Week 6: jurisdiction I
Case law:
● ECJ, 16 March 1999, C-159/97 (Castelletti)
Interpretation Art 17 Brussels Convention
● CJEU, 13 July 2006, C-4/03 (GAT v Luk)
Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be
interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings
relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an
action or a plea in objection.
● CJEU, 12 May 2011, C-144/10 (BVG v. JPMorgan)
Article 22(2) 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 not
applying to proceedings in which a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it
because a decision of its organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on
account of infringement of its statutes.
In other words: The Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has made a landmark ruling on the scope of Article
22(2) of the Brussels Regulation. In proceedings which have as their object the validity of decisions of
the organs of a company, Article 22(2) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the member state in which the
company has its seat. That exclusive jurisdiction "trumps" any contractually agreed jurisdiction clause.
The ECJ has held that Article 22(2) must be interpreted narrowly and does not apply to proceedings
where a company claims that a contract cannot be relied on against it because a decision of its organs
which led to the conclusion of the contract was invalid.
Brussels I bis Regulation scope:
● Substantive scope: Art. 1(1) – civil and commercial matters (not excluded ( Art. 1(2))
, ● Geographical scope: Art. 4-6: Where the defendant is domiciled in EU MS, when the defendant
is not, then look to other sources of private international law (defendant is Art. 62 (natural
person) or Art. 63 (legal person)).
The exceptions to the regular geographical scope determination: different geographical scope in Art. 24
(exclusive grounds of jurisdiction) and 25 (making a choice of court clause); and universal geographical
scope in Art. 18 (consumer contracts: regardless of the domicile of the company, when the consumer
starts proceedings in a EU MS the Regulation has universal rules of jurisdiction) and 21 (employment
contracts: regardless of the domicile of the employer, when the employee starts proceedings in a EU MS
the Regulation has universal rules of jurisdiction).
● Temporal Scope – Art. 66 and 81: For proceedings started on or after the 10th of January 2015.
Art 24 – Exclusive jurisdiction
Article 24 lays down rules on exclusive jurisdiction in cases concerning property. It looks at the location
of the property to determine jurisdiction, the domicile of the defendant is not relevant when this article
applies.
The article only concerns rights of rem under property right cases, not personal rights.
The location where the property is located determines the jurisdiction.
• Art. 24(1) – immovable property
• Art. 24(2) – validity, nullity, dissolution companies: place of seat of company (according
to national law).
• Art. 24(4) – registration or validity of IP rights: place deposit or registration
GAT v Luk: applies regardless whether is raised by way of an action or as a plea of objection (defence).
Art 25 – Choice of Court
Brussels I bis Regulation: Art. 25
Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 (Applies in EU, Denmark, Montenegro, Singapore, Mexico and
the UK)
● Substantive Scope – Art. 3(a): “exclusive choice of court agreement”
● Geographical Scope – Art. 1(1) and Art. 3(a)
● Art. 1(1): international case
● Art. 3(a): the court chosen is from a Contracting State to the Convention.
● Temporal Scope – Art. 16: the choice of court must be after entry into force for the chosen state.
Concurrence within the EU, Brussels I bis prevails
If a choice of court agreement is made in Denmark, Montenegro, Singapore, Mexico (, or the UK), then the
HCCC applies
Under Art. 25(1) of the Brussels I-bis: neither of the parties need to be from the EU, but the court that
has been chosen needs to be in the EU for this article to apply.
Case law:
● ECJ, 16 March 1999, C-159/97 (Castelletti)
Interpretation Art 17 Brussels Convention
● CJEU, 13 July 2006, C-4/03 (GAT v Luk)
Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be
interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings
relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an
action or a plea in objection.
● CJEU, 12 May 2011, C-144/10 (BVG v. JPMorgan)
Article 22(2) 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 not
applying to proceedings in which a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it
because a decision of its organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on
account of infringement of its statutes.
In other words: The Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has made a landmark ruling on the scope of Article
22(2) of the Brussels Regulation. In proceedings which have as their object the validity of decisions of
the organs of a company, Article 22(2) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the member state in which the
company has its seat. That exclusive jurisdiction "trumps" any contractually agreed jurisdiction clause.
The ECJ has held that Article 22(2) must be interpreted narrowly and does not apply to proceedings
where a company claims that a contract cannot be relied on against it because a decision of its organs
which led to the conclusion of the contract was invalid.
Brussels I bis Regulation scope:
● Substantive scope: Art. 1(1) – civil and commercial matters (not excluded ( Art. 1(2))
, ● Geographical scope: Art. 4-6: Where the defendant is domiciled in EU MS, when the defendant
is not, then look to other sources of private international law (defendant is Art. 62 (natural
person) or Art. 63 (legal person)).
The exceptions to the regular geographical scope determination: different geographical scope in Art. 24
(exclusive grounds of jurisdiction) and 25 (making a choice of court clause); and universal geographical
scope in Art. 18 (consumer contracts: regardless of the domicile of the company, when the consumer
starts proceedings in a EU MS the Regulation has universal rules of jurisdiction) and 21 (employment
contracts: regardless of the domicile of the employer, when the employee starts proceedings in a EU MS
the Regulation has universal rules of jurisdiction).
● Temporal Scope – Art. 66 and 81: For proceedings started on or after the 10th of January 2015.
Art 24 – Exclusive jurisdiction
Article 24 lays down rules on exclusive jurisdiction in cases concerning property. It looks at the location
of the property to determine jurisdiction, the domicile of the defendant is not relevant when this article
applies.
The article only concerns rights of rem under property right cases, not personal rights.
The location where the property is located determines the jurisdiction.
• Art. 24(1) – immovable property
• Art. 24(2) – validity, nullity, dissolution companies: place of seat of company (according
to national law).
• Art. 24(4) – registration or validity of IP rights: place deposit or registration
GAT v Luk: applies regardless whether is raised by way of an action or as a plea of objection (defence).
Art 25 – Choice of Court
Brussels I bis Regulation: Art. 25
Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 (Applies in EU, Denmark, Montenegro, Singapore, Mexico and
the UK)
● Substantive Scope – Art. 3(a): “exclusive choice of court agreement”
● Geographical Scope – Art. 1(1) and Art. 3(a)
● Art. 1(1): international case
● Art. 3(a): the court chosen is from a Contracting State to the Convention.
● Temporal Scope – Art. 16: the choice of court must be after entry into force for the chosen state.
Concurrence within the EU, Brussels I bis prevails
If a choice of court agreement is made in Denmark, Montenegro, Singapore, Mexico (, or the UK), then the
HCCC applies
Under Art. 25(1) of the Brussels I-bis: neither of the parties need to be from the EU, but the court that
has been chosen needs to be in the EU for this article to apply.
