违反选择法院协议的损害赔偿救济——以欧盟布鲁塞尔体系为视角
|
摘要
对违反选择法院协议的情形适用损害赔偿救济的做法,萌芽并发展于以英国为代表的少数国家。这一救济措施有利于保障选择法院协议的有效性,符合现代国际民商事诉讼制度在协议管辖问题上的发展趋势。然而,损害赔偿救济在国际范围内的广泛采纳和适用也面临着选择法院协议性质界定上的法理障碍、解决经典国际私法问题和实体法技术性问题以及国际礼让原则与既判力原则的挑战。在欧盟布鲁塞尔区域统一民商事诉讼体系中,这种依赖和强调多边司法合作的制度框架所要求的各成员国法院相互信任原则,以及各成员国法院应承认与执行其他成员国法院判决的义务,也对损害赔偿救济在违反选择法院协议上的适用构成了难以忽视的法律障碍。
The awarding damages for breach of choice-of-court agreements is a newly developed practice in the common law countries. It can strengthen the validity of choice-of-court agreements and thereby falls in line with the unmistakable trend of upholding party autonomy in modern international civil litigation. However, the universal recognition and adoption of this remedy may be faced with the challenges of coordinating this remedy with the underlying nature of the choice-of-court agreements in the relevant legal system,resolving classic private international law problems and substantive technical difficulties as well as the potential conflict with the principle of comity and res judicata. under the EU Brussels jurisdiction and judgments regime, a system which heavily relies on the multilateral judicial cooperation by its member states, the all-important mutual trust principle and the obligation to respect other member states' judgments could also prove to be inescapable obstacles for the application of the damages remedy on the EU level.
The awarding damages for breach of choice-of-court agreements is a newly developed practice in the common law countries. It can strengthen the validity of choice-of-court agreements and thereby falls in line with the unmistakable trend of upholding party autonomy in modern international civil litigation. However, the universal recognition and adoption of this remedy may be faced with the challenges of coordinating this remedy with the underlying nature of the choice-of-court agreements in the relevant legal system,resolving classic private international law problems and substantive technical difficulties as well as the potential conflict with the principle of comity and res judicata. under the EU Brussels jurisdiction and judgments regime, a system which heavily relies on the multilateral judicial cooperation by its member states, the all-important mutual trust principle and the obligation to respect other member states' judgments could also prove to be inescapable obstacles for the application of the damages remedy on the EU level.
引文
(1)A. Mills, Party Autonomy in Private International Law 92(Cambridge University Press2018).
(2)See R. Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation 42(Oxford University Press2015).
(1)关于普通法系中的禁诉令制度,参见Cheshire, North&Fawcett, Private International Law 425-442(Oxford University Press 2017); G. Born&P. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 864-867(Wolters Kluwer 2018); M. Douglas, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Australia, 41 Melbourne University Law Review 66-105(2017)。
(2)See A. Briggs, Choice of Forum and Submission to Jurisdiction, in J. Basedow,G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law 310(Elgar Publishing 2017).
(3)例如,在美国法院进行的诉讼中,胜诉方当事人一般须自行承担其律师费用,而不能要求败诉方当事人代为承担。See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306(1796).
(4)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517.
(5)See Donohue v. Armco Inc.,[2001] UKHL 64,[2002] 1 All ER 749.
(1)“一切有关选择法院协议的具体制度争论……几乎都源自对其自由或司法性质的认识。”参见焦燕:《法院选择协议的性质保障与制度展开》,《法学家》2011年第6期,第164页。
(2)See F. Sparka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents:A Comparative Analysis 81-87(Springer 2010).
(3)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 507-508(2008).
(4)See W. Krüger&T. Rauscher, Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung§23 Rn.79(C. H. Beck 2016).
(5)See A. J. Belohlávek, Rome Convention-Rome I Regulation 363-366(Juris Publishing 2011); M. Jonas&P. Oberhammer(eds.), Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung§38 Rn.48(Mohr Siebrek Ek 2003).
(1)See D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement102(Sweet&Maxwell 2010); A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law?(Oxford University Press 2008); E. Peel, Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements:Purity and Pragmatism in the Conflict of Laws, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly182, 207-209(1998).
(2)See A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts 346(Oxford University Press 2014).
(3)See L. Merrett, The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime, 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 315, 318(2006).
(4)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517; Donohue v. Armco Inc.,[2001] UKHL 64,[2002] 1 All ER 749; A/S D/S Svendborg v. Akar,[2003] EWHC 797; National Westminster Bank plc v. Rabobank Nederland;[2007] EWHC 1056; Sunrock Aircraft Corporation Ltd. v. Scandinavian Airline Systems Denmark-Norway-Sweden;[2007] EWCA Civ 882; Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP,[2013] UKSC 35; The Alexandros T,[2013] UKSC 70.
