Abstract
While the process about the liabilities derived from the accident caused by the
ship Prestige is being carried out in Spain, the ship’s insurer introduced an arbitration claim in London with the aim of declaring that it was not obliged to pay the compensation that could correspond for the damages caused by the shipwreck as long as the insured does not pay them. The arbitral award confirms the points requested by the insurer. This obtained the issuance of a judicial resolution with the same content as the award.
When the recognition in the United Kingdom of the Spanish judicial decision that condemned the insurer to pay the compensation decided by the court was sought, the insurer alleged that the judicial resolution that reproduced the arbitration award was irreconcilable with the one that was intended to be recognized (art. 34 of Regulation 44/2001).
The Luxembourg Court decided that a judgment entered by a court of a Mem-
ber State in the terms of an arbitral award does not prevent the recognition of a
judgment given in another Member State, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of the award could not have been adopted by a court or the recognition Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of Regulation 44/2001.
With this decision, the Luxembourg Court deals with the delimitation of the
relations between arbitration and civil judicial cooperation in the EU. A delimitation that would require some action from the European legislator.
ship Prestige is being carried out in Spain, the ship’s insurer introduced an arbitration claim in London with the aim of declaring that it was not obliged to pay the compensation that could correspond for the damages caused by the shipwreck as long as the insured does not pay them. The arbitral award confirms the points requested by the insurer. This obtained the issuance of a judicial resolution with the same content as the award.
When the recognition in the United Kingdom of the Spanish judicial decision that condemned the insurer to pay the compensation decided by the court was sought, the insurer alleged that the judicial resolution that reproduced the arbitration award was irreconcilable with the one that was intended to be recognized (art. 34 of Regulation 44/2001).
The Luxembourg Court decided that a judgment entered by a court of a Mem-
ber State in the terms of an arbitral award does not prevent the recognition of a
judgment given in another Member State, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of the award could not have been adopted by a court or the recognition Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of Regulation 44/2001.
With this decision, the Luxembourg Court deals with the delimitation of the
relations between arbitration and civil judicial cooperation in the EU. A delimitation that would require some action from the European legislator.
| Translated title of the contribution | ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION IN THE EUROPEAN JUDICIAL SPACE. ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE (GRAND CHAMBER) OF JUNE 20, 2022, LONDON STEAM-SHIP OWNERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION |
|---|---|
| Original language | Spanish |
| Pages (from-to) | 1043-1060 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo |
| Issue number | 73 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 22 Dec 2022 |
Keywords
- Recognition and enforcement of judgments
- Arbitration
- Regulation 44/2001