No description available.

Les contrariétés de décisions de justice sont extrêmement nocives. D’une part, elles représentent une menace pour la cohérence du droit. D’autre part, elles pèsent lourd sur la situation des parties, mettant ces dernières dans des situations inextricables. En tant que mode juridictionnel de règlement des litiges, l’arbitrage international n’échappe pas à ce phénomène. Au contraire, les spécificités de la matière en font un terrain de prédilection pour le développement des contrariétés de décisions. En effet, les contrariétés résultent de la conduite parallèle de procédures portant sur des questions litigieuses identiques, sur lesquelles sont portées des appréciations divergentes. Or, l’arbitrage international se présente comme un facteur d’aggravation de ces causes classiques de contrariété, à savoir la concurrence juridictionnelle et l’incohérence des solutions. Le risque de contrariété y est à la fois fréquent et varié. Il se présente dans diverses configurations, opposant tantôt des décisions étatiques d’encadrement de l’arbitrage, tantôt une sentence arbitrale et une décision étatique ou encore deux sentences arbitrales.En dépit de la gravité du problème et de la fréquence du risque de contrariété, l’arbitrage international paraît mal armé pour y faire face. Il est confronté d’une part aux limites de l’efficacité des remèdes curatifs, qui se contentent souvent d’écarter la contrariété d’un territoire donné, et, d’autre part aux difficultés de mise en œuvre des remèdes préventifs. / The phenomenon of conflicting decisions is extremely hazardous. On the one hand, they represent a threat to the coherence of the legal systems. On the other hand, it places a burden on the parties, putting them in an inextricable situation. Being a jurisdictional dispute resolution method, international arbitration does not escape this phenomenon. On the contrary, the specificities of arbitration make it the territory of predilection for the appearance of conflicting decisions. In fact, conflicting decisions result from the conduction of parallel proceedings concerning identical issues, which receive a different analysis. International arbitration aggravates the classical causes resulting in conflicting decisions. These causes are the competition between jurisdictions and the incoherence of the solutions.The risk of the existence of conflicting decisions is frequent and it presents itself is several manners. It can oppose national courts’ decisions assisting and controlling the arbitration, an arbitral award and a national court’s decision or even two arbitral awards.Despite the gravity of the problem and the frequency of the risk of having conflicting decisions, international arbitration seems unarmed to deal with it. Firstly, it is confronted with the limited efficiency of the curative solutions, and secondly, with the difficulties of applying preventive solutions.

No description available.

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o fenômeno dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, uma realidade decorrente do aumento dos fluxos econômicos e relações comerciais entre empresas originárias de diferentes países ou entre empresas e entes estatais originários de diferentes países. Essa multiplicidade de procedimentos se traduz na existência de duas arbitragens entre as mesmas partes, sobre a mesma relação jurídica e decorrente da mesma cláusula compromissória; de duas ou mais arbitragens relativas a um grupo de contratos, com diferentes cláusulas compromissórias, envolvendo as mesmas partes; ou ainda uma arbitragem e uma ação judiciais simultâneas relativas à mesma relação jurídica, entre as mesmas partes, decorrente de cláusula compromissória e cláusula de eleição de foro respectivamente. A arbitragem de investimento, sobretudo, é campo fértil para essa proliferação de procedimentos paralelos oriundos do mesmo investimento, envolvendo investidores diretos ou seus acionistas, com base em tratados bilaterais de investimento (TBIs) ou em contratos. Entretanto, sendo a arbitragem o mecanismo de solução de controvérsias comumente utilizado em contratos internacionais, surgem questões complexas para a regulação dessa problemática. A fim de sistematizar o estudo e responder às indagações sobre a maneira de solucionar e regular os efeitos negativos dos procedimentos paralelos (por exemplo, o risco de decisões contraditórias, a multiplicidade de procedimentos contra o mesmo réu e o excessivo custo despendido nesses procedimentos), dividimos o trabalho da seguinte maneira. Preliminarmente, o tema é introduzido pela conceituação dos procedimentos paralelos e de seus tipos, conflitantes e não-conflitantes. Posteriormente, divide-se o trabalho em duas partes. Na Primeira Parte, são examinados os clássicos princípios da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) como medidas para