(5)See Omron Healthcare Inc. v. Mac Laren Exports Ltd., 28 F.3d 600(7th Cir.1994); Laboratory Corporation of America Inc. v. Upstate Testing Laboratory Inc., 967 F.Supp. 295(ND Ill 1997); Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excess Insurance Co. Ltd.,992 F. Supp. 278(S. D. N. Y. 1998); Indosuez International Finance B. V. v. National Reserve Bank, 758 N. Y. S.2d 308(N. Y. App. Div. 2003); Masiongale Elec. Mech. Inc. v.Constr. One, Inc., 102 Ohio St.3d 1(Ohio 2004); Ball v. Versar Inc., 454 F. Supp.2d783, 809 obiter(S. D. Ind. 2006).
(6)See Incitec Ltd. v. Alkimos Shipping Corporation,[2004] FCA 698; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. White,[2004] VSC 268.
(1)See STS(Sala de lo Civil, Sección 1a), 12 January 2009, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2009/544; see also, STS(Civil)23 febrero 2007, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2007/2118.
(2)See S. Gonzalez, The Spanish Tribunal Supremo Grants Damages for Breach of a Choice of Court Agreement, IPRax 529(2009); M. Torres, USA Sogo Inc. v. Angel Jesus:Case Comment, 20 International Company and Commercial Law Review 44(2009).
(3)See S. Sánchez Fernández, Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 384(2010).
(1)例如,受诉法院所在地是被告住所地、(作为被选法院)合同履行地、(作为原告住所地)损害发生地的情形,或被告当事人在受诉法院出庭应诉从而成立“应诉管辖”等。
(2)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement:Remaining Issues, 11 Yearbook of Private International Law 73, 90-97(2009).
(3)See The American Law Institute, Second Restatement on the Law of Torts,§674(1979); Cour de Cassation Civ.2, 11 January 1973, No.71-12.446; T. Ng, The Torts of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Legal Process, 130 Law Quarterly Review 43(2014).
(4)See 2007 Rome II Regulation, Article 4.
(5)See 2007 Rome II Regulation, Article 10; see also, G. Panagopoulos, Restitution in Private International Law 133-154(Hart Publishing 2000).
(6)See S. Smith, Contract Theory 376(Oxford University Press 2004); A. Burrows(ed.), English Private Law 596(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See C. von Bar&U. Drobnig, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe:A Comparative Study 83-92(Sellier 2004); B. Fauvarque-Cosson&D. Mazeaud(eds.), European Contract Law 203-251(Sellier 2008).
(2)这意味着,即便被申请地国法律不允许在违反选择法院协议的案件中适用损害赔偿制度,也不影响外国法院支持这一赔偿请求的判决在该国法院申请承认与执行。
(3)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45(1)(c)&(d).
(4)See OT Africa Line Ltd. v. Magic Sportswear Corporation,[2005] EWCA Civ.710,[2005] 1 CLC 923.
(1)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement, 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 57, 84(2008).
(2)例如,基于被选法院地法与非被选法院地法在有关争议上的识别规则、冲突法规则、证据规则、强制性规则或公共政策等法律上的差异,或许可以证明如果案件争议在被选法院审理,未违反选择法院协议的一方当事人将会获得胜诉判决。See D. Tan&N. Yeo,Breaking Promises to Litigate in a Particular Forum:Are Damages an Appropriate Remedy?, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 435(2003).
(3)See R. Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation 114(Oxford University Press2015); D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement 491-492(Sweet&Maxwell 2010).
(4)See Cf. Sunrock Aircraft Corporation v. SAS,[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Report 612.
(1)See D. Tan, Damages for Breach of Forum Selection Clauses, Principled Remedies, and Control of International Civil Litigation, 40 Texas International Law Journal 623,653-656(2005).
(2)See The American Law Institute, Second Restatement of Judgments§§17, 24(1982).参见乔雄兵:《论外国法院判决承认与执行中的终局性问题》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第1期,第70-86页。
(3)See P. Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel and Foreign Judgments:The Preclusive Effects of Foreign Judgments in Private International Law 31(Oxford University Press 2001).
(4)参见何其生:《比较法视野下的国际民事诉讼》,高等教育出版社2015年版,第329-320页。
(5)主张获得损害赔偿的当事人通常会选择在能够认可有关选择法院协议效力的法院中提起诉讼。
(6)See 1982 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act, Section 32.
