1. Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a 'judgment', within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State.

Where the court second seised, in breach of Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 and Article 19 of Regulation No 2201/2003, gives a judgment in a dispute in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility or maintenance obligations, and that judgment becomes final, those articles prevent the courts of the Member State of the court first seised from refusing recognition solely for that reason. That breach cannot, in itself, justify non-recognition on the ground that the judgment is manifestly contrary to public policy in that Member State.

For Article 27(1), proceedings are brought when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings is lodged with an investigating magistrate, even if the judicial investigation of the case has not yet been closed.

Articles 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction, concurrently with the courts of the Member State in which the main proceedings have been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor's assets falling within the scope of the effects of those secondary proceedings.

The debtor's assets that fall within the scope of the effects of secondary insolvency proceedings must be determined in accordance with Article 2(g) of Regulation No 1346/2000.

Before staying its proceedings under Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court second seised must examine whether, because the court first seised failed to take account of the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 22(1), that court's decision would be recognised in the other Member States under Article 35(1) of the regulation.

The jurisdiction of the court first seised is "established" within the meaning of Article 27(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 if that court has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and no party has contested its jurisdiction before, or up to, the time when a position is adopted that national procedural law regards as the first defence on the substance submitted before that court. This does not apply where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction under that regulation.