欧盟法律与国际商事仲裁中的程序自治

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW European Review of Private Law Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.54648/erpl2021031
Jack D Brett
{"title":"欧盟法律与国际商事仲裁中的程序自治","authors":"Jack D Brett","doi":"10.54648/erpl2021031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the impact of EU law in international commercial arbitration. EU law has become increasingly relevant in the world of commercial arbitration and while this may not at first seem to be a problem, this article argues that EU law has a distinctive nature which makes it fundamentally incompatible with the arbitral legal order. In effect, the EU legal order has developed on the basis of a direct trilateral relationship between disputes involving EU law, national courts and the European Court. When we are concerned with ordinary judicial proceedings, this relationship is classically supported by the ‘principle of effectiveness’ identified in the case-law of the European Court, which requires national procedures to enable individuals to bring claims based on EU law. Crucially, however, the procedural demands that could be made by the EU legal order are limited by the twin ‘principle of national procedural autonomy’, meaning the Court refrains from directly prescribing modalities for access to national courts and leaves discretion for States to set procedures. Contrasting with this analytical framework, it is here argued that once claims based on EU law fall within the sphere of arbitration, the principle of national procedural autonomy is inoperative and the EU legal order can dictate the terms of review. It is submitted that the effectiveness of EU law is assured not by the standard principle of effectiveness but by the principle of effective judicial protection, thus securing the procedural primacy of EU law in the arbitral legal order.","PeriodicalId":43736,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Private Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EU Law and Procedural Autonomy in International Commercial Arbitration\",\"authors\":\"Jack D Brett\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/erpl2021031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the impact of EU law in international commercial arbitration. EU law has become increasingly relevant in the world of commercial arbitration and while this may not at first seem to be a problem, this article argues that EU law has a distinctive nature which makes it fundamentally incompatible with the arbitral legal order. In effect, the EU legal order has developed on the basis of a direct trilateral relationship between disputes involving EU law, national courts and the European Court. When we are concerned with ordinary judicial proceedings, this relationship is classically supported by the ‘principle of effectiveness’ identified in the case-law of the European Court, which requires national procedures to enable individuals to bring claims based on EU law. Crucially, however, the procedural demands that could be made by the EU legal order are limited by the twin ‘principle of national procedural autonomy’, meaning the Court refrains from directly prescribing modalities for access to national courts and leaves discretion for States to set procedures. Contrasting with this analytical framework, it is here argued that once claims based on EU law fall within the sphere of arbitration, the principle of national procedural autonomy is inoperative and the EU legal order can dictate the terms of review. It is submitted that the effectiveness of EU law is assured not by the standard principle of effectiveness but by the principle of effective judicial protection, thus securing the procedural primacy of EU law in the arbitral legal order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了欧盟法律在国际商事仲裁中的影响。欧盟法在商事仲裁领域的作用越来越重要,虽然乍一看这似乎不是一个问题,但本文认为,欧盟法具有独特的性质,这使得它与仲裁法律秩序从根本上不相容。实际上,欧盟法律秩序是在涉及欧盟法律、各国法院和欧洲法院的争端之间直接三边关系的基础上发展起来的。当我们关注普通的司法程序时,这种关系通常得到欧洲法院判例法中确定的“有效性原则”的支持,该原则要求国家程序使个人能够根据欧盟法律提出索赔。然而,至关重要的是,欧盟法律秩序可能提出的程序要求受到“国家程序自主原则”的双重限制,这意味着法院避免直接规定进入国家法院的方式,并将自由裁量权留给各国制定程序。与这一分析框架形成对比的是,本文认为,一旦基于欧盟法律的索赔属于仲裁范围,国家程序自治原则就失效了,欧盟法律秩序可以规定审查条件。本文认为,欧盟法律的有效性不是通过标准的有效性原则来保证的,而是通过有效的司法保护原则来保证的,从而确保了欧盟法律在仲裁法律秩序中的程序优先地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
EU Law and Procedural Autonomy in International Commercial Arbitration
This article examines the impact of EU law in international commercial arbitration. EU law has become increasingly relevant in the world of commercial arbitration and while this may not at first seem to be a problem, this article argues that EU law has a distinctive nature which makes it fundamentally incompatible with the arbitral legal order. In effect, the EU legal order has developed on the basis of a direct trilateral relationship between disputes involving EU law, national courts and the European Court. When we are concerned with ordinary judicial proceedings, this relationship is classically supported by the ‘principle of effectiveness’ identified in the case-law of the European Court, which requires national procedures to enable individuals to bring claims based on EU law. Crucially, however, the procedural demands that could be made by the EU legal order are limited by the twin ‘principle of national procedural autonomy’, meaning the Court refrains from directly prescribing modalities for access to national courts and leaves discretion for States to set procedures. Contrasting with this analytical framework, it is here argued that once claims based on EU law fall within the sphere of arbitration, the principle of national procedural autonomy is inoperative and the EU legal order can dictate the terms of review. It is submitted that the effectiveness of EU law is assured not by the standard principle of effectiveness but by the principle of effective judicial protection, thus securing the procedural primacy of EU law in the arbitral legal order.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Dealing With the Unpredictable: The Impact of the Covid-19 Crisis on Lease Agreements in the Italian and Japanese Legal Systems The CISG and European Private Law: When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do In memoriam Rodolfo Sacco Der Allgemeine Teil des neuen chinesischen Zivilgesetzbuchs im Vergleich zum deutschen BGB (Teil 1): Eine rechtswissenschaftliche und -terminologische Untersuchung der Rechtssubjektsregelungen Subrogation: An Unidentified Legal Object? A Proposal for a Solution to the Renowned Problem of the Legal Construction of Subrogation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1