evitar o risco de procedimentos paralelos entre as mesmas partes, mesma causa de pedir e mesmo pedido adotados em países de Civil Law e suas variáveis em países de Common Law, tais como forum non conveniens para a hipótese de litispendência e pleas of estoppel para os efeitos da coisa julgada. Na Segunda Parte, é analisada a possibilidade ou não da transposição da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) à arbitragem internacional, além de outros mecanismos mitigadores dos efeitos decorrentes dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, como a conexão de procedimentos e o joinder de uma nova parte; e, em arbitragem de investimento, waiver, fork in the road clause e parallel treaty arbitrations (Capítulo III). / This thesis aims to analyze the phenomenon of parallel proceedings in international arbitration, a reality that emerges from the increase in economic activity and business transactions among companies from different countries or among companies and State entities whose business places are located in different countries. This multiplicity of proceedings can be manifested in a number of scenarios: the existence of two arbitrations between the same parties concerning the same legal relationship and arising out of the same arbitration agreement; two or more arbitrations related to a group of contracts, providing for different arbitration agreements, involving the same parties; or even an arbitration and a court action based on an arbitration agreement and a choice of fórum clause, respectively, simultaneously pending related to the same legal relationship, between the same parties. Investment arbitration, especially, is a breeding ground for the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising out of the same investment, involving direct investors or their shareholders, based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or on contracts. However, the regulation of such problematic scenarios raises complex questions, since arbitration is the mechanism for settlement of disputes commonly used in international contracts. In order to systematize this study and to answer questions of how to overcome and regulate the negative effects of parallel proceedings (such as the risk of contradictory decisions, the multiplicity of proceedings against the same respondent and the high costs incurred in these proceedings), this thesis is divided as follows: Preliminarily, the subject matter is introduced by the definition of parallel proceedings and its different types, such as conflicting and non-conflicting parallel proceedings. Subsequently, this thesis is divided into two parts. In the First Part, the classical principles of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) will be examined as measures to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings between the same parties, the same cause of action and the same object as adopted in the Civil Law countries and its variations in Common Law countries, such as forum non conveniens to the hypothesis of lis pendens and pleas of estoppel to the res judicata effects. The Second Part presents an analysis of the possibility of the transposition of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) to the field of international arbitration, as well as other mechanisms to mitigate the effects related to parallel proceedings in international arbitration for instance, the consolidation of two arbitrations and joinder of a new party to the arbitration and, in investment arbitration, waiver, fork in the road clause and parallel treaty arbitrations (Chapter III).

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o fenômeno dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, uma realidade decorrente do aumento dos fluxos econômicos e relações comerciais entre empresas originárias de diferentes países ou entre empresas e entes estatais originários de diferentes países. Essa multiplicidade de procedimentos se traduz na existência de duas arbitragens entre as mesmas partes, sobre a mesma relação jurídica e decorrente da mesma cláusula compromissória; de duas ou mais arbitragens relativas a um grupo de contratos, com diferentes cláusulas compromissórias, envolvendo as mesmas partes; ou ainda uma arbitragem e uma ação judiciais simultâneas relativas à mesma relação jurídica, entre as mesmas partes, decorrente de cláusula compromissória e cláusula de eleição de foro respectivamente. A arbitragem de investimento, sobretudo, é campo fértil para essa proliferação de procedimentos paralelos oriundos do mesmo investimento, envolvendo investidores diretos ou seus acionistas, com base em tratados bilaterais de investimento (TBIs) ou em contratos. Entretanto, sendo a arbitragem o mecanismo de solução de controvérsias comumente utilizado em contratos internacionais, surgem questões complexas para a regulação dessa problemática. A fim de