Update 14 September see also Mykolas Kirkutis here.
Update 12 September 2023 see also professor Cuniberti’s analysis here.
I discussed Richard de La Tour AG’s Opinion in C-590/21 Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited v Starlight Shipping Company and Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc here.
The CJEU held last week, [27] qualifying as the AG did, the English orders as a quasi anti-suit injunction in the circumstances of the order (leaving some room for distinguishing).
Rather more so (and correctly so) than its AG, it [35] points to the nature of ordre public as expressed in (now) A45 BIa as being a concept of the national legal order of the Member States, even if [36] the origin of that rule may lie in EU law (such as here the rule [37] that “every court seised itself determines, under the applicable rules, whether it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it”).
The CJEU’s reference to Meroni and its stating that a Member State “cannot, without undermining the aim of [Brussels Ia], refuse recognition of a judgment emanating from another Member State solely on the ground that it considers that national or EU law was misapplied in that judgment” [29], with reference ia to Liberato), imho mean that it does not push the principle of ‘non-review’ quite so emphatically as the AG did, however one cannot see in what circumstances an order such as this would survive (now) Article 45.
Finally, the CJEU does not discuss the AG’s ‘ ‘unless it gives effect to a decision which would have been prohibited in direct proceedings’, which I flagged in my earlier post.
The judgment is consistent with the (much contested) Turner and West Tankers approach, and it leaves some open questions on the qualification of orders as ‘quasi anti-suit’, and the individual circumstances in which they might not clash with ordre public.
Geert.
(EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, ia 2.95 ff.
gavc law - geert van calster 
One Reply to “”