Recasting West Tankers in the deep water: how Gazprom and recast Brussels I reconcile Brussels I with international arbitration

Youseph Farah, Sara Hourani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
24 Downloads (Pure)


The central argument which is advanced by this article is that, whilst there is no outright obligation in Brussels I which prevents parallel proceedings between a court action and arbitration between the same parties and concerning a similar cause of action, the revisions in the recast Brussels I, along with the Gazprom interpretation of key non-revised parts of Brussels I, do certainly provide improved support for international commercial arbitration. These do so by giving more scope to national courts to restrict Parallel Proceedings; through anti-suit injunctions issued by an arbitral tribunal; through finding parties taking parallel court action to be in breach of the arbitration agreement; and by giving primacy to the arbitral award where it is irreconcilable with a parallel court judgment. The authors particularly demonstrate that this is made possible because of a changed (diminished) role which is given to the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) post Gazprom and Brussels I.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)96-129
Number of pages34
JournalJournal of Private International Law
Issue number1
Early online date25 May 2018
Publication statusPublished - 2018


  • Brussels I Regulation
  • Brussels I Recast
  • Parallel Proceedings
  • Arbitration
  • AntiSuit Injunctions
  • New York Convention 1958
  • Gazprom
  • West Tankers

Cite this