(1)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517; A/S D/S Svendborg v. Akar,[2003] EWHC 797; National Westminster Bank plc v.Rabobank Nederland;[2007] EWHC 1056; STS(Sala de lo Civil, Sección 1a), 12 January2009, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2009/544.
(2)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement, 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 57, 76(2008).
(3)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517, paras.25-26.
(4)See T. Hartley, Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation, 35 American Journal of Comparative Law 487-511(1987); C. Sim, Choice of Law and Anti-Suit Injunctions:Relocating Comity, 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 703-726(2013); F. Chan, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Doctrine of Comity, 79 Modern Law Review 341-354(2016).
(5)See H. Yntema, The Comity Doctrine, 65 Michigan Law Review 9, 31(1966).
(6)See F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran SA, 542 U.S. 155, 164(2004); see also, Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113(1895); Morguard v. De Savoye,[1990] 3 SCR 1077.
(1)See T. Dornis, Comity, in J. Basedow, G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.),Encyclopedia of Private International Law 385-386(Elgar Publishing 2017); A. Briggs,The Principle of Comity in Private International Law, 354 Recueil des Cours 67(2012).
(2)See Union Discount Co. Ltd v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517, paras.21-22.
(3)例如,1980年《英国贸易利益保护法》规定:外国法院作出的“多重损害赔偿”判决在英国法院将不能获得承认,并允许该外国法院诉讼的被告在英国法院起诉要求原告归还外国法院判决中超出补偿内容的部分;这些法律规定遭到了美国政府的抗议,理由是这种规定违反了国际礼让原则和国际法。See 1980 United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act, Articles 5&6; Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 and Exchange of Diplomatic Notes Concerning the Act, 21 International Law Magazine 834, 840(1982).
(1)See D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement491(Sweet&Maxwell 2010).
(2)参见黄进、邹国勇:《欧盟民商事管辖权规则的嬗变——从〈布鲁塞尔公约〉到〈布鲁塞尔条例〉》,《东岳论丛》2006年第5期,第5-13页。
(3)See Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation(EC)No.44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, COM(2009)175; see also, B. Hess, T. Pfeiffer&P. Schlosser, Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States 203(Study S/C4/2005/03 2008).
(4)See European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters(Recast), COM(2010)748 final.
(5)See Regulation(EC)No.1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters(Recast)OJ L 351 of 20.12.2012, pp.1-32.
(6)See U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Brussels Ibis Regulation 665(Ottoschmidt 2016); E. Lein(ed.), The Brussels I Review Proposal Uncovered 89-90(BIICL 2012).
(7)See[2014] EWCA Civ. 1010.
(1)See Starlight Shipping Co. v. Allianz Marine&Aviation Versicherungs AG(The Alexandros T),[2013] UKSC 70.
(2)See A. Dinelli, The Limits on the Remedy of Damages for Breach of Jurisdiction Agreements:The Law of Contract Meets Private International Law, 38 Melbourne University Law Review 1023, 1028(2013); G. Cuniberti&M. Requejo, La sanction des clauses d’élection de for par l’octroi de dommages et intérêts, 11 ERA Forum 7(2010).
(3)See generally, T. Raphael, The Anti-Suit Injunction 15-20(Oxford University Press 2008).
(4)See Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228; see also, T. Kruger, Anti-Suit Injunction in the European Judicial Space:Turner v. Grovit, 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1030-1040(2014).
(5)《布鲁塞尔公约》是本案审理时应适用的布鲁塞尔立法文件。
(1)See Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, para.31.
(2)See Opinion of Advocate General, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2003:632, paras.31-34;P. Spath&F. Blobel, The Tale of Multilateral Trust and the European Law of Civil Procedure, 30 European Law Review 528-547(2005); M. Niboyet, Le principe de conficance mutuelle et les injonctions Anti-Suit, in Vareilles-Sommières(ed.), Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area 77-90(Hart Publishing 2007).
(3)如果有关当事人无视法院禁令而继续进行在外国法院的诉讼程序,将会因藐视法庭而面临禁止参与本国法院诉讼、罚金、没收财产甚至是监禁的处罚。See Trafigura Pte Ltd. v. Emirates General Petroleum Corporation,[2010] EWHC 3007; R. Fentiman, Anti-Suit Injunctions, in J. Basedow, G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law 82(Elgar Publishing 2017).
(4)See Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, paras.24-30; see also, Overseas Union Insurance v. New Hampshire Insurance, Case C-351/89, EU:C:1991:279; Allianz Sp A&Generali Assicurazioni Generali Sp A v. West Tankers Inc., Case C-185/07, EU:C:2009:69; C. Ambrose, Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law, 52International and Comparative Law Quarterly 401-424(2003).
