EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62002CJ0159
Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 27 April 2004.#Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: House of Lords - United Kingdom.#Brussels Convention - Proceedings brought in a Contracting State - Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings - Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings - Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State.#Case C-159/02.
Решение на Съда (пленарен състав) от 27 април 2004 г.
Gregory Paul Turner срещу Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd и Changepoint SA.
Искане за преюдициално заключение: House of Lords - Обединеното кралство.
Брюкселска конвенция.
Дело C-159/02.
Решение на Съда (пленарен състав) от 27 април 2004 г.
Gregory Paul Turner срещу Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd и Changepoint SA.
Искане за преюдициално заключение: House of Lords - Обединеното кралство.
Брюкселска конвенция.
Дело C-159/02.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2004:228
*A7* High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, judgment of 23/02/1999
- Current Law - Monthly Digest 1999 Part 5 nº 70 (résumé)
- Revue générale des procédures 1999 nº 4 p.754-756 (résumé) (Texte français)
- The Times Law Reports 1999 p.292-293
*A8* Court of Appeal (England & Wales), Civil Division, judgment of 28/05/1999
- Civil Justice Quarterly 1999 p.373 (résumé)
- Current Law - Monthly Digest 1999 Part 7 nº 71 (résumé)
- Industrial Cases Reports 1999 p.1114-1131
- Industrial Relations Law Reports 1999 p.638-645 (*)
- International Litigation Procedure 1999 p.656-674 (*)
- The Times Law Reports 1999 p.445-446
- 1999 Vol.3 p.794-810 (*)
- Bulletin of Legal Developments 1999 p.146 (résumé)
- Bulletin of Legal Developments 1999 p.182 (résumé)
- The Law Reports; Queen's Bench Division 2000 p.345-364
- Hartley, Trevor C.: Antisuit Injunctions and the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2000 p.166-171
*A9* House of Lords, order of 13/12/2001 ([2001] UKHL 65)
- Current Law - Monthly Digest 2002 Part 3 nº 84 (résumé)
- Industrial Relations Law Reports 2002 p.358-365 (*)
- International Litigation Procedure 2002 p.444-463
- Revue critique de droit international privé 2003 p.116-117 (Texte français)
- The European Legal Forum 2002 p.367-368 (résumé)
- X: The European legal forum 2002 p.368-370
- Bartels, Steven: The European Legal Forum 2002 p.368-370
- Bartels, Steven: The European Legal Forum 2002 p.368-370
- Giorgetti, Maria Carla: L'antitrust injunction inglese e l'Europa giudiziaria: la parola alla Corte di giustizia, Il Corriere giuridico 2002 p.24-28
- De Lind van Wijngaarden-Maack, Martina: Vorlage an den EuGH zur Vereinbarkeit von antisuit injunctions mit dem EuGVÜ, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2003 p.153-158
- Ambrose, Clare: Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law?, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2003 p.401-424
Case C-159/02
Gregory Paul Turner
v
Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit and Others
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords)
(Brussels Convention – Proceedings brought in a Contracting State – Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings – Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings – Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)
Summary of the Judgment
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Injunction granted by a court of a Contracting State prohibiting a party from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court in another Contracting State – Not permissible – Incompatible with the principle of mutual cooperation underlying the Convention
(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968)
The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.
Such an injunction constitutes interference with the jurisdiction of the foreign court which, as such, is incompatible with the system of the Convention. That interference cannot be justified by the fact that it is only indirect and is intended to prevent an abuse of process by the party concerned, because the judgment made as to the abusive nature of that conduct implies an assessment of the appropriateness of bringing proceedings before a court of another Member State, which runs counter to the principle of mutual trust which underpins the Convention and prohibits a court, except in special cases occurring only at the stage of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, from reviewing the jurisdiction of the court of another Member State.
(see paras 26-28, 31, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FULL COURT)
27 April 2004(1)
(Brussels Convention – Proceedings brought in a Contracting State – Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings – Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings – Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)
In Case C-159/02, REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, by the House of Lords (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gregory Paul Turnerand
Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,Harada Ltd,Changepoint SA, on the interpretation of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and – amended version – p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1),THE COURT (FULL COURT),,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
after hearing the oral observations of Mr Turner and of the United Kingdom Government, of Mr Grovit, of Harada Ltd and of Changepoint SA, and of the Commission, at the hearing on 9 September 2003,
after hearing the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 November 2003,
gives the following
On those grounds,
THE COURT
in answer to the questions referred to it by the House of Lords by order of 13 December 2001, hereby rules: The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.
Skouris |
Jann |
Timmermans |
Gulmann |
Cunha Rodrigues |
Rosas |
La Pergola |
Puissochet |
Schintgen |
Colneric |
von Bahr |
|
R. Grass |
V. Skouris |
Registrar |
President |