Decision: It is incompatible with the Brussels Regulation for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.

Held: (1) By reason of their subject matter, the English proceedings seeking an anti-suit injunction were not within the scope of the Regulation. However, they may nevertheless have consequences which undermine its effectiveness, in particular where they prevent the court of another Member State from exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation. (2) If, by reason of their subject matter, the proceedings in Sicily are within the scope of the Regulation, then a preliminary issue as to the applicability of an arbitration agreement will also come within its scope. Accordingly, it would be exclusively for the Sicilian court to rule on any jurisdictional challenge based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (3) The use of an anti-suit injunction to prevent a court from ruling on its jurisdiction would be contrary to the general principle that a court seised under the Regulation determines its own jurisdiction and also runs counter to the trust which Member States accord to one another’s legal systems (applying Turner v. Grovit 4).

Comment: The ECJ has finally decided that anti-suit injunctions are not a permissible remedy for dealing with a party who has brought proceedings in another EU state in