(1)See T. Hartley, Antisuit Injunctions and the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgment Convention, 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 166, 171(2000); M. Ahmed,The Enforcement of Settlement and Jurisdiction Agreements and Parallel Proceedings in the European Union:The Alexandros T Litigation in the English Courts, 11 Journal of Private International Law 406, 412-413(2015); T. Raphael, Do as You would be Done by:System-Transcendent Justification and Anti-Suit Injunctions, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 256, 266(2016).
(2)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 22.
(3)“普通法理论倾向于将选择法院协议视为合同。”See A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts 250(Oxford University Press 2014).
(1)直观可见的是,与英国法中使用的“选择法院协议”(choice of court agreement)或“法院条款”(forum clause)措辞不同,在欧盟布鲁塞尔体系的立法语言中,使用的措辞是“管辖权授予协议”(agreement conferring jurisdiction; la convention attributive de juridiction)。
(2)See 1968 Brussels Convention, Article 17; 2001 Brussels I Regulation, Article 23(1)(2).
(3)See P. R. Beaumont&P. R. Mc Eleavy, Anton’s Private International Law 252(W. Green 2011); A. Briggs, The Hidden Depths of the Law of Jurisdiction, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 236, 248(2016).
(4)A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law 257(Oxford University Press 2008).
(5)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 25(1).
(6)See Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, Case C-269/95, EU:C:1997:337, para.25.
(1)See 1980 Rome Convention, Article 1(2)(d); 2008 Rome I Regulation, Article 1(2)(e); see also, M. Mc Parland, The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 233(Oxford University Press 2015); U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Rome I Regulation 65(Ottoschmidt2017).
(2)See 1980 Giuliano-Lagarde Report, p.11; see also, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(Rome I), OJC 318/56, para.3.1.4.
(3)See T. Hartley, The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws, 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 813, 814(2005); R. Michaels, Two Paradigms of Jurisdiction, 27 Michigan Journal of International Law 1003, 1041-1045(2006); A. Fiorini, The Codification of Private International Law in Europe—Could the Community Learn from the Experience of Mixed Jurisdictions, 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 89, 100-101(2008).
(4)See H. Muir Watt&D. Fernandez Arroyo(eds.), Private International Law and Global Governance 262-267(Oxford University Press 2014).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 31(2)(3); see also, T. Ratkovi&D. Rotar, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation(Recast), 9 Journal of Private International Law 245, 263(2013); M. Ballesteros, The Regime of Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Recast:The Solutions Adopted for Agreements on Jurisdiction, 10Journal of Private International Law 291, 307(2013); A. Nuyts, La refonte du règlement Bruxelles I, 102 Revue dritique de droit international privé1, 52(2013).
(2)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 26; Erich Gasser Gmb H v. MISAT Srl, Case C-116/02, EU:C:2003:657, para.72; Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, para.24; TNT Express Nederland BV v. AXA Versicherung AG, Case C-533/08,EU:C:2010:243, para.49; see also, M. Weller, Mutual Trust:In Search of the Future of European Union Private International Law, 11 Journal of Private International Law 64(2015).
(3)See G. Cuniberti&M. Requejo, La sanction des clauses d’élection de for par l’octroi de dommages et intérêts, 11 ERA Forum 7, 17-18(2010); V. Lazic&S. Stuij(eds.),Brussels Ibis Regulation:Changes and Challenges of the Renewed Procedural Scheme 148(Springer 2017).
(1)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 509(2008); S. Sánchez Fernández,Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 387-388(2010); M. Ahmed, The Nature and Enforcement of Choice of Court Agreements:A Comparative Study 202-203(Hart Publishing2017).
(2)See Overseas Union Insurance Ltd. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., Case C-351/89, EU:C:1991:279, para.25.
(3)2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 6.
(4)See Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v. Adelheid Krieg, Case 145/86, EU:C:1988:61, paras.9-11; U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Brussels Ibis Regulation 928 para.78(Ottoschmidt 2016).
(5)See A. Dickinson&E. Lein(eds.), The Brussels I Regulation Recast 168(Oxford University Press 2015). H. Gaudemet Tallon, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe 518(LGDJ 2015).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45.
(2)在布鲁塞尔体系中,成员国法院作出的诉讼费裁决亦属于应被承认与执行的“判决”。See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 2(a).
(3)See Jozef de Wolf v. Harry Cox BV, Case 42/76, EU:C:1976:168.
(4)See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 18; Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost, Case 152/73, EU:C:1974:13; Fran oise Gravier v. Liège,Case 293/83, EU:C:1985:69; Hayes v. Kronenberger, Case C-323/95, EU:C:1997:169.
(5)See T. Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments 217-218(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45; Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v. Samskip Gmb H, Case C-456/11, EU:C:2012:719.
