I.V. GETMAN-PAVLOVA, 

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of International Public 

and Private Law of the National Research University Higher School of Economics 

M.A. FILATOVA, 

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Judicial Branch 

of the National Research University Higher School of Economics 

All modern legal orders establish legal tools aimed at preventing of concurrent judicial proceedings in different jurisdictions. One of these tools is the principle of lis pendens, having for its goal avoiding parallel examination by different courts or arbitration of identical claims. Conditions of lis pendens application are following: same claims, same parties, and sequence of claims lodging and initiation of proceedings. However, these conditions are understood and interpreted in various legal systems in different ways, that may lead to decrease of lis pendens effects and its inefficient use. In particular, it regards different approaches to identity of claims examined in parallel proceedings: this identity may be determined by cause of action or subject matter, but also by its object, i.e. the purpose of it. Neither is the identity of the parties of both proceedings an absolute precondition: the parties may change their procedural roles in parallel litigation. The moment of judicial proceedings beginning also is not the same in different legal systems. The authors come to the conclusion that criteria of claims and parties identity determination should be flexible enough to better take into account the different of mentioned approaches, and the moment of proceedings commencement should be determined in accordance with the lex fori. 

Keywords: international civil procedure; principle of controlled plurality of proceedings; parallel proceedings; identity of claims; concurrent jurisdictions; lis pendens; forum shopping; forum running. 

References 

Andrews N. Andrews on Civil Processes. Intersentia, 2013. 

Bernam U. Pravovaya sistema SShA [Judicial System of the USA]. Moscow, 2006. 

Bisello G., Cognetti C., Lo Gerfo F. Deactivating the Italian Torpedo (http://www. ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis%20Luxembourg/Written_paper_Italy3.pdf). 

Bonchovski P. Poryadok prinuditel’nogo ispolneniya v khode proizvodstv po ispolneniyu reshenij inostrannykh sudov v Bolgarii [The Order of Enforcement in the Course of Proceedings for Execution of Decisions of Foreign Courts in Bulgaria]. Vestnik ispolnitel’nogo proizvodstva = Herald of Enforcement Proceedings, 2016, no. 1. (In Russian) 

Caponi R. Transnational Litigation and Guarantees of Fair Trial: General Report on XV World Congress of International Association of Procedural Law (https://www. academia.edu/11399067/_R._Caponi_2014_Transnational_Litigation_and_Elements_ of_Fair_Trial). Carney P.J. International Forum Non Conveniens: Section 1404.5 – A Proposal in the Interest of Sovereignty, Comity, and Individual Justice. American University Law Review, 1995, vol. 45. 

Chase O., Hershkoff H., Silberman L., Taniguchi Y., Varano V., Zuckerman A. Civil Litigation in Comparative Context. West Academic Publishing, 2007. Collier J.G. Conflict of Laws. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 

De Aranjo N., Do Valle Magalhaes Marques F. Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Brazil: The Experience of the Supreme Court and the Shift to the Superior Federal Court. Yearbook of Private International Law, 2005, vol. 7. 

Eliseev N.G. Printsip mezhdunarodnoj vezhlivosti kak predposylka privedeniya v ispolnenie inostrannykh sudebnykh reshenij [The Principle of International Courtesy as a Prerequisite for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika = Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice, 2006, no. 7. (In Russian) 

Erk-Kubat N. Jurisdictional Disputes in Parallel Proceedings: A Comparative European Perspective on Parallel Proceedings Before National Courts and Arbitral Tribunals: Dissertation. Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg, 2014. 

Erpyleva N.Yu. Mezhdunarodnoe grazhdansko-protsessual’noe pravo: ponyatie, predmet i sistema [International Civil Procedural Law: Concept, Subject and System]. Mezhdunarodnoe parvo = International Law, 2013, no. 4. (In Russian) 

Field R.H., Kaplan B., Clermont K.M. Supplement to Materials for a Basic Course in Civil Procedure. Giappichelli, 2005.

Gaillard E. Abuse of Process in International Arbitration. ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2017, vol. 32(1). Grossi S. Forum Non Conveniens as a Jurisdictional Doctrine. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 2014, vol. 75. Grossi S. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Modern Common Law Approach to Judicial Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

 

Information about the authors 

Getman-Pavlova I.V. (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of International Public and Private Law of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (101000, Russia, Moscow, Myasnitskaya St., 20; e-mail: [email protected]); 

Filatova M.A. (Moscow, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Judicial Branch of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (101000, Russia, Moscow, Myasnitskaya St., 20; e-mail: filama. [email protected]). 

Recommended citation 

Getman-Pavlova I.V., Filatova M.A. Printsip lis pendens v mezhdunarodnom grazhdanskom protsesse: problemy identichnosti iskov i storon [Lis Pendens Principle in International Civil Procedure: Actions and Parties Identity Issues]. Вестник гражданского процесса = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, no. 2, p. 239–263. (In Russian) DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-2-239-263