Examining the Possibility of Issuing Anti-Suit Injunctions in the EU, Chinese, and Iranian Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D Student, Department of Private Law, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

10.52547/jlr.2022.228196.2273

Abstract

Anti-suit injunction is a traditional common law instrument that aims to restrain one of the disputing parties from instituting or continuing proceedings in a foreign court. Although an anti‐suit injunction is directed against the plaintiff, not against the foreign court, civil law countries hold a skeptical view towards anti-suit injunctions as such injunctions intervene in another state’s sovereignty and breach the international comity. This study aims to examine the possibility of issuing anti-suit injunction in the EU, Chinese, and Iranian law. The study contends that under the EU law, the courts of EU member states are prohibited from issuing anti-suit injunctions against a plaintiff in the courts of another EU member state. On the other hand, the EU law does not prevent the courts of EU member states from issuing anti-suit injunctions against a plaintiff in the courts of a third country when they have the power to do so under their national laws. In China, the Chinese courts do not have the power to grant anti-suit injunctions. However, recently, some Chinese courts have issued anti-suit injunctions against plaintiffs in foreign fora. In Iran, the Iranian courts can also issue an anti-suit injunction against a plaintiff in a foreign forum under some circumstances.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ambrose, C. “Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52 (2003).
  2. Ansari, A & Kabry, M M. “Lis Pendens in Private International Disputes by Looking at Iranian Law”, Private Law, 2 (2019). (In Persian)
  3. Barthes, R. The Death of the Author, London: Fontana Publication, 1977.
  4. Buonaiuti, F M. “Lis Alibi Pendens and Related Actions in Civil and Commercial Matters Within the European Judicial Area”. Yearbook of Private International Law, 11 (2009).
  5. Contreras, J. and Eixenberger, M. The Anti-Suit Injunction – a Transnational Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional Sep Litigation. Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law - Patent, Antitrust and Competition Law, University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 209, 2017.
  6. Douglas, M. “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Australia”. Melbourne University Law Review (advance), 41 (2017).
  7. Dowers, N. “The Anti-Suit Injunction and the EU: Legal Tradition and Europeanisation in International Private Law”. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2 (2013).
  8. Fisher, G. “Anti-Suit Injunctions to Restrain Foreign Proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration Agreement”, Bond Law Review, 22 (2010).
  9. George, J. “International Parallel Litigation - A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws” .Texas International Law Journal, 37 (2002).
  10. Khodabakhshi, A. Fundamental Distinction between Civil Law & Criminal Law. Tehran: The SD Institute of Law Research & Study, 2019. (In Persian)
  11. Kruger, T. “The Anti-Suit Injunction in European Judicial Space: Turner v Grovit”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53 (2004).
  12. Keyes, M. Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2020.
  13. Maghsoudi, R. “Parallel Litigation in International Proceedings”, Comparative Law Review, 2 (2014). (In Persian)
  14. Maghsoudi, R. “The Decline of Jurisdiction in Private International Law”, Private Law, 1(2012). (In Persian)
  15. McLachlan, C. Lis Pendens in International Litigation. Leiden/Boston: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2009.
  16. Sarbazian, M, Hashemi, S R. & Salehi, M. “Effects of Anti-Suit Injunction in International Commercial Arbitration”, Private Law, 2 (2019). (In Persian)
  17. Sarbazian, M, Hashemi, S R. & Salehi, M. “anti-suit injunction issued from national courts in international commercial arbitration”, Private Law Research, 26 (2019). (In Persian)
  18. Shiravi, A. Comparative Law. Second Edition, Tehran: Samt, 2015. (In Persian)
  19. Tang, Z. S. Jurisdiction and ArbitrationAgreements in InternationalCommercial Law. New York: Routledge, 2014.
  20. Vertigan, E. K. “Foreign Antisuit Injunctions: Taking a Lesson from the Act of State Doctrine”, The George Washington Law Review, 76 (2007).
  21. Wilson, E. M, “Let Go of that Case - British Anti-Suit Injunctions against Brussels Convention Members”, Cornell International Law Journal, 36 (2003).

 

منابع الکترونیکی

  1. Mundi, J. Anti-suit injunctions after Brexit, 2021. available at: https://blog.jusmundi.com/anti-suit-injunctions-after-brexit/, last visited 17 June 2022.
  2. Riehn, C; Schubert, A; Mewes, L. 2017. The Enforcement of Jurisdiction after Brexit, 2017.available at: http://cutt.us/FS48k, last visited 17 June 2022.
  3. Stacher, M. International Antisuit Injunctions: Enjoining Foreign Litigations and Arbitrations - Beholding the System from Outside, Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers, 2005. available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lps_papers/8, last visited 17 June 2022.
  4. Tang, Z S. Anti-Suit Injunction Issued in China: Comity, Pragmatism and Rule of Law, 2020. available at: https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/anti-suit-injunction-issued-in-china-comity-pragmatism-and-rule-of-law/, last visited 17 June 2022.
  5. Teitz, L E. Both Sides of the Coin: A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation, Roger Williams University Law Review, 2004, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3592497, last visited 17 June 2022.

 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 26 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 08 November 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics