قضایی شهید بهشتی تهران).
۹. دادنامه شماره (9101189) به تاریخ (8/11/1391) صادره از (شعبه 27 محاکم عمومی حقوقی تهران) و دادنامه شماره(۹۲۰۹۹۷۰۲۲۳۰۰۲۴۸) به تاریخ (۳۰/۲/۱۳۹۲)، صادره از (شعبه ۳ دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران).
۱۰. دادنامه شماره(۹۸۰۹۹۷۲۱۶۳۹۰۰۳۳۷) به تاریخ (۷/۳/۱۳۹۸)، صادره از (شعبه ۲۱۴ دادگاه عمومی حقوقی مجتمع قضایی شهید مفتح تهران).
۲-۶. منابع انگلیسی
A) Books
11. Briggs, Adrian (2015), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, New York, Routledge.
12. Dickinson, Andrew; Keyes, Mary; John, Thomas (2014), Australian Private International Law for the 21ST Century, USA, Hart Publishing.
13. Tang, Zheng Sophia (2014), Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law, (1st ed), New York, Routledge.

B) Articles
14. Ambrose, Clare (2003), “Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 52, Issue 2, pp. 401-424.
15. Contreras, Jorge and Michael, Eixenberger (2017), “The Anti-Suit Injunction – a Transnational Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional SEP Litigation” in Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law - Patent, Antitrust and Competition Law, University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 209, pp.1-9, available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=scholarship, last visited: 31 August 2022.

16. Cuniberti, Gilles (2020), “Paris Court Issues Anti Anti Suit Injunction”, Available at: https://eapil.org/2020/03/25/paris-court-issues-anti-anti-suit-injunction/, last visited: 26 July 2022.

17. Dowers, Neil (2013), “The Anti-Suit Injunction and the EU: Legal Tradition and Europeanisation in International Private Law”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 2, issue 4, pp. 960-973.
18. Fisher, Geoffrey (2010), “Anti-Suit Injunctions to Restrain Foreign Proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration Agreement”, Bond Law Review, Vol.22, Issue 1, pp. 1-25.
19. George, James (2002), “International Parallel Litigation - A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws”, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 499-540.
20. Kruger, Thalia (2004), “The Anti-Suit Injunction in European Judicial Space: Turner v Grovit”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 53, Issue 4, pp. 1030-1040.
21. Lehmann, Matthias (2020), “Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions by German Courts – What Goes Around, Comes Around”, Available at:
https://eapil.org/2020/03/30/anti-anti-suit-injunctions-by-german-courts-what-goes-around-comes-around/comment-page-1/last visited: 26 July 2022.
22. Ojiegbe, Chukwudi Paschal (2015), “From West Tankers to Gazprom: anti-suit injunctions, arbitral anti-suit orders and the Brussels I Recast”, Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 267–294.
23. Saussine, Louis Perreau (2010), “Forum Conveniens and Anti-Suit Injunctions before French Courts: Recent Developments”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp. 519 – 525.
24. Shrivastava, Surbhit (2021), “Anti-anti-suit injunctions: Remedy against a remedy”, Available at: https://www.theippress.com/2021/02/15/anti-anti-suit-injunctions-remedy-against-a-remedy/ last visited: 27 July 2022.
25. Stacher, Marco (2005), “International Antisuit Injunctions: Enjoining Foreign Litigations and Arbitrations - Beholding the System from Outside”, Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers. Paper 8, Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=lps_papers, last visited: 31 August 2022.
26. Ubertazzi, Benedetta and Iravani, Fatemeh (2020), “Choice of Court Agreements in Intellectual Property: ILA Guidelines in the EU and Iran”, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. vol. 51, p. 144-166.
27. Wilson, E. Maura (2003), “Let Go of that Case - British Anti-Suit Injunctions against Brussels Convention Members”, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 207-226.
C) Cases
28. Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Peter Everett White (No. 2) [2002] ILPr 11, 104.
29. Turner v Grovit [2001] UKHL 65, [2002] 1 WLR 107, Lord Hobhouse.
30. Stoltzenberg, Cass 1ere civ. 30 June 2004, Rev crit DIP (2004) 815, the Court of Cassation.
31. Zone Brands International v In Zone Brands Europe, 14 October 2009, n 08-16369, the Court of Cassation.
32. Lenovo and Motorola v IPCom, 3 March 2020, the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal.