Droit international général

On 17 October 2025, the EBS Law School in Oestrich-Winkel, Germany, hosted a conference Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law. The conference was organised by Professors Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School) as part of the Law Schools Global League Sustainable Global Value Chains Project (see also here).

The conference brought together a number of scholars specialised in private international law, company law, and contract law to discuss the role of private law and private international law in social, economic, and environmental sustainability within global value chains.

Keynote

Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) delivered the keynote lecture entitled “European Law for Global Value Chains – Human Rights Advancement or European Imperialism?” Professor Michaels addressed this question from a historical perspective. He related the historical roots of existing sourcing practices to contemporary supply chains, drawing on a wealth of theoretical insights. He further reflected on the conceptualisations that remain necessary for the legal discipline to contribute to addressing economic inequalities in contemporary global sourcing practices facilitated by interconnected chains of contracts.

After the keynote, several scholars provided insights into their current research, which resonated with various aspects of the keynote lecture.

Other contributions

Ren Yatsunami (Kyushu University, Japan) addressed the ‘Governance Gaps on Global Value Chains from the Perspective of Private International Law’. Professor Yatsunami sketched, inter alia, a situation in which an act taking place in Japan triggered the application of French law on the duty of vigilance. He discussed this situation from the perspective of Japanese courts and Japanese private international law, including the question of overriding mandatory rules, to illustrate the intricacies of applying the sets of rules involved.

Carlos Vázquez (Georgetown University, Washington D.C., United States) elaborated on the ‘Choice of Law in Transnational Business and Human Rights Litigation’. Professor Vázquez discussed the conflict-of-law approaches in both the United States and the European Union, distinguishing between two ways of framing litigation — as a breach of international law and as a breach of national law, primarily tort law — and examined the peculiarities of each. Relying on historical and theoretical insights into both ways of framing litigation, the contribution offered a reflection on possible ways forward.

The discussion then turned to contract law, namely the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Felix M. Wilke (EBS Law School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany) titled his contribution ‘’Tainted by Harm but Fit for Sale? Human Rights and the Concept of Non-Conformity under the CISG’. Professor Wilke focused on the connection between supply chain regulation and the CISG’s provisions on the quality and conformity of goods and remedies.

Thereafter, Sara Sánchez (IE University, Madrid, Spain) connected the contract law framework with procedural law and EU law. In her contribution ‘Access To Justice in CS3D-Related Claims’, Professor Sánchez discussed the absence of jurisdictional rules in the regulation of due diligence in supply chains (see also posts by Michaels & Sommerfeld here and by Silva de Freitas & Kramer here). Professor Sánchez proposed an EU law-based solution to address this gap.

Irene-Marie Esser (University of Glasgow, Scotland UK) and Christopher Riley (University of Durham) then turned to ‘The Interplay between Reporting Requirements and Group Liability for Supply Chain Misconduct – Transnational Business Corporations’. They addressed the existing case law, normative considerations, and avenues for the further development of company law aspects of liability related to acts and omissions involving groups of companies in supply chains.

Simone Lamont-Black (University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK) and Catherine Pédamon (University of Westminster, UK) took a broad look at the agricultural business and food supplies. Departing from the premise that contractual clauses are not sufficient to provide food security and sustainability in global food supply chains, these scholars elaborated on other possible solutions.

The last panel drew conclusions and discussed emerging themes for further research. The discussants were Nevena Jevremovic (University of Aberdeen, UK), Matthias Goldmann (EBS Law School), Klaas Hendrik Eller (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University, the Netherlands).

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (CEST). Professor Caroline Sophie Rapatz (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Play Among the Laws?”

