All laws applicable & steps & its
structure (scopes etc)
Block III → only Brussels I-bis Regulation & Hague Choice of Court Convention & all the details
regarding it
Block IV → only CISG/Vienna Convention, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, HPLC,
HTAC
JURISDICTION: Brussels I-bis Regulation, Hague Choice of Court (HCCC)
APPLICABLE LAW: CISG/Vienna Convention, Rome I, Rome II, Hague Trafic Accident
Convention (HTAC), Hague Product Liability Convention (HPLC)
RECOGNITION&ENFORCEMENT: Brussels I-bis Regulation, Hague Choice of Court
7 steps:
1. International facts → yes or no
2. Characteristics → what type of thing: ‘contract’, etc
3. PIL Question → jurisdiction/ applicable law/ recognition & enforcement
4. Sources (if international instrument: regulation, int conventions, national domestic etc)
5. Scope (if national instrument)
a. Substantive
b. Geographical
c. Temporal
6. Concurrence
7. Application (here u look at structure of the regulation/convention and first look at special
rules!!! Then main rules etc)
Brussels I-bis Regulation →
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=
celex%3A32012R1215
This is on jurisdiction:
8. Scope
a. Substantive
i. Art 1 - civil & commercial matters
b. Geographical
, i. Art 4-6 - defendant domiciled in EU MS
1. Domicile of the plaintiff is irrelevant & so is their nationality!
Domicile = where u live
2. But also keep in mind these arts down below:
3. Art 62: defendant domiciled if defendant is natural person
4. Art 63: defendant domiciled if defendant is legal person
ii. Exceptions for scope in art 24, 25, 18 and 21 (universal – no criteria
apply when using these)
1. Art 24: exclusive ground for jurisdiction (e.g. deals with things like
immovable property)
2. Art 25: possibility for making choice of court clause regardless of
where parties are domiciled
3. Arts 18 and 21: consumer and employment based claims (extend
geographical scope)
c. Temporal
i. Art 66 & 81 - It matters whether when the proceedings have started – if
after January 2015, then the Regulation is temporarily applicable
Structure of Brussels I-bis Regulation^
★ Main rule — Art 4 (Step 4)
○ 1. Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall,
whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.
○ 2. Persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are
domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of
that Member State.
★ Alternative jurisdiction rules — Art 7-9 (Step 4)
○ Art 7(2) deals with disputes in matters relating to “tort, delict or quasi-delict” ⇒
when the place of the harmful act and the place of the resulting damage are not
identical, the plaintiff can choose between the courts for these two places
○ Art 7(1) contracts & 7(2) torts! (7(2) applies to cross-border defamation cases,
she said this would be important) → look at week 8 in-class assign
★ Special rules — Art 10-23 (Step 3) ⇒ party’s protection
○ Jurisdiction over Insurance → art 10 - 16
■ See for more info brussels i bis reg
○ Jurisdiction over Consumer contracts → art 17 - 19
■ See for more info brussels i bis reg
○ Jurisdiction over individual Employment contracts → art 20 - 23
■ See for more info actual brussels i bis
○ Art 17 - credit and financing available
■ Art 17(1)(c): looks at whether there’s an international relationship
between the consumer and the business
● If the business directs the activity in the MS where the consumer
has their own domicile, then it falls within the scope of the
Regulation
, ○ E.g. if a business has a branch, it’s easy
● If the business does not direct the activities to the MS, then the
contract will not fall within the Regulation, consumer won’t be
protected
○ E.g. more difficult if a French car company only sells cars
in France
○ Art 18: what type of protection is provided?
★ Exclusive jurisdiction rules — Art 24 (Step 1) START HERE
○ The main jurisdictional rule in art 4, special jurisdictional rules in arts 7-8, and arts
10-23 do not apply when art 24 is applicable
○ Art 24 — has divergent geographical scope, domicile of defendant is irrelevant
for determining whether the provision is geographically applicable
■ Article is limited to rights in rem (property rights), it binds everyone (erga
omnes)
○ Art 24(1) — immovable property
■ The courts of the country where the property is located will have
exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters
■ Exception; if both the claimant and the defendant have the Habitual
Residence in the same country, then another country also has
exclusive jurisdiction alongside the country where the property is located
○ Art 24(2) — validity, nullity, dissolution companies: place of seat of company
(according to national law)
○ Art 24(4) — registration or validity IP rights: place deposit or registration
■ Gat v. Luk: applies regardless whether validity is raised by way of an
action or as a plea of objection (defence) (!)
★ Forum clause — Art 25 (Step 2) ⇒ deals with party’s autonomy
○ Choice of court
■ Applicability
● Art 25(1): neither party from EU but court(s) EU chosen
● NB: Reform under Brussels I (recast)!!
■ Three different aspects: under Brussels I-bis
● Formal validity — in what manner does the choice of court clause
need to be made?