sistematizar o estudo e responder às indagações sobre a maneira de solucionar e regular os efeitos negativos dos procedimentos paralelos (por exemplo, o risco de decisões contraditórias, a multiplicidade de procedimentos contra o mesmo réu e o excessivo custo despendido nesses procedimentos), dividimos o trabalho da seguinte maneira. Preliminarmente, o tema é introduzido pela conceituação dos procedimentos paralelos e de seus tipos, conflitantes e não-conflitantes. Posteriormente, divide-se o trabalho em duas partes. Na Primeira Parte, são examinados os clássicos princípios da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) como medidas para evitar o risco de procedimentos paralelos entre as mesmas partes, mesma causa de pedir e mesmo pedido adotados em países de Civil Law e suas variáveis em países de Common Law, tais como forum non conveniens para a hipótese de litispendência e pleas of estoppel para os efeitos da coisa julgada. Na Segunda Parte, é analisada a possibilidade ou não da transposição da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) à arbitragem internacional, além de outros mecanismos mitigadores dos efeitos decorrentes dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, como a conexão de procedimentos e o joinder de uma nova parte; e, em arbitragem de investimento, waiver, fork in the road clause e parallel treaty arbitrations (Capítulo III). / This thesis aims to analyze the phenomenon of parallel proceedings in international arbitration, a reality that emerges from the increase in economic activity and business transactions among companies from different countries or among companies and State entities whose business places are located in different countries. This multiplicity of proceedings can be manifested in a number of scenarios: the existence of two arbitrations between the same parties concerning the same legal relationship and arising out of the same arbitration agreement; two or more arbitrations related to a group of contracts, providing for different arbitration agreements, involving the same parties; or even an arbitration and a court action based on an arbitration agreement and a choice of fórum clause, respectively, simultaneously pending related to the same legal relationship, between the same parties. Investment arbitration, especially, is a breeding ground for the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising out of the same investment, involving direct investors or their shareholders, based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or on contracts. However, the regulation of such problematic scenarios raises complex questions, since arbitration is the mechanism for settlement of disputes commonly used in international contracts. In order to systematize this study and to answer questions of how to overcome and regulate the negative effects of parallel proceedings (such as the risk of contradictory decisions, the multiplicity of proceedings against the same respondent and the high costs incurred in these proceedings), this thesis is divided as follows: Preliminarily, the subject matter is introduced by the definition of parallel proceedings and its different types, such as conflicting and non-conflicting parallel proceedings. Subsequently, this thesis is divided into two parts. In the First Part, the classical principles of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) will be examined as measures to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings between the same parties, the same cause of action and the same object as adopted in the Civil Law countries and its variations in Common Law countries, such as forum non conveniens to the hypothesis of lis pendens and pleas of estoppel to the res judicata effects. The Second Part presents an analysis of the possibility of the transposition of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) to the field of international arbitration, as well as other mechanisms to mitigate the effects related to parallel proceedings in international arbitration for instance, the consolidation of two arbitrations and joinder of a new party to the arbitration and, in investment arbitration, waiver, fork in the road clause and parallel treaty arbitrations (Chapter III).

