The new lispendens regime in the Regulation Brussels I bis and the challenge met by Chinese jurisdiction

• Author: Huang Zhang
• Pages: 1-20

www.reei.org

DOI: 10.17103/reei.28.13

THE NEW LIS PENDENS REGIME IN THE

REGULATION BRUSSELS I BIS AND THE CHALLENGE

MET BY CHINESE JURISDICTION

EL NUEVO RÉGIMEN DE LA LITISPENDENCIA EN EL

REGLAMENTO BRUSELAS I BIS Y EL RETO AFRONTADO

POR LA JURISDICCIÓN CHINA

Huang Zhang

∗

Summary: I.

I

NTRODUCTION

.

II.

T

HE REGIME OF LIS PENDENS IN THE

B

RUSSELS

I

R

EGULATION AND ITS SUCCESSOR

.

III.

T

HE REGIME OF LIS

PENDENS IN

C

HINESE

L

AW AND THE CHALLENGE MET BY

C

HINESE

JURISDICTION AFTER THE RECAST OF

B

RUSSELS

R

EGULATION

.

IV.

A

POSSIBLE BILATERAL INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION REGARDING LIS

PENDENS BETWEEN

C

HINA AND THE

EU.

V.

C

ONCLUSION

A

BSTRACT

: The new regime of lis pen dens in Regulation Brussels I bis has extended its application to the

third states including China. T his may be a challenge to Chinese jurisdiction si nce it has not established a

uniform criterion to deal with lis pen dens. However, the provisions regarding the relation with third states

in the new regime of lis penden s still need further examination. Besides, the unilateral statement in the

Regulation may be unfair from the Chinese perspective. In this way, it may be relevant for the Chinese

and the E U legislators to seek a solution through the establishment of a bilateral Convention that is

specialized at dealing with the regime of lis pendens.

R

ESUMEN

: El nuevo régimen de la litispendencia en el Reglamento Bruselas I bis extiende su aplicación a

los terceros países, entre los que se incluye China. Esta extensión constituye un reto para la jurisdicción

china a causa de la ausencia de un criterio uniforme en cuanto a la litispendencia en el Derecho chino.

La aplicación de las normas en el Reglamento Bruselas I bis merece una atenta consideración ya que el

tratamiento unilateral que realiza este Reglamento puede considerarse injusto desde la perspectiva

china. Es por esto que se propone como solución el estab lecimiento de un conven io bilateral entre la UE

y China en materia de la litispendencia.

K

EYWORDS

: Regulation Brussels I bis; lis pendens; reflexive effect; exclusi ve jurisdiction; choice o f

forum agreement; the EU-China Convention

P

ALABRAS CLAVES

: Reglam ento Bruselas I b is; litispendencia; efecto reflejo; competencia judicial

internacional exclusiva; pacto de elección de foro; Convenio entre la UE y China

Fecha de recep ción del original: 16 de mayo de 2014. Fecha de aceptación de la versión final: 8 de julio

de 2014.

∗

Huang Zhang, Chinese doc toral candidate in the program International Relatio ns and European

Integration in Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, e-mail: zhanghuangcn@gmail.com

[28]

R

EVISTA

E

LECTRÓNICA DE

E

STUDIOS

I

NTERNACIONALES

(2014)

- 2 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.28.13

I.

I

NTRODUCTION

1. Lis pendens deals with the conflict of jurisdiction in which several proceedings

involving the same actions between the same parties are brought before different states.

In order to provide more safety to the parties and the judicial systems and avoid

irreconcilable judgments, Regulation Brussels I (RBI) has established its own system

trying to coordinate the judicial relations between the Member states. Recently, the new

Regulation Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012, RBIbis) has revised the regime of lis

pendens, in which its application has been extended to third states.

However, it seems that Chinese jurisdiction has not been well prepared to accept this

challenge. First of all, there remain very few provisions regarding the regime of lis

pendens in Chinese legislation, and provisions related to lis pendens are mostly seen in

conventions concluded by China with other states. Secondly, Chinese legislators

adopted different criteria upon the stay of proceedings with regard to different states,

which we will mention in this article. And the absence of a uniform criterion to lis

pendens will leave more difficulties for the Chinese nationals to apply the international

conventions. Thirdly, parties of different Member states may be subject to the same

criterion established by RBIbis before courts of the Member states, while they may be

treated differently before Chinese courts. Therefore, the new regime of lis pendens in

RBIbis may be a challenge to Chinese jurisdiction.

In this Article, in the first part, we will present the recent reform to the regime of lis

pendens that was newly adopted in RBIbis, and also try to analyse the difficulties that

may arise on its extension of application to third states. In the second part, we will

present the ambiguity existing in Chinese PIL, and the judicial conflict that may arise on

the application of different legal documents, through which will will analyse the

challenge that Chinese jurisdiction would confront with before the uniformed EU

regime of lis pendens. As a conclusion, we will try to give some suggestions to a

possible revision in Chinese regime of lis pendens by referring to that of RBIbis, and

also try to find a judicial solution in order to harmonize the conflict of jurisdiction

between the Member states and China in terms of parallel proceedings.

II.

T

HE REGIME OF LIS PENDENS IN THE

B

RUSSELS

I

R

EGULATION AND ITS

SUCCESSOR

2. Articles 27 of RBI only deals with the issue of irreconcilable proceedings

commenced in different Member states. However, the recent revision of RBI has

extended the scope of application to third states

1

. The proposal to the new Regulation

introduced a discretionary lis pendens rule for disputes on the same subject matter and

1

See Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction a nd the

recognition and enforcement of judg ments in civil and commercial matters (recast), COM (2010) 748

final, p. 8. This document is available on the website: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0748 :FIN:EN:PDF.