235 / 522
this determination, whether anti-suit injunctions would be enforced or
not should be determined by the national arbitration legislation of the
state of enforcement, and by the Convention on Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (“New York
Convention”), if applicable.
It should also be emphasized that the CJEU pronounced the
Gazprom decision under the Brussels I Regulation, and not the Recast
Brussels Regulation. Even though the Gazprom decision is given under
the Brussels I Regulation, it would also be applicable under the Recast
Brussels Regulation, since the latter has established a clearer separa-
tion between court proceedings and arbitration proceedings.
Conclusion
The decision of the CJEU should be welcomed with regard to arbi-
trations with the seat of arbitration within the European Union. In light
of this decision, anti-suit injunctions ordered by arbitrators will not be
impeded by the Brussels I Regulation, and there will be no mutual trust
concerns between European Union member states concerning arbitra-
tor-granted anti-suit injunctions. Pursuant to the Gazprom decision,
each member state court will lean on its own arbitration laws, in
respect of the effect to be given to anti-suit injunctions. Accordingly, if
the relevant jurisdiction is party to the New York Convention, the lat-
ter should be applied.
ARBITRATION LAW
219