## Facts

- A vessel owned by West Tankers collided with a jetty in Syracuse, Italy, causing damage.
- The charterparty between West Tankers and the charterer was governed by English law and required arbitration in London for disputes arising out of the charterparty.
- The charterer’s insurers, Allianz and Generali, paid the loss and became subrogated to the charterer’s rights against West Tankers (except for an uninsured portion).
- Allianz and Generali sued West Tankers in an Italian court in tort to recover the insurance payout.
- The charterer separately pursued London arbitration against West Tankers for its uninsured losses.
- West Tankers obtained an English court anti-suit injunction restraining Allianz and Generali from continuing the Italian litigation as allegedly violating the arbitration agreement.
- On appeal, the House of Lords referred to the Court of Justice the question whether such an anti-suit injunction is compatible with Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels I).

## Issues

1. Whether Brussels I permits a Member State court to enjoin proceedings in another Member State court because those proceedings allegedly breach an arbitration agreement.
2. Whether the “arbitration” exclusion in Brussels I removes from the Regulation civil proceedings whose main subject matter is a tort claim but where an arbitration clause is raised as a jurisdictional objection.
3. Whether, under Brussels I, the court first seised must be free to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections based on an arbitration agreement’s existence, validity, or applicability.

## Decision

- The Court of Justice held that it is incompatible with Brussels I for a Member State court to issue an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in another Member State on the ground that they are contrary to an arbitration agreement.
- The Court reasoned that when the main claim (e.g., damages in tort) falls within Brussels I, a preliminary issue about the arbitration agreement (including validity and applicability) also falls within the Regulation’s scope.
- The Court held that objections to jurisdiction based on an arbitration agreement must be decided by the court seised of the substantive proceedings, consistent with Brussels I’s allocation of jurisdiction and mutual trust among Member State courts.
- The anti-suit injunction was impermissible because it would deprive the foreign court of its power to determine its own jurisdiction under the Regulation.

## Legal Principles

- The Brussels I “arbitration” exclusion is construed narrowly: it excludes arbitration as such, but not ordinary civil or commercial claims merely because an arbitration agreement is invoked.
- If the substantive proceedings fall within Brussels I, then jurisdictional objections grounded in an arbitration agreement’s existence, validity, or applicability are handled within the Brussels I framework.
- Under Brussels I, the court seised of the dispute has authority to rule on its jurisdiction, and other Member State courts may not interfere by injunction.
- Intra-EU anti-suit injunctions aimed at enforcing arbitration agreements conflict with the Regulation’s system of mutual trust and jurisdictional allocation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Justice barred Member State courts from using anti-suit injunctions to stop proceedings in other Member State courts on the basis of an arbitration clause, holding that Brussels I requires the court first seised of a civil claim within the Regulation to decide its own jurisdiction, including arbitration-based objections.


Allianz SpA & Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. West Tankers Inc., Case C-185/07, 2009 E.C.R. I-00663 (Ct. Just. Feb. 10, 2009)