With the increasing privatisation and economisation of space activities, the need for private space law becomes urgent: Responsible exploration and exploitation necessitates suitable and reliable rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in Outer Space as well as substantive private law adapted specifically to space scenarios. The presentation will explore the options for developing a comprehensive body of such private (international) law rules within the framework established by the existing public international law treaties on space law. It will outline possible approaches to such an undertaking, using property law questions as the main example.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

A call for chapters has been issued for the upcoming edited volume Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, to be published by Springer Nature under the editorship of Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen). The volume explores how digitalisation affects courts and dispute resolution, seeking to balance efficiency and fairness, from remote hearings […]

On 21 October 2025, the European Commission adopted its 2026 work programme, titled Europe’s Independence Moment. It outlines how the EU plans to respond to current and emerging challenges, from security threats and geopolitical tensions to economic vulnerabilities and the accelerating climate crisis, building on the priorities set out in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines 2024-2029 […]

This post was contributed by Gilles Cuniberti, Brooke Marshall and Louise Ellen Teitz. They are the authors (with the late Peter Mankowski) of a commentary on the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements forthcoming with Edward Elgar. On 9 October 2025, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-540/24, Cabris Investment already discussed […]

In 2025, the European Civil Justice Centre (ECJC) was established at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam. This Centre was set up to facilitate the collaboration of scholars and other stakeholders across Europe and beyond in conducting research and related activities with a view to promoting access to justice. The Centre consolidates extensive work spearheaded by Erasmus School of Law civil justice scholars over the past fifteen years (see www.euciviljustice.eu), benefits in particular from support by the KU Leuven, and builds on collaborations with academics, practitioners and policy-makers around the globe.

The European Civil Justice Centre will hold its inaugural event, The Future of Civil Justice in Europe: Enhancing Access and Innovation, on 27 November 2025. More information and the program is available here. To register for in-person attendance click here, and for online participation here. Introductory speeches will be given by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus School of Law), Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) and Anna Nylund (Bergen University). A thought-provoking keynote speech will be given by Alan Uzelac (Zagreb University) on the state of civil justice in Europe, focusing on empirical insights, access to justice, and the need for innovation across systems. This will be followed by a panel presenting Academic perspectives ‘Rethinking Civil Justice: Comparative, Empirical, and Technological Dimensions’ and a panel on Policy, Practice & Innovation ‘Delivering Justice: Challenges and Opportunities in Practice’.

The European Civil Justice Centre promotes research, policy-making and related training activities in support of the further development of European civil justice, with the aim of strengthening tailor-made access to justice for businesses and citizens. Key areas of interest include, but are not limited to, research activities on (1) collective actions and public interest litigation, promoting legal mobilization with the aim to enforce rights for the public good and/or (disadvantaged) groups; (2) legal aid and assistance, and third-party litigation funding; (3) digitalisation of civil justice, including AI; (4) ADR and ODR; and (5) anti-SLAPPS (strategic litigation against public participation). The Centre is dedicated to capacity-building for joint research projects, including and policy-oriented research, strengthening societal outreach and impact, and creating opportunities for early career researchers. More information on opportunities to become a fellow and further activities will become available soon.

 

The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Kirsten Henckel (Groningen University) titled ‘The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law’:

Over the past two decades, our daily lives have become ever more digital. This digitization has fundamentally reshaped the nature of property and inheritance. Digital assets ranging from social media accounts, emails and cloud-based archives to cryptocurrencies, NFTs and digital subscriptions now form an integral part of modern estates. These assets frequently lack clear legal classification and existing laws, largely designed for tangible property, struggle to accommodate their unique characteristics.

This webinar examines the emerging field of digital succession through the lens of private international law, highlighting issues that arise when digital estates span multiple jurisdictions. Key issues include determining jurisdiction and applicable law as well as enforcing rights across borders.

Additional information and the link to register can be found here.

In Cabris Investments, a case decided on 9 October 2025, the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments (Brussels I bis). Article 25 is concerned with choice-of-court agreements. It applies where the parties to a dispute, “regardless of their […]

On 17 October 2025, Regulation (EU) 2025/2073 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The amendment reflects recent notifications by several Member States introducing new types […]

The third issue of 2025 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) will be released shortly. It features:

Cristina Campiglio, Professor at the University of Pavia, Cittadinanza iure sanguinis e nazionalità: riflessioni internazionalprivatistiche [Citizenship by Birthright and Nationality: Private International Law Reflections; in Italian]