Les modes de règlement des différends dans les contrats internationaux de construction est un sujet d’importance pratique inégalable car, en raison de leur complexité et des aléas auxquels ces contrats à long terme sont exposés, les différends sont une constante, depuis la conclusion du contrat jusqu’à l’achèvement des travaux. Par ailleurs, ces différends sont très variables, présentant chacun des caractéristiques propres. Face à cela, les parties cherchent à exécuter le contrat dans le délai et le prix contractés pour pouvoir utiliser l’ouvrage et retirer le profit espéré du contrat. Afin d’atteindre ce but, elles doivent donc régler ces différends de la manière la plus efficace possible pour éviter que ceux-ci ne viennent perturber l’exécution des travaux. Dans ce contexte, l’arbitrage, mode normal de règlement des litiges pour les contrats internationaux de construction, semble de plus en plus concurrencé par d’autres modes de règlement des différends. L’idée sous-jacente est que l’arbitrage ne serait pas adapté à tous les différends susceptibles de naître de ces contrats. Cependant, contrairement à cette idée de concurrence, la pratique a consacré, par le biais des clauses échelonnées, un système qui met en avant la complémentarité entre les différents mécanismes. L’objectif est que ce système soit adapté à régler efficacement le plus grand nombre de différends possible. L’objet de cette thèse est de faire le point sur les raisons de la consécration du système échelonné, ainsi que sur les difficultés de sa mise en oeuvre, que ce soit dans sa phase pré-juridictionnelle, juridictionnelle ou dans la relation entre les deux. / The Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in International Construction Contracts is a subject of paramount practical importance. In light of their complexity, and the unforeseeable circumstances to which these long term contracts are exposed, disputes are a constant factor, from the signature of the contract to the completion of works. Furthermore, these disputes are very diverse, each one presenting its own set of characteristics. Facing these issues are the parties, who wish to complete the project within the time and price agreed, in order to be put it to use and make the expected profit. To achieve this goal, the parties need to resolve their disputes in the most efficient manner possible, preventing disputes from disrupting the execution of works. In this regard, arbitration, that has been for a long time the predominant method for settling disputes in international construction contracts, would seem to be suffering from the concurrence of other dispute resolution mechanisms. The underlying reason is that arbitration would not be adapted to all types of disputes that could arise from these contracts. However, contrary to this idea of concurrence, the industry has established, via multi-tiered clauses, a system that puts forward and interplay between the different dispute resolution mechanisms. The purpose of this system is to be flexible to adapt and efficiently resolve the largest potential number of disputes. The objective of this thesis is to give a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for the rise of the multi-tiered system, as well as of the difficulties of its practical application, may that be with respect to the pre-jurisdictional phase, jurisdictional phase, or the relationship between both.

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.

Dans la nouvelle ère de la mondialisation, les règles du droit international privé sont passées de la rigidité à la flexibilité, et la tendance à la modernisation et à la codification a commencé à fusionner. Toutefois, pour des raisons historiques, les systèmes juridiques de la plupart des pays asiatiques sont moins développés que ceux des pays occidentaux. Afin de répondre à la demande croissante de relations civiles et commerciales internationales, le droit international privé asiatique doit être amélioré. Lorsque des différends internationaux sont soumis à la Cour, la compétence est la première question que celle - ci doit examiner. Dans la pratique des procédures internationales, le demandeur, afin d'obtenir de meilleurs résultats, soumet le différend au tribunal compétent, généralement dans son pays de résidence. Afin de réduire au minimum les intérêts du demandeur, le défendeur soumettra le différend à ses tribunaux nationaux. Par conséquent, une procédure parallèle entre les deux tribunaux entraînerait un conflit de compétence. En Amérique du Nord, dans l'Union Européenne et au Royaume - Uni, les mécanismes de traitement des litiges parallèles sont plus développés et devancent les pays asiatiques. La présente étude fournit donc une évaluation objective et complète des systèmes juridiques des pays asiatiques, à savoir la Chine, la Corée du Sud et le Japon, qui traitent des litiges internationaux parallèles. Par rapport aux États - Unis, au Canada, à l'Union Européenne, au Royaume - Uni et à d'autres pays développés, cette thèse vise à trouver une voie favorable au développement du droit international privé Chinois et à promouvoir l'unification des règles de compétence civile internationale. Tout d'abord, la Chine devrait continuer à améliorer la législation sur le forum non conveniens, et à assouplir les exigences trop strictes. Deuxièmement, la Chine devrait mettre en oeuvre la pratique judiciaire du droit de la propriété intellectuelle en matière d'injonction reconventionnelle de cesser de poursuivre à l'étranger dans la législation ou l'interprétation judiciaire, en limitant strictement les conditions et la portée de son application. Troisièmement, il est suggéré d'adopter un système à double modes pour la litipendance et d'inclure la première saisie et le pronostic de reconnaissance dans la condition de tribunal première saisie. Quatrièmement, il convient d'élargir le champ d'application de l'accord d'élection de for, d'en réduire progressivement les restrictions en ce qui concerne les liens matériels, les moyens écrits, la compétence, et d'y inclure le principe de la protection des droits et intérêts des faibles. Afin de mieux intégrer les tribunaux Chinois sur le marché international des tribunaux facultatifs, la Chine devrait promouvoir activement le processus de ratification de la Convention de la Haye de 2005 sur l'accord d'élection de for. Cinquièmement, dans le domaine de la reconnaissance et de l'exécution, la Chine conciliera les exigences de réciprocité au niveau de l'exécution et encouragera les procédures de reconnaissance. La politique de réciprocité de la Chine à ce stade est relativement conservatrice. Elle met davantage l'accent sur la protection de la souveraineté nationale que sur la promotion de la circulation des jugements internationaux. La Chine doit donc passer progressivement de la réciprocité matérielle à la réciprocité formelle et traiter les jugements étrangers avec plus d'ouverture d'esprit. Enfin, la Chine devrait promouvoir activement le processus d'adhésion à la Convention de la Haye de 2019. / In this new Era of globalization, the rules of Private International Law change from rigid to flexible, and the trends of modernization and codification begin to merge. The legal systems in a majority of Asian countries, however, are not as well developed as western countries due to historical reasons. To meet the increasing demands of international civil and commercial relationship, Asian Private International law has to be ameliorated. Jurisdiction is the first subject that a court must deal with when an international dispute is submitted before it. In the practice of international litigation, the plaintiff will bring dispute before his favorable court, usually in his resident country, in order to get a better result. To minimize the advantage of the plaintiff, the defendant will submit the dispute to a court in his own resident country. Therefore, the parallel proceedings running between these two courts will cause conflict of jurisdictions. In North America, the EU and the U.K., mechanisms dealing with parallel proceedings are more developed and are keeping ahead of Asian countries. Hence, this research provides an objective and comprehensive assessment of legal system dealing with international parallel proceedings in Asian countries, namely China, Korea and Japan. Through comparing them with the developed countries, such as the United States, Canada, the EU and the U.K., this thesis aims at finding a way to benefit the development of Chinese Private International Law, and to promote the unification of rules in international civil jurisdiction. This thesis proposes that, firstly, China should continue to improve the legislation of forum non conveniens, supplement and improve the definition of “more convenient court”, and relax the requirements that are too harsh. Secondly, China should implement the breakthrough judicial practice of intellectual property law on anti-suit injunction in the legislation or judicial interpretation, and strictly limit its application conditions and scope. Thirdly, it is suggested to adopt a dual mode system for lis pendens, and integrate first seized and recognition prognosis into the provisions of lis pendens in China. Fourthly, in terms of the choice of court agreement, we should expand its scope of application, reduce the restrictions on the choice of court agreement concerning substantive connection, “written method” and jurisdiction by level, and integrate the principle of protecting the rights and interests of the weak party into it. In order to better integrate Chinese courts into the international market of optional courts, China should actively promote the process of ratifying the 2005 Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement. Fifthly, in the field of recognition and enforcement, China in this regard is to reconcile the requirement of reciprocity at the enforcement level and facilitate the recognition procedure. China’s reciprocity at this stage is relatively conservative. It focuses more on the protection of national sovereignty rather than promoting the circulation of international judgments. Therefore, China needs to slowly transit from substantive reciprocity to formal reciprocity, and deal with foreign judgments with a more open mind. Finally, China should actively promote the process of acceding to the 2019 Judgment Convention.

Le droit international privé de l’Union européenne se réapproprie le problème de la qualification. Non content d’en altérer fondamentalement la configuration, il en réoriente laborieusement la résolution. Or, la qualité du système tout entier, sa stabilité à un instant t, de même que sa capacité à se développer, à s’ouvrir et à se déployer sur le monde extérieur, sont placées dans l’étroite dépendance de l’efficacité de la qualification ; efficacité qui se mesure à l’aune de l’analyse méthodologique de l’opération, comme de la cohérence des résultats auxquels elle conduit. Et si à ce titre le système déçoit aujourd’hui, il est néanmoins tout aussi possible que souhaitable de le refonder rationnellement. Qui peut le plus peut le moins… Exemple sera donc pris de la matière contractuelle, soumise à la règle la plus complexe qui soit, la plus sujette à polémiques aussi, afin d’ouvrir la voie à davantage de cohérence.La reconfiguration du problème de qualification, ayant sa source dans la rupture imposée par le droit de l’Union entre la législation matérielle et la législation conflictuelle, en accentue naturellement la complexité. Curieusement, la construction jurisprudentielle multiplie sans raison les difficultés, imposant deux nouvelles ruptures, entre l’interprétation de la catégorie érigée au fondement de la compétence et l’interprétation du facteur de rattachement d’une part, entre l’opération de qualification et l’opération de coordination des compétences concurrentes d’autre part. La refondation du système de qualification suppose ainsi la combinaison harmonieuse de ce que la jurisprudence a dispersé, qualification, rattachement et coordination concourant conjointement à la détermination de la compétence spéciale, la cohérence des résultats de la qualification déterminant le choix des orientations méthodologiques de l’opération. Dans cette perspective simplificatrice, parce que la complexité des réponses juridiques ne se conçoit que lorsqu’elle reflète adéquatement et efficacement la complexité des questions, il apparaît naturel de confier à l’opération de qualification les moyens de prévenir les difficultés que ne manque pas de susciter sa pratique purement analytique, cause naturelle d’un dépeçage des situations entraînant à son tour une dispersion excessive du contentieux. Appuyé au contraire sur une opération de qualification à visée préventive, et recourant à des catégories plus synthétiques aux contours flexibles, le système de détermination de la compétence spéciale en matière contractuelle gagnerait en simplicité, en efficacité, en adaptabilité, et il pourrait peut-être être envisagé, enfin, de donner une dimension mondiale à ce qui fonctionnerait à l’échelle régionale. / Formally disassociating the sources of material and conflict legislation, European Private International law alters the classical problem of characterisation, resolution of which cannot be borrowed from BARTIN or RABEL theories any longer. Yet, the quality of the whole system, its stability at a given moment, as well as its capacity to develop and to deploy on the outside world, are placed in the narrow dependence of the efficiency of the characterisation process. Analysing this efficiency calls for an examination of the theoretical and methodological implications, as well as of the consistency of the achieved results. On both grounds, the current system of characterisation is undoubtedly disappointing, and should be reconsidered rationally. In this perspective, attention will be focused on “matters relating to contract”, submitted to the more complex and criticized rule of the Brussels I regulation. The importation of a conflict of laws issue within a conflict of jurisdiction reasoning (De Bloos/Tessili) constitutes a terrible factor of complexity, interpretation of the conflict category belonging to the European legal order while the interpretation of the connecting factor is abandoned to the national legal order. As a consequence, the reasons behind the choice of a specific connecting factor simply cannot impact the characterisation process, as the exclusion of all claims formed by third parties from the scope of article 5-1° illustrates (Handte). Moreover, complexity and heterogeneity of situations seem to radically oppose the exercise of adjudicatory authority by a unique jurisdiction other than that of the defendant’s domicile. In such a context, conflicts of litigations are more than frequent and are not always dealt with in a consistent manner. Gubisch, for instance, coerces the very thing Shenavai and Leathertex prohibit, i.e. the exercise of adjudicatory authority by the first judge seized, be it the judge of a secondary obligation. Kalfelis drastically opposes consolidation of parallel proceedings in the event a litigation implies claims founded on different grounds. Observation can thus be made that the Brussels I system currently separates three intellectual operations; characterisation, location of the connecting factor, and coordination of concurring jurisdictions are insulated from each other. Yet, those three operations not only chronologically follow one another, but also functionally pursue the same objective, and characterisation could, and should be provided with the means to anticipate the following difficulties. In this perspective, it is suggested that the dispersive consequences of every conceivable characterisation should constitute the very cause of the definitive and centralising characterisation. In other words, the results’ consistency, as well as the cohesion of the heterogeneous components of the claim should dictate methodological choices. It appears, in turn, that departing from the dogmatic attachment to actor sequitur and prior tempore would enable a well functioning regional system to deploy rationally on worldwide scale.