● Substantive validity — to what matter can the choice of court
clause be made?
● Effects of the choice — what happens once the choice of court
clause has been made
○ Formal validity — generally need to be
■ a) in writing or evidenced in writing, or
● MSG: oral contract with jurisdiction clause valid if one party did not
react to letter of confirmation (so a confirmation letter had
subsequently been sent) or paid invoices without objection to a
reference to the competent court pre-printed on these invoices
■ b) in accordance with practices between parties
, ● Agreement reached without a choice of court clause, but then the
invoice is sent which does include a choice of court clause on the
back but it’s actually not part of the contract
■ c) in accordance with international trade or commerce usage
● Trasporti Castelletti: usage not necessary that it exists in all
EU-states and a form of publicity is not always required
○ Substantive validity — to which aspects can the choice of court clause extent to
■ In connection with a particular legal relationship (para 1)
● Powell v. Duffryn: relationship between a company and its
shareholders as such is sufficiently particular
■ Connection between court and parties/case not required (Castelletti)
■ May not set aside art 24 (exclusive jurisdiction) or conflict with art 15, 19
and 23 (insurance, consumer, employment)
○ Effects of the choice — what happens when parties make these choices?
■ Chosen court exclusive jurisdiction (it will be made exclusive), unless
non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, specifically stating this (para 1)
■ Lis pendens rules also apply in case of a jurisdiction clause (Gasser –
court second seized should stay proceedings even if it is chosen court!)
■ However, now new rules in the context of Arts. 29-34, so no lis pendens
rules
★ Tacit submission — Art 26 (Step 5) ⇒ in case no court has jurisdiction on any other
ground
○ If a party shows up in court (either themselves or legal representation through
attorney) and does not contest the jurisdiction of the court, the court itself
can then deem itself to have jurisdiction
★ Lis pendens — Art 29-34
○ Race to court
○ ….
★ Provisional/protective — Art 35
○ ….
→ Brussels I-bis reg applies to ANY choice of court clause as long as its for an EU Ms
However, scope is different for Brussels I-bis Reg when its regarding the recognition &
enforcement, instead of the jurisdiction^ (as is done at the top!):
1. Scope
a. Substantive
i. Same as for jurisdiction - art 1
ii. Civil & commercial matters :D
b. Territorial
i. Art 36 & 39 - reciprocity
ii. Judgement given in a MS and recognition/enforcement in another MS
iii. Jurisdiction need not be based on Brussels I-bis (can e.g. be based on
national rules)
structure (scopes etc)
Block III → only Brussels I-bis Regulation & Hague Choice of Court Convention & all the details
regarding it
Block IV → only CISG/Vienna Convention, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, HPLC,
HTAC
JURISDICTION: Brussels I-bis Regulation, Hague Choice of Court (HCCC)
APPLICABLE LAW: CISG/Vienna Convention, Rome I, Rome II, Hague Trafic Accident
Convention (HTAC), Hague Product Liability Convention (HPLC)
RECOGNITION&ENFORCEMENT: Brussels I-bis Regulation, Hague Choice of Court
7 steps:
1. International facts → yes or no
2. Characteristics → what type of thing: ‘contract’, etc
3. PIL Question → jurisdiction/ applicable law/ recognition & enforcement
4. Sources (if international instrument: regulation, int conventions, national domestic etc)
5. Scope (if national instrument)
a. Substantive
b. Geographical
c. Temporal
6. Concurrence
7. Application (here u look at structure of the regulation/convention and first look at special
rules!!! Then main rules etc)
Brussels I-bis Regulation →
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=
celex%3A32012R1215
This is on jurisdiction:
8. Scope
a. Substantive
i. Art 1 - civil & commercial matters
b. Geographical
, i. Art 4-6 - defendant domiciled in EU MS
1. Domicile of the plaintiff is irrelevant & so is their nationality!
Domicile = where u live
2. But also keep in mind these arts down below:
3. Art 62: defendant domiciled if defendant is natural person
4. Art 63: defendant domiciled if defendant is legal person
ii. Exceptions for scope in art 24, 25, 18 and 21 (universal – no criteria
apply when using these)
1. Art 24: exclusive ground for jurisdiction (e.g. deals with things like
immovable property)
2. Art 25: possibility for making choice of court clause regardless of
where parties are domiciled
3. Arts 18 and 21: consumer and employment based claims (extend
geographical scope)
c. Temporal
i. Art 66 & 81 - It matters whether when the proceedings have started – if
after January 2015, then the Regulation is temporarily applicable
Structure of Brussels I-bis Regulation^
★ Main rule — Art 4 (Step 4)
○ 1. Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall,
whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.
○ 2. Persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are
domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of
that Member State.