(2)See S. Harder, The Effects of Recognized Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 446, 453(2013).
(3)See S. Sánchez Fernández, Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 387(2010); T.Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments219-220(Oxford University Press 2013).
(4)See J. Harris, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law:Where Next?,Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 537, 547(2009); Vareilles-Sommières(ed.), Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area 15-17(Hart Publishing 2007).
(5)See T. Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments 220(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See N. Shantar, Forum Selection Clauses:Damages in Lieu of Dismissal?, 82Boston University Law Review 1063, 1078-1088(2002).
(2)See A. Bell, Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation 24-26(Oxford University Press 2003).
(3)“这一[适用损害赔偿的]做法似乎在很短时间内就从新奇变成了寻常。”See A.Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law 307(Oxford University Press 2008).
(4)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 512-513(2008); V. Black, Review Essay of Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, Canadian Business Law Journal300, 306(2010).
(2)See R. Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation 42(Oxford University Press2015).
(1)关于普通法系中的禁诉令制度,参见Cheshire, North&Fawcett, Private International Law 425-442(Oxford University Press 2017); G. Born&P. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 864-867(Wolters Kluwer 2018); M. Douglas, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Australia, 41 Melbourne University Law Review 66-105(2017)。
(2)See A. Briggs, Choice of Forum and Submission to Jurisdiction, in J. Basedow,G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law 310(Elgar Publishing 2017).
(3)例如,在美国法院进行的诉讼中,胜诉方当事人一般须自行承担其律师费用,而不能要求败诉方当事人代为承担。See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306(1796).
(4)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517.
(5)See Donohue v. Armco Inc.,[2001] UKHL 64,[2002] 1 All ER 749.
(1)“一切有关选择法院协议的具体制度争论……几乎都源自对其自由或司法性质的认识。”参见焦燕:《法院选择协议的性质保障与制度展开》,《法学家》2011年第6期,第164页。
(2)See F. Sparka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents:A Comparative Analysis 81-87(Springer 2010).
(3)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 507-508(2008).
(4)See W. Krüger&T. Rauscher, Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung§23 Rn.79(C. H. Beck 2016).
(5)See A. J. Belohlávek, Rome Convention-Rome I Regulation 363-366(Juris Publishing 2011); M. Jonas&P. Oberhammer(eds.), Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung§38 Rn.48(Mohr Siebrek Ek 2003).
(1)See D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement102(Sweet&Maxwell 2010); A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law?(Oxford University Press 2008); E. Peel, Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements:Purity and Pragmatism in the Conflict of Laws, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly182, 207-209(1998).
(2)See A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts 346(Oxford University Press 2014).
(3)See L. Merrett, The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime, 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 315, 318(2006).
(4)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517; Donohue v. Armco Inc.,[2001] UKHL 64,[2002] 1 All ER 749; A/S D/S Svendborg v. Akar,[2003] EWHC 797; National Westminster Bank plc v. Rabobank Nederland;[2007] EWHC 1056; Sunrock Aircraft Corporation Ltd. v. Scandinavian Airline Systems Denmark-Norway-Sweden;[2007] EWCA Civ 882; Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v. AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP,[2013] UKSC 35; The Alexandros T,[2013] UKSC 70.
(5)See Omron Healthcare Inc. v. Mac Laren Exports Ltd., 28 F.3d 600(7th Cir.1994); Laboratory Corporation of America Inc. v. Upstate Testing Laboratory Inc., 967 F.Supp. 295(ND Ill 1997); Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excess Insurance Co. Ltd.,992 F. Supp. 278(S. D. N. Y. 1998); Indosuez International Finance B. V. v. National Reserve Bank, 758 N. Y. S.2d 308(N. Y. App. Div. 2003); Masiongale Elec. Mech. Inc. v.Constr. One, Inc., 102 Ohio St.3d 1(Ohio 2004); Ball v. Versar Inc., 454 F. Supp.2d783, 809 obiter(S. D. Ind. 2006).
(6)See Incitec Ltd. v. Alkimos Shipping Corporation,[2004] FCA 698; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. White,[2004] VSC 268.
(1)See STS(Sala de lo Civil, Sección 1a), 12 January 2009, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2009/544; see also, STS(Civil)23 febrero 2007, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2007/2118.
(2)See S. Gonzalez, The Spanish Tribunal Supremo Grants Damages for Breach of a Choice of Court Agreement, IPRax 529(2009); M. Torres, USA Sogo Inc. v. Angel Jesus:Case Comment, 20 International Company and Commercial Law Review 44(2009).
(3)See S. Sánchez Fernández, Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 384(2010).