ALes instances civile et pénale parallèles suscitent des risques de contrariétés que le droit positif prévient traditionnellement par l'utilisation de la règle de l'autorité du pénal sur le civil et du sursis à statuer de l'article 4 du Code de procédure pénale. Or ce double mécanisme de la primauté du pénal sur le civil est tout à fait singulier. Il assure en effet une cohérence entre les motifs des décisions concernées, dont le droit positif ne se soucie guère au sein des autres contentieux. Il est de plus unilatéral, puisqu'il ne joue qu'au bénéfice des décisions pénales. Justifié initialement par l'importance et les garanties de vérité des décisions pénales, il s'avère cependant, à l'analyse, largement discutable. Quant à ses fondements d'abord, ce mécanisme assure certes une certaine cohérence des choses jugées, mais maintient une apparence de vérité plus qu'il ne la garantit. Or précisément, la cohérence entre motifs de jugements distincts n'est légitime qu'autant qu'elle sert l'objectif de vérité. Quant à son régime, ensuite, l'autorité du pénal sur le civil entrave la liberté du juge civil et viole, par son caractère absolu, le principe du contradictoire, tandis qu'une application systématique du sursis à statuer est source de lenteur des procédures et contrevient à l'objectif de célérité. Afin de pallier ces inconvénients, le législateur et la jurisprudence se sont d'abord efforcés de restreindre les effets les plus néfastes de ce principe, en dissociant les concepts civils et répressifs, puis en le cantonnant étroitement. Néanmoins, l'objectif de célérité l'a finalement emporté, et le législateur, par la loi du 5 mars 2007, n'a maintenu le caractère obligatoire du sursis à statuer de l'article 4 qu'à l'égard de l'action civile en réparation du dommage né de l'infraction. Le nouveau dispositif consacre désormais le principe d'une indépendance des procédures parallèles, au risque de l'incohérence, même si pour l'heure les juridictions du fond tiennent compte du risque de contrariété et maintiennent la règle de l'autorité du pénal sur le civil. Il conviendrait néanmoins de revenir sur cette dernière règle, et d'attribuer aux énonciations qui constituent le soutien nécessaire de la décision pénale, la valeur d'une présomption réfragable de vérité. Il serait ainsi tenu compte des spécificités des décisions pénales, de même que seraient préservées les exigences, parfois antagonistes, d'autonomie des juridictions, de cohérence des choses jugées, et de recherche de vérité. / AWhen civil and penal proceedings occur in parallel, there is a risk of conflicting judgments, which positive law traditionally precludes by making penal proceedings paramount and by deferring adjudication on article 4 of the Criminal Code. This double mechanism, which ensures supremacy of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings, is quite singular. Indeed, it guarantees that the justifications for the decisions made are coherent. In other contentious matters, positive law pays little attention to such concerns. Moreover, it is unilateral, since it exclusively favours criminal law decisions. Though this supremacy was initially justified by the notion that criminal law decisions guaranteed truth, analysis has shown that this is largely debatable. First of all, with regard to the foundations themselves, this mechanism of course ensures a certain coherence of the matters judged, but maintains an appearance of truth rather than a guarantee of truth. Yet, precisely, the coherence of the justifications for distinct judgments is only legitimate insofar as it seeks to determine the truth. Then with regard to the system itself, the supremacy of criminal over civil proceedings interferes with the freedom of the civil judge, and violates by its absolute nature, the adversarial principle, while the systematic deferral of adjudication slows down procedures and undermines the objective of celerity. In order to remedy these drawbacks, legislators and jurisprudence have made an effort to limit the most damaging effects of this principle, by dissociating civil from repressive concepts, then by compartmentalising each within strict limits. Nevertheless, the objective of celerity finally won the day and legislators, through the law of 5th March 2007, retained the compulsory nature of the deferral of adjudication of article 4, but only with regard to civil action for damages resulting from the offence. The new law now establishes the principle of independence of parallel proceedings, even though it carries a risk of conflicting results. For the time being, however, the jurisdictions take into account the risk of conflicting results and have maintained the supremacy of criminal proceedings over civil proceedings. It is nonetheless desirable to revise the recent law, and to incorporate in the reasons which are necessary support for the criminal decision, the value of a refragable presumption of truth. The specific nature of decisions in criminal proceedings would thus be taken into account, and the sometimes antagonistic requirement of autonomy of the different jurisdictions, the coherence of the matters being judged, and the search for truth would thus be preserved.