(EN) The aim of this thesis is to analyse a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ESD") in the case of Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA) and Others v West Tankers Inc. ("West Tankers"), in which the Court ruled that an anti- suit injunction, issued to enforce an arbitration agreement, is incompatible with the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation"). The thesis is divided into eight chapters, whereas as to the methodology, a case study approach is applied. The first chapter is an introduction to the legal context of the dispute, with determination of the relevant law and legal concepts. The most important legal concept is the power to grant an anti-suit injunction, which could be defined as an order preventing a party from beginning or continuing to commence legal proceedings in another forum. The second chapter deals with the use of anti-suit injunctions by the English courts prior West Tankers decision with a special emphasis on its compatibility with the Brussels I Regulation. Also, we will introduce the abusive delaying tactics of "torpedo actions", as well as the problems caused by the interpretation of the arbitration exception...

L’injonction anti-suit ou anti-procédure est le seul moyen susceptible d’empêcher une partie de s’engager, de mauvaise foi, dans une procédure initiée devant un tribunal étatique de son choix dans le but d’entraver l’arbitrage. Sa forme la plus efficace est celle d’une mesure provisoire. Cet outil juridictionnel peut, conformément aux lois et règlement d’arbitrage modernes, être obtenu des tribunaux arbitraux, qui jouissent habituellement d’un imperium suffisant pour le prononcer ainsi que pour sanctionner tout non-respect de l’ordre. S’il peut être octroyé « avant dire droit », l’arbitre doit néanmoins le fonder sur une base légale se trouvant dans le champ de sa compétence juridictionnelle. L’apparence d’une possible violation de l’une des obligations découlant de la clause compromissoire, comme celle de l’exécuter de bonne foi, ou d’un manquement à une cause de confidentialité insérée dans le contrat principal en sont des exemples. Cette mesure d’interdiction est, en outre, disponible au juge étatique français, l’injonction « de ne pas faire » n’étant guère inconnue en droit français. En matière d’arbitrage, elle pourrait par ailleurs être autorisée, en dépit de l’arrêt West Tankers, au regard du nouveau Règlement Bruxelles I bis et, surtout, lorsqu’elle prend la forme d’une mesure provisoire. Lorsque son émission paraît légitime, il revient principalement au juge étatique du siège d’un arbitrage de décider si une injonction anti-suit doit être prononcée en soutien de l’instance arbitrale. Cependant, pour des raisons d’efficacité, la juridiction d’un autre Etat qui serait en mesure de mieux faire respecter l’injonction anti-suit peut aussi l’ordonner. / The anti-suit injunction is the only means capable of preventing a party from being involved in proceedings commenced before a domestic court of its choice in bad faith and with the only objective of disrupting arbitration. It is most efficient in the form of an interim measure. In accordance with modern arbitration laws and rules, this jurisdictional tool may be obtained, in this form, from arbitration tribunals, which normally have sufficient imperium to order it, as well as to impose sanctions on any non-compliant party. Although it can be issued before the parties’ rights have been determined, the arbitrator must nevertheless make sure that its legal basis falls under his jurisdiction. Examples of such legal bases are the prima facie potential breaches of one of the obligations contained in the arbitration clause, such as to perform it in good faith, or of a confidentiality clause contained in the main contract. This restraining measure is also available to the French judge, since prohibitory injunctions are hardly unknown to French law. In the field of arbitration, it appears that its use may be permitted under the new Brussels 1 bis Regulation in spite of the West Tankers case and, especially, where it takes the form of an interim measure. When its issuance appears to be legitimate, it is primarily for the court of the seat of an arbitration to decide whether it should be ordered in support of the arbitration proceedings. However, for reasons of efficiency, if the court of another country happens to be in a better position to ensure compliance with the anti-suit injunction, it may also order it.