(1)例如,受诉法院所在地是被告住所地、(作为被选法院)合同履行地、(作为原告住所地)损害发生地的情形,或被告当事人在受诉法院出庭应诉从而成立“应诉管辖”等。
(2)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement:Remaining Issues, 11 Yearbook of Private International Law 73, 90-97(2009).
(3)See The American Law Institute, Second Restatement on the Law of Torts,§674(1979); Cour de Cassation Civ.2, 11 January 1973, No.71-12.446; T. Ng, The Torts of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Legal Process, 130 Law Quarterly Review 43(2014).
(4)See 2007 Rome II Regulation, Article 4.
(5)See 2007 Rome II Regulation, Article 10; see also, G. Panagopoulos, Restitution in Private International Law 133-154(Hart Publishing 2000).
(6)See S. Smith, Contract Theory 376(Oxford University Press 2004); A. Burrows(ed.), English Private Law 596(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See C. von Bar&U. Drobnig, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe:A Comparative Study 83-92(Sellier 2004); B. Fauvarque-Cosson&D. Mazeaud(eds.), European Contract Law 203-251(Sellier 2008).
(2)这意味着,即便被申请地国法律不允许在违反选择法院协议的案件中适用损害赔偿制度,也不影响外国法院支持这一赔偿请求的判决在该国法院申请承认与执行。
(3)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45(1)(c)&(d).
(4)See OT Africa Line Ltd. v. Magic Sportswear Corporation,[2005] EWCA Civ.710,[2005] 1 CLC 923.
(1)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement, 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 57, 84(2008).
(2)例如,基于被选法院地法与非被选法院地法在有关争议上的识别规则、冲突法规则、证据规则、强制性规则或公共政策等法律上的差异,或许可以证明如果案件争议在被选法院审理,未违反选择法院协议的一方当事人将会获得胜诉判决。See D. Tan&N. Yeo,Breaking Promises to Litigate in a Particular Forum:Are Damages an Appropriate Remedy?, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 435(2003).
(3)See R. Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation 114(Oxford University Press2015); D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement 491-492(Sweet&Maxwell 2010).
(4)See Cf. Sunrock Aircraft Corporation v. SAS,[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Report 612.
(1)See D. Tan, Damages for Breach of Forum Selection Clauses, Principled Remedies, and Control of International Civil Litigation, 40 Texas International Law Journal 623,653-656(2005).
(2)See The American Law Institute, Second Restatement of Judgments§§17, 24(1982).参见乔雄兵:《论外国法院判决承认与执行中的终局性问题》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第1期,第70-86页。
(3)See P. Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel and Foreign Judgments:The Preclusive Effects of Foreign Judgments in Private International Law 31(Oxford University Press 2001).
(4)参见何其生:《比较法视野下的国际民事诉讼》,高等教育出版社2015年版,第329-320页。
(5)主张获得损害赔偿的当事人通常会选择在能够认可有关选择法院协议效力的法院中提起诉讼。
(6)See 1982 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act, Section 32.
(1)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517; A/S D/S Svendborg v. Akar,[2003] EWHC 797; National Westminster Bank plc v.Rabobank Nederland;[2007] EWHC 1056; STS(Sala de lo Civil, Sección 1a), 12 January2009, Repertorio de Jurisprudencia 2009/544.
(2)See K. Takahashi, Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement, 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 57, 76(2008).
(3)See Union Discount Co. Ltd. v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517, paras.25-26.
(4)See T. Hartley, Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation, 35 American Journal of Comparative Law 487-511(1987); C. Sim, Choice of Law and Anti-Suit Injunctions:Relocating Comity, 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 703-726(2013); F. Chan, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Doctrine of Comity, 79 Modern Law Review 341-354(2016).
(5)See H. Yntema, The Comity Doctrine, 65 Michigan Law Review 9, 31(1966).
(6)See F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran SA, 542 U.S. 155, 164(2004); see also, Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113(1895); Morguard v. De Savoye,[1990] 3 SCR 1077.
(1)See T. Dornis, Comity, in J. Basedow, G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.),Encyclopedia of Private International Law 385-386(Elgar Publishing 2017); A. Briggs,The Principle of Comity in Private International Law, 354 Recueil des Cours 67(2012).
(2)See Union Discount Co. Ltd v. Zoller,[2001] EWCA Civ. 1755,[2002] 1 WLR1517, paras.21-22.
(3)例如,1980年《英国贸易利益保护法》规定:外国法院作出的“多重损害赔偿”判决在英国法院将不能获得承认,并允许该外国法院诉讼的被告在英国法院起诉要求原告归还外国法院判决中超出补偿内容的部分;这些法律规定遭到了美国政府的抗议,理由是这种规定违反了国际礼让原则和国际法。See 1980 United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act, Articles 5&6; Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 and Exchange of Diplomatic Notes Concerning the Act, 21 International Law Magazine 834, 840(1982).