★ Alternative jurisdiction rules — Art 7-9 (Step 4)
○ Art 7(2) deals with disputes in matters relating to “tort, delict or quasi-delict” ⇒
when the place of the harmful act and the place of the resulting damage are not
identical, the plaintiff can choose between the courts for these two places
○ Art 7(1) contracts & 7(2) torts! (7(2) applies to cross-border defamation cases,
she said this would be important) → look at week 8 in-class assign
★ Special rules — Art 10-23 (Step 3) ⇒ party’s protection
○ Jurisdiction over Insurance → art 10 - 16
■ See for more info brussels i bis reg
○ Jurisdiction over Consumer contracts → art 17 - 19
■ See for more info brussels i bis reg
○ Jurisdiction over individual Employment contracts → art 20 - 23
■ See for more info actual brussels i bis
○ Art 17 - credit and financing available
■ Art 17(1)(c): looks at whether there’s an international relationship
between the consumer and the business
● If the business directs the activity in the MS where the consumer
has their own domicile, then it falls within the scope of the
Regulation
, ○ E.g. if a business has a branch, it’s easy
● If the business does not direct the activities to the MS, then the
contract will not fall within the Regulation, consumer won’t be
protected
○ E.g. more difficult if a French car company only sells cars
in France
○ Art 18: what type of protection is provided?
★ Exclusive jurisdiction rules — Art 24 (Step 1) START HERE
○ The main jurisdictional rule in art 4, special jurisdictional rules in arts 7-8, and arts
10-23 do not apply when art 24 is applicable
○ Art 24 — has divergent geographical scope, domicile of defendant is irrelevant
for determining whether the provision is geographically applicable
■ Article is limited to rights in rem (property rights), it binds everyone (erga
omnes)
○ Art 24(1) — immovable property
■ The courts of the country where the property is located will have
exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters
■ Exception; if both the claimant and the defendant have the Habitual
Residence in the same country, then another country also has
exclusive jurisdiction alongside the country where the property is located
○ Art 24(2) — validity, nullity, dissolution companies: place of seat of company
(according to national law)
○ Art 24(4) — registration or validity IP rights: place deposit or registration
■ Gat v. Luk: applies regardless whether validity is raised by way of an
action or as a plea of objection (defence) (!)
★ Forum clause — Art 25 (Step 2) ⇒ deals with party’s autonomy
○ Choice of court
■ Applicability
● Art 25(1): neither party from EU but court(s) EU chosen
● NB: Reform under Brussels I (recast)!!
■ Three different aspects: under Brussels I-bis
● Formal validity — in what manner does the choice of court clause
need to be made?
● Substantive validity — to what matter can the choice of court
clause be made?
● Effects of the choice — what happens once the choice of court
clause has been made
○ Formal validity — generally need to be
■ a) in writing or evidenced in writing, or
● MSG: oral contract with jurisdiction clause valid if one party did not
react to letter of confirmation (so a confirmation letter had
subsequently been sent) or paid invoices without objection to a
reference to the competent court pre-printed on these invoices
■ b) in accordance with practices between parties
, ● Agreement reached without a choice of court clause, but then the
invoice is sent which does include a choice of court clause on the
back but it’s actually not part of the contract
■ c) in accordance with international trade or commerce usage
● Trasporti Castelletti: usage not necessary that it exists in all
EU-states and a form of publicity is not always required
○ Substantive validity — to which aspects can the choice of court clause extent to
■ In connection with a particular legal relationship (para 1)
● Powell v. Duffryn: relationship between a company and its
shareholders as such is sufficiently particular
■ Connection between court and parties/case not required (Castelletti)
■ May not set aside art 24 (exclusive jurisdiction) or conflict with art 15, 19
and 23 (insurance, consumer, employment)
○ Effects of the choice — what happens when parties make these choices?
■ Chosen court exclusive jurisdiction (it will be made exclusive), unless
non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, specifically stating this (para 1)
■ Lis pendens rules also apply in case of a jurisdiction clause (Gasser –
court second seized should stay proceedings even if it is chosen court!)
■ However, now new rules in the context of Arts. 29-34, so no lis pendens
rules
★ Tacit submission — Art 26 (Step 5) ⇒ in case no court has jurisdiction on any other
ground
○ If a party shows up in court (either themselves or legal representation through
attorney) and does not contest the jurisdiction of the court, the court itself
can then deem itself to have jurisdiction
★ Lis pendens — Art 29-34
○ Race to court
○ ….
★ Provisional/protective — Art 35
○ ….
→ Brussels I-bis reg applies to ANY choice of court clause as long as its for an EU Ms
However, scope is different for Brussels I-bis Reg when its regarding the recognition &
enforcement, instead of the jurisdiction^ (as is done at the top!):
1. Scope
a. Substantive
i. Same as for jurisdiction - art 1
ii. Civil & commercial matters :D
b. Territorial
i. Art 36 & 39 - reciprocity
ii. Judgement given in a MS and recognition/enforcement in another MS
iii. Jurisdiction need not be based on Brussels I-bis (can e.g. be based on
national rules)
