Не утратили ли английская юрисдикция и английское право привлекательности? Таким вопросом задаются сотрудники фирмы Hill Dickinson. Именно этот вопрос был предметом обсуждения на последнем семинаре, на котором эксперты этой юридической фирмы рассматривали влияние европейского права на выбор английской юрисдикции для рассмотрения и разрешения споров в суде или арбитраже, а также английского права как применимого материального права, в частности, морских, торговых и корпоративных споров. В результате довольно детального анализа вывод однозначен: выбор английского права и английского процесса остается весьма актуальным и предпочтительным. Однако стороны должны быть хорошо информированы и относиться к такому выбору сознательно с тем, чтобы реальность оправдала их ожидания.
In light of the recent seminar given by Hill Dickinson shipping and regulatory experts on the new (recast) Brussels Regulation (EU Regulation 1215/2012), the following article offers a consideration of the implications explored by the speakers in relation to the choice of English jurisdiction for disputes coming either before the courts or to arbitration.
Choice does not always give you what you want. In politics, you vote for a candidate or party, not coalition, but you get coalition when no party has a clear mandate. Similarly, in cross border contracts, the parties are free to choose what law applies and where disputes will be heard but they obviously cannot both choose their home law and jurisdiction.
When they agree – usually in a hurry at the end of negotiations – they may not understand the consequences. Alternatively, if they do not reach agreement, the default rules in the Rome I and Brussels Regulations (which are compulsory for all EU courts) apply, and time must be spent on law and jurisdiction issues before the real issues can be decided.
In shipping and many international joint ventures and project agreements, it tends to be simple: English law and English courts are still widely accepted as a neutral choice even by parties outside England, but increasingly parties weigh the positives – a reputation for a fair hearing and practical application of the law by judges with experience of handling shipping and commercial disputes – against the cost (exacerbated by the recent enormous hike in court fees) and length of hearings. Some consider arbitration to be a good compromise which avoids home country bias, but it too carries risk, such as the cost and availability of arbitrators.
Do they make a difference? The venue should not determine the outcome. But even where there is one EU Regulation across the whole EU, courts may interpret it differently. In sanctions law, for instance, the UK interprets the EU restrictions on exports of goods to Russia as applying only to goods leaving the EU, whereas the Dutch view is that an exporter would need an export licence to sell, supply or transfer the same goods to Germany if they are aware they are ultimately destined for Russia. Courts are more likely to follow the prevailing approach in their own country. But you cannot always predict the legal issue or the outcome when you make your choice.
The good news is that on 10 January the EU reformed its jurisdiction and recognition rules with a Recast Brussels Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012). Where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, any other EU court first seised must now hold back until the chosen court has decided validity, accepted the case and given judgment – which all EU courts must recognise. So the parties’ choice is now more likely to be upheld.
This should avoid the difficulties faced by the Supreme Court in the “ALEXANDROS T” under the old law, which had a strict ‘court first seised’ rule for actions involving the same cause of action regardless of agreed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court took the practical view that Greek actions by defendants in defamation did not take priority over the – later – English action for damages for breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause as they pursued different causes of action. Significantly, the Court of Appeal had taken a different view.
For arbitration clauses, the Recast Regulation expressly acknowledges the New York Convention, but allows EU courts to decide whether arbitration clauses are invalid according to their own law and proceed to judgment, which all other EU courts are obliged to enforce. Parties who have chosen English law and arbitration would be well advised to obtain an arbitration award and get it recognised by an English court as soon as possible, before any other EU judgment is issued.
The arguments for English law and jurisdiction and/or arbitration remain sound. The Recast Regulation creates a strong incentive for parties to agree on an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause now that the risk of ‘Italian’ – or Greek – torpedoes has diminished. They should therefore choose, and leave enough time to choose wisely.
Авторы: Philip Wareham, Robert Gay
Источник: http://www.hilldickinson.com/publications/marine,_trade_and_energy/2015/july/Choice_of_law_and_jurisdiction.aspx