The recent amendment to the citizenship law, which restricts transmission by descent to two generations, offers an opportunity to revisit the concept of ius sanguinis from that specific legal perspective outlined in the nineteenth century by Mancini. Mancini linked citizenship (a public law institution) to nationality (a guiding principle of private international law). This connection remains evident today in cases where Italian citizenship is passed down to descendants born abroad. Filiation status must be evaluated according to conflict-of-laws rules (Arts 33 and 35 of Law 31 May 1995 No 218), which refer to the child’s own national law (creating a circular situation) or, if more favourable, to the parent’s national law. The public policy exception (Art 16), particularly in cases of medically assisted procreation, can lead to the denial of filiation recognition, potentially resulting in statelessness. The new citizenship rules’ generational limit ultimately prompts reflection on whether Law No 218 of 1995, rooted in the nineteenth-century principle of nationality, should also be reconsidered.

Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, La circolazione di «accordi» in materia di responsabilità genitoriale nel regolamento Bruxelles II-ter: una disciplina destinata ad uno scarso rilievo pratico [The Circulation of ‘‘Agreements’’ on Parental Responsibility in the Brussels IIb Regulation: A Legal Framework of Marginal Practical Significance; in Italian]

Among the most interesting developments in European family law in recent years is the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, also known as Brussels II-ter, introduced specific rules for the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements relating to legal separation and divorce, as well as parental responsibility. While numerous contributions have focused on the circulation of agreements relating to separation or divorce, less attention has been paid to agreements relating to parental responsibility. This contribution, through a detailed analysis of the provisions relating to parental responsibility agreements contained in both the aforementioned Regulation and the internal laws of individual Member States, highlights how, at present, this innovative regulatory framework is likely to have little impact. With the sole exception of what occurs in the French legal system, in fact, the category of “agreements” contemplated by the Brussels II-ter Regulation is currently devoid of its own content, being compressed between the private act which embodies the exchange of wills between the parties but which is irrelevant at the international level, and an increasingly broad notion of “decision”, modeled on a control carried out by any public authority, including an administrative one, which is classified as “on the merits” but which can be limited to compliance with the conditions established by law without implying any real appreciation of the content of the agreement.

Gaetano Vitellino, Researcher at the University Cattaneo LIUC of Castellanza, Misure cautelari e rapporti con Stati terzi in materia civile e commerciale [Provisional Measures and Relations with Third States in Civil and Commercial Matters; in Italian]

This paper examines the issues that arise when provisional or protective relief is granted in cases involving non-EU States. This topic has received limited attention in legal scholarship. The analysis presents three main arguments. First, interim relief may be granted not only by courts with jurisdiction over the merits but also by other courts. In this case, the restrictive conditions set out in Art 35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, should not apply when no EU courts can hear and decide the dispute. Second, recognition and enforcement of provisional measures ordered by non-EU courts are subject to differing domestic rules across Member States. The analysis shows that in most countries – both within and outside the EU – foreign interim measures are generally not capable of being recognised, mainly due to their provisional nature. Third, the paper explores two key aspects of the free circulation of provisional measures within the EU. Firstly, contrary to the suggestions made by the European Commission in its recent report on the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation, it argues that provisional measures granted by EU courts with jurisdiction over the merits under national law should also freely move. Secondly, in line with the rationale behind Art 35, interim measures issued by courts without jurisdiction over the merits should not be prevented from circulating when no EU court can hear and decide the dispute.

Bartosz Wolodkiewicz, Associate Professor at the University of Warsaw, Erosion of the Lex Fori Processualis Principle: A Comparative Study [in English]

The lex fori processualis principle is one of the fundamental concepts of private international law. It asserts that in civil proceedings, unlike in the sphere of private law relations, it is not necessary to indicate the applicable law, since courts apply their own procedural law. Accepted since the 13th century, this principle became almost a dogma in the 19th century. However, in recent decades, the lex fori processualis principle has been criticised in academic discourse. Additionally, national legal systems have introduced procedural conflict-of-law rules that explicitly permit the application of foreign procedural law. This paradigm shift, and the resulting erosion of the dominant approach to (in)application foreign procedural law, is the focus of this study. The paper explores the contemporary relevance and legitimacy of this principle, as well as the exceptions to its application, in four legal systems: English, French, German, and Polish law. Based on these findings, three levels of erosion of the lex fori processualis principle are identified and discussed.