(1)See D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement491(Sweet&Maxwell 2010).
(2)参见黄进、邹国勇:《欧盟民商事管辖权规则的嬗变——从〈布鲁塞尔公约〉到〈布鲁塞尔条例〉》,《东岳论丛》2006年第5期,第5-13页。
(3)See Green Paper on the Review of Council Regulation(EC)No.44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, COM(2009)175; see also, B. Hess, T. Pfeiffer&P. Schlosser, Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States 203(Study S/C4/2005/03 2008).
(4)See European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters(Recast), COM(2010)748 final.
(5)See Regulation(EC)No.1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters(Recast)OJ L 351 of 20.12.2012, pp.1-32.
(6)See U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Brussels Ibis Regulation 665(Ottoschmidt 2016); E. Lein(ed.), The Brussels I Review Proposal Uncovered 89-90(BIICL 2012).
(7)See[2014] EWCA Civ. 1010.
(1)See Starlight Shipping Co. v. Allianz Marine&Aviation Versicherungs AG(The Alexandros T),[2013] UKSC 70.
(2)See A. Dinelli, The Limits on the Remedy of Damages for Breach of Jurisdiction Agreements:The Law of Contract Meets Private International Law, 38 Melbourne University Law Review 1023, 1028(2013); G. Cuniberti&M. Requejo, La sanction des clauses d’élection de for par l’octroi de dommages et intérêts, 11 ERA Forum 7(2010).
(3)See generally, T. Raphael, The Anti-Suit Injunction 15-20(Oxford University Press 2008).
(4)See Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228; see also, T. Kruger, Anti-Suit Injunction in the European Judicial Space:Turner v. Grovit, 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1030-1040(2014).
(5)《布鲁塞尔公约》是本案审理时应适用的布鲁塞尔立法文件。
(1)See Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, para.31.
(2)See Opinion of Advocate General, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2003:632, paras.31-34;P. Spath&F. Blobel, The Tale of Multilateral Trust and the European Law of Civil Procedure, 30 European Law Review 528-547(2005); M. Niboyet, Le principe de conficance mutuelle et les injonctions Anti-Suit, in Vareilles-Sommières(ed.), Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area 77-90(Hart Publishing 2007).
(3)如果有关当事人无视法院禁令而继续进行在外国法院的诉讼程序,将会因藐视法庭而面临禁止参与本国法院诉讼、罚金、没收财产甚至是监禁的处罚。See Trafigura Pte Ltd. v. Emirates General Petroleum Corporation,[2010] EWHC 3007; R. Fentiman, Anti-Suit Injunctions, in J. Basedow, G. Rühl, F. Ferrari&P. Asensio(eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law 82(Elgar Publishing 2017).
(4)See Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, paras.24-30; see also, Overseas Union Insurance v. New Hampshire Insurance, Case C-351/89, EU:C:1991:279; Allianz Sp A&Generali Assicurazioni Generali Sp A v. West Tankers Inc., Case C-185/07, EU:C:2009:69; C. Ambrose, Can Anti-Suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law, 52International and Comparative Law Quarterly 401-424(2003).
(1)See T. Hartley, Antisuit Injunctions and the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgment Convention, 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 166, 171(2000); M. Ahmed,The Enforcement of Settlement and Jurisdiction Agreements and Parallel Proceedings in the European Union:The Alexandros T Litigation in the English Courts, 11 Journal of Private International Law 406, 412-413(2015); T. Raphael, Do as You would be Done by:System-Transcendent Justification and Anti-Suit Injunctions, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 256, 266(2016).
(2)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 22.
(3)“普通法理论倾向于将选择法院协议视为合同。”See A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts 250(Oxford University Press 2014).
(1)直观可见的是,与英国法中使用的“选择法院协议”(choice of court agreement)或“法院条款”(forum clause)措辞不同,在欧盟布鲁塞尔体系的立法语言中,使用的措辞是“管辖权授予协议”(agreement conferring jurisdiction; la convention attributive de juridiction)。
(2)See 1968 Brussels Convention, Article 17; 2001 Brussels I Regulation, Article 23(1)(2).
(3)See P. R. Beaumont&P. R. Mc Eleavy, Anton’s Private International Law 252(W. Green 2011); A. Briggs, The Hidden Depths of the Law of Jurisdiction, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 236, 248(2016).
(4)A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law 257(Oxford University Press 2008).
(5)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 25(1).
(6)See Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, Case C-269/95, EU:C:1997:337, para.25.
