anti-suit injunction, заборона судочинства, запрет судопроизводства ; міжнародний комерційний арбітраж, международный коммерческий арбитраж ; світовий досвід, мировой опыт
Статья посвящена изучению обеспечительной меры «anti-suit injunction», которая в науке имеет различные названия; исследованию его исторических истоков, порядка применения в арбитражном рассмотрении зарубежных стран; анализу целесообразности применения такой меры в международном коммерческом арбитраже в Украине.
Стаття присвячена вивченню забезпечувальний захід «anti-suit injunction», яка в науці має різні назви; дослідженню його історичних витоків, порядку застосування в арбітражному розгляді зарубіжних країн; аналізу доцільності застосування такого запобіжного в міжнародному комерційному арбітражі в Україні.
The article is devoted to the analysis of such interim measure as “anti-suit injunction”, which in science has different names, the study of its historical origins, the application of arbitration in foreign countries and to analyze the feasibility of such a measure in international commercial arbitration in Ukraine. The general idea of the article is study of one of the most effective measuresto withhold any encumbrances against arbitration, which is widely used in foreign countries – “anti-suit injunction” and possibility of its implementation in international commercial arbitration in Ukraine. The author illustrates that scientific legal literature gradually develops the idea of possibility of application of “anti-suit injunction” in international commercial arbitration which deserves its place as an effective interim measure. There are different opinions in jurisprudence on the “anti-suit injunction”, ranging from acceptance of usefulness in commercial arbitration to the categorical rejection of this application for several reasons, mainly due to its contradiction to public order of each separate state. The author emphasizes that “anti-suit injunction”
measures conceived as a mechanism of political and legal struggle between different courts within one country – England. With the help of “anti-suit injunction” English courts created a single legal space in a single country. So, today, the courts of England and the United States use an “anti-suit injunction” measures pursuant to the arbitration agreement, unlike the courts of states covered by Regulation 44/2001 of the European Council. As a valuable experience for Ukraine, undoubtedly, procedural legal institute of
“anti-suit injunction” is an effective tool in overcoming abuse of rights by the party to the arbitration process and serves as a sufficient mean of implementation of arbitration and its final decision. However, the application of such interim measures in international commercial arbitration in Ukraine substantially limited by existing legislative basis. Such a state legal framework does not sufficiently regulate the use of “anti-suit injunction”, which in turn does not exclude the mere possibility of usage of such measure international commercial arbitration in Ukraine.