Paolo Vinciguerra, Master of Laws, Anti-Suit Injunctions, ECHR and the Public Policy Defence [in English]

This article examines a specific injunctive remedy: the anti-suit injunction. This is a discretionary judicial order directed at a private party, intended either to prohibit the initiation of proceedings in another forum or to compel the party to cease any proceedings already commenced in that forum under the threat of financial or personal sanctions. After outlining the key judicial developments that have established the incompatibility of anti-suit injunctions with the European legal order, the analysis shifts to the impact of Brexit and the conflict with Russia on the issuance of such injunctions by courts. Within this framework, the article primarily focuses on the possibility of identifying a new legal basis for restricting the circulation of anti-suit injunctions under the general clause of international public policy.

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Edoardo Benvenuti, Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Milan: Xandra KRAMER and Laura CARBALLO PIÑEIRO (eds.), Research Methods in Private International Law. A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching, Cheltenham-Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, p. v-396.

 

 

 

After two successful editions (here and here), the new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is scheduled to held on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 2 to 6 February 2026. It is organised by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the […]

A succinct note on Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd & Anor v First Curacao International Bank NV & Anor [2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch) in which Leech J held on both limitation issues under Rome II v the former English rules and the statutory intervention by the  FLPA (Foreign Limitation Periods Act) 1985.

As for the latter, the FLPA [103, with reference to Dicey] adopted the general principle that the limitation period of the lex causae are to be applied to actions in England, as opposed to the previous more complex distinction [101] between  procedural and substantive limitation rules and the distinction between rights and remedies. However the judgment is not very clear on what the discussion implies in casu and I have not managed to extract the relevance here despite multiple readings of the judgment.

On applicable law to the claim, here the issue [749 ff] is whether A12 applies at all (readily accepted [751] following defendant’s correct submission [750]) and if so, whether A12(1) did not lead to a putative lex contractus, hence effectively resurrecting A4’s lex locus damni as a result of A12(2). The judge summarily holds for the putative lex contractus, Curacao law, also dismissing the attempt at fog (did party so and so actually become a party to contract such and such) seeing as A12(1) clearly holds that the actual conclusion of a contract is not relevant.

Geert.

Ia issues of limitation periods viz Rome II and application of A12 Rome II: culpa in contrahendoTransworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd & Anor v First Curacao International Bank NV & Anor [2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch)www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWH…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-10-02T07:20:26.163Z

Earlier this year, Symeon Symeonides posted on SSRN an essay written in the occasion of a symposium titled 50 Years in the Conflicts Vineyard, which was held in the author’s honor in May 2024 at Willamette University Law School and sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws. The essay […]

The third issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) for 2025 has been finalized. This is a special issue with contributions that were presented at the memorial symposium in honour of the late Jürgen Basedow, held in Hamburg on 29 November 2024, under the title “Private International Law – Uniform Law […]

The PAX Moot case for the 2026 moot competition on Private International Law was published. The 2026 Round is dedicated to Vladimir Koutikov, a distinguished Bulgarian scholar and expert in private international law The Vladimir Koutikov Round of the competition requires participants to deal with matters related to an international sale of goods between an Italian […]

The third issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé for 2025 was just published. It contains three articles dealing with conflict issues (and a fourth concerned with immigration law) and a number of casenotes. In the first article, Etienne Farnoux (University of Strasbourg) discusses the relationship between fundamental rights and the public policy […]

Dr. Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen), the editor of an upcoming edited volume called ‘Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands’, has kindly shared this Call for Chapters with us. The volume will be published by Springer.

Call for Chapters

We are preparing an edited volume that examines how digitalisation impacts courts and dispute resolution, striking a balance between efficiency and fairness (e.g., remote trials and body language cues). We welcome topics within Private International Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Administrative Procedure.