(1)See 1980 Rome Convention, Article 1(2)(d); 2008 Rome I Regulation, Article 1(2)(e); see also, M. Mc Parland, The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 233(Oxford University Press 2015); U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Rome I Regulation 65(Ottoschmidt2017).
(2)See 1980 Giuliano-Lagarde Report, p.11; see also, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(Rome I), OJC 318/56, para.3.1.4.
(3)See T. Hartley, The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws, 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 813, 814(2005); R. Michaels, Two Paradigms of Jurisdiction, 27 Michigan Journal of International Law 1003, 1041-1045(2006); A. Fiorini, The Codification of Private International Law in Europe—Could the Community Learn from the Experience of Mixed Jurisdictions, 23 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 89, 100-101(2008).
(4)See H. Muir Watt&D. Fernandez Arroyo(eds.), Private International Law and Global Governance 262-267(Oxford University Press 2014).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 31(2)(3); see also, T. Ratkovi&D. Rotar, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation(Recast), 9 Journal of Private International Law 245, 263(2013); M. Ballesteros, The Regime of Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Recast:The Solutions Adopted for Agreements on Jurisdiction, 10Journal of Private International Law 291, 307(2013); A. Nuyts, La refonte du règlement Bruxelles I, 102 Revue dritique de droit international privé1, 52(2013).
(2)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 26; Erich Gasser Gmb H v. MISAT Srl, Case C-116/02, EU:C:2003:657, para.72; Turner v. Grovit, Case C-159/02, EU:C:2004:228, para.24; TNT Express Nederland BV v. AXA Versicherung AG, Case C-533/08,EU:C:2010:243, para.49; see also, M. Weller, Mutual Trust:In Search of the Future of European Union Private International Law, 11 Journal of Private International Law 64(2015).
(3)See G. Cuniberti&M. Requejo, La sanction des clauses d’élection de for par l’octroi de dommages et intérêts, 11 ERA Forum 7, 17-18(2010); V. Lazic&S. Stuij(eds.),Brussels Ibis Regulation:Changes and Challenges of the Renewed Procedural Scheme 148(Springer 2017).
(1)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 509(2008); S. Sánchez Fernández,Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 387-388(2010); M. Ahmed, The Nature and Enforcement of Choice of Court Agreements:A Comparative Study 202-203(Hart Publishing2017).
(2)See Overseas Union Insurance Ltd. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., Case C-351/89, EU:C:1991:279, para.25.
(3)2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Recital 6.
(4)See Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v. Adelheid Krieg, Case 145/86, EU:C:1988:61, paras.9-11; U. Magnus&P. Mankowski(eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law:Brussels Ibis Regulation 928 para.78(Ottoschmidt 2016).
(5)See A. Dickinson&E. Lein(eds.), The Brussels I Regulation Recast 168(Oxford University Press 2015). H. Gaudemet Tallon, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe 518(LGDJ 2015).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45.
(2)在布鲁塞尔体系中,成员国法院作出的诉讼费裁决亦属于应被承认与执行的“判决”。See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 2(a).
(3)See Jozef de Wolf v. Harry Cox BV, Case 42/76, EU:C:1976:168.
(4)See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 18; Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v. Deutsche Bundespost, Case 152/73, EU:C:1974:13; Fran oise Gravier v. Liège,Case 293/83, EU:C:1985:69; Hayes v. Kronenberger, Case C-323/95, EU:C:1997:169.
(5)See T. Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments 217-218(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See 2012 Brussels I Regulation(Recast), Article 45; Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v. Samskip Gmb H, Case C-456/11, EU:C:2012:719.
(2)See S. Harder, The Effects of Recognized Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 446, 453(2013).
(3)See S. Sánchez Fernández, Choice-of-Court Agreements:Breach and Damages within the Brussels I Regime, 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 377, 387(2010); T.Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments219-220(Oxford University Press 2013).
(4)See J. Harris, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law:Where Next?,Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 537, 547(2009); Vareilles-Sommières(ed.), Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area 15-17(Hart Publishing 2007).
(5)See T. Hartley, Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments 220(Oxford University Press 2013).
(1)See N. Shantar, Forum Selection Clauses:Damages in Lieu of Dismissal?, 82Boston University Law Review 1063, 1078-1088(2002).
(2)See A. Bell, Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation 24-26(Oxford University Press 2003).
(3)“这一[适用损害赔偿的]做法似乎在很短时间内就从新奇变成了寻常。”See A.Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law 307(Oxford University Press 2008).
(4)See C. Knight, The Damage of Damages:Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 501, 512-513(2008); V. Black, Review Essay of Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, Canadian Business Law Journal300, 306(2010).