论文部分内容阅读
美国司法界一向认为在域内发生的美国公司与外国公司间的反托拉斯法案件为美国法院绝对管辖范围之内,进而主张对这类争议有域外管辖权。但近年来,随着国际仲裁事业发展的影响,美国判例法上开始出现涉及反托拉斯法的案件时首先尊重国际仲裁的趋势。美国联邦上诉法院第六巡回审判庭1995年6月对乔治·费谢铸造有限公司诉阿道夫。H·荷廷根机械有限公司一案作出裁定,重申美国法院自1985年以来确立的不以法定诉讼为由干预正在审理中的国际仲裁案的原则。在此案中,美国一方当事人乔治公司援用美国反托拉斯法,向美国法院就已在瑞士苏黎世仲裁院立案的因国际专利许可协议引起的争议提起诉讼。美国法院驳回乔治公司的请求,理由是:仲裁庭已宣布将考虑美国当事人提出的反托拉斯法的要求,当事人的诉讼请求只能产生不明智的司法审判,与美国尽量协助国际仲裁协议执行的政策相抵触。
The judiciary in the United States has always held that antitrust law cases between U.S. companies and foreign companies that take place in the territory are within the absolute jurisdiction of the U.S. courts and then claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over such disputes. However, in recent years, along with the development of international arbitration, the case law in the United States began to appear on antitrust law to first respect the trend of international arbitration. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States filed a judgment against George Forse Foundry Co. v. Adolf in June 1995. H. Hollandinger Machinery Co., Ltd. ruled in reiterating the principle that the U.S. courts have not intervened in the ongoing international arbitration case on the grounds of statutory litigation since 1985. In this case, one of the U.S. parties, George Company, availed itself of the U.S. Antitrust Law to sue the U.S. courts for the dispute raised by the international patent licensing agreement that was filed at the Arbitration Court in Zurich, Switzerland. The U.S. courts dismissed George’s request on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had announced that it would consider the antitrust requirements of the U.S. parties and that the parties’ claims could only lead to unjust judiciaries that were not compatible with the U.S. policy of assisting in the enforcement of international arbitration agreements Contradict.