CYIL 2014

ZUZANA JAHODNÍKOVÁ – CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ Given the fact that the CJ EU stands as a major link in the Union’s judiciary, it comes as no surprise that the Court has taken an approach strictly in line with the principles and rules laid down within the legal order of the European Union. In Turner 89 the CJ EU held that a court of an EUMember State cannot enjoin a party from the commencement and continuation of proceedings in the courts of another Member State. In the long term, private international law within the legal orders of EU Member States addresses matters deemed to be the alpha and omega of cross-border jurisprudence such as jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of judgements of a foreign origin. Adopting the Brussels Regulation 90 has meant a substantial shift from the fragmented and diversified status quo towards a harmonized approach leading to the free movement of judicial decisions and the simplification of legal relations with a foreign element. As a matter of EU law, EU Member States have to acknowledge the existence of the Brussels Regulation that is establishing, in addition to Treaties, well-known principles attributed to the aim of enhancing co-operation, such as “equality”, “recognition”, and the “parity” of the courts active in the European Union Justizverfassungsbund. 91 Since, most national laws provide specific rules on lis pendens between courts, it is not difficult to make sense of the decision of the EU to bring an aspect of harmonization to the multitude of national rules and enactments. The aim of strengthening the lis pendens principle within the territory of the EU was one of the many incentives which guided the thoughts of the establishment of the free movement of judicial decisions. Opening the judicial sector to enhanced co-operation was accomplished by the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 92 The notion of lis pendens finds its expression in Article 27, which enjoins national courts to stay a second proceeding or to decline jurisdiction if the jurisdiction of the first Court is established. In also finds its expression in conjunction with Article 28, which postulates that in the case when related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceeding. Both standard clauses allow for and, indeed, reckon with the cessation of parallelism for the sake of uniformity and avoidance of reciprocally conflicting decisions. All of these factors only marginally affect the status and conduct of arbitral proceedings since the Regulations, as was the case with its predecessor – the Brussels MILOŠ OLÍK 89 Judgement of the Court of 27 April 2004, Gregory Paul Turner v Felis Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA , C-159/02, 2004 I-03565. 90 Chapter 1 (Scope), Article 1, para. 2 (d) Regulation Brussels I. 91 The term used to describe the cooperation between national courts and ECJ within a jurisdictional circle of courts. (Europäischer Justizverbund) in I. Pernice, “ Das Verhältnis europäischer zu nationalen Gerichten im europäischen Verfassungsbund : Vortrag, gehalten vor der Juristischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin am 14. Dezember 2005“ , (De Gruyter Recht, 2006), p. 26. 92 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

386