Dutch and German perspectives are central; European angles are also welcome if they discuss how national law is impacted.

Final chapters will have to be submitted by 30 June 2026, after which a peer review will take place. The edited volume will be published by Springer Nature in the first half of 2027.

What we invite

A chapter-length contribution (original, unpublished) on any facet of the digitalisation of justice – conceptual, doctrinal, empirical, comparative, or policy-oriented. The book publication will be preceded by the symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice’: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, taking place on 29 May 2026 in Groningen, the Netherlands.

This symposium provides a platform for renowned scholars to present their research into the digitalisation of justice. It therefore does not focus on specific topics, but leaves it up to the speakers to identify important aspects.

Attendance at the symposium is welcome but not required; this invitation is independent of conference presentations.

Length & style

8,000–10,000 words (including footnotes). A style sheet will be provided upon acceptance.

Proposal and deadline

You can find the full Call for Chapters here.

Please email (with the subject line ‘Call for Chapters’) a single PDF containing:

• Working title and a 250-400 word chapter synopsis
• Short bio (?100 words) and affiliation
• Any potential rights/permissions issues (if applicable)

to Dr. Benedikt Schmitz at digitalisation@weakerparties.eu no later than 9 November 2025. Decisions will be communicated by 16 November 2025.

Dr. Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen), the organiser of the upcoming symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands’, has kindly shared this Call for Abstracts for emerging scholars with us.

Call for Abstracts

We invite emerging scholars (PhD candidates or 1-year post-PhD) to submit abstracts for the symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice’: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, taking place on 29 May 2026 in Groningen, the Netherlands. Click here for more information.

Six abstracts will be selected and their authors invited to create posters for the symposium, which will be displayed all day. As part of the main programme, the authors will get a chance to present their work in elevator pitches and answer questions about the content.

Authors who submit a full paper before the conference may be considered for the edited book, which Springer Nature will publish. A separate Call for Chapters has been published here.

Subject Matter and Eligibility

Law is rapidly changing with technology. This symposium examines how digitalisation impacts courts and dispute resolution, striking a balance between efficiency and fairness (e.g., remote trials and body language cues). We welcome topics within Private International Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Administrative Procedure.

Dutch and German perspectives are central; European angles are also welcome if they discuss how national law is impacted.

Submission Instructions

Abstracts should reflect original research that will not yet have been published nor entered peer-review. To submit, scholars should send by email:

• in the subject line: ‘Call for Abstracts’,
• a 250-word abstract,
• the author’s name, title of the paper, institutional affiliation, and contact information,
• the author’s CV, and
• optional a travel scholarship request (max. 150 words)

to Dr. Benedikt Schmitz at digitalisation@weakerparties.eu no later than 9 November 2025.

Notification

Authors will be notified of their acceptance no later than 21 November 2025.

Participation is free. All participants should print their own posters and bring them along to the conference in A1 size, preferably in portrait format. Participants are responsible for securing their own funding for travel and accommodation, but two partial travel scholarships will be awarded on need and merit.

This post was contributed by Heloise Meur, who is a lecturer at Paris 8 University. International distribution agreements are a significant source of litigation which result in legal uncertainty. First, these contracts are not typical ones: they belong to a group of contracts which organize a kind of cooperation between the parties. Second, they are […]

By Salih Okur, University of Augsburg

On 9 October 2025, the CJEU, in Case C-540/24 (Cabris Investment), had to decide whether Art. 25 Brussels Ia applies to “an agreement conferring jurisdiction in which the contracting parties, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and therefore (now) in a third State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, falls within the scope of that provision, even if the underlying contract has no further connection with that Member State chosen as the place of jurisdiction.“

Unsurprisingly, the Court held that it does.

Facts

The case concerned a consultancy contract entered into by Cabris Investments and Revetas Capital Advisors in May 2020, both established in the United Kingdom, accompanied by a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Handelsgericht Wien in Austria. In June 2023 Cabris Investments brought proceedings against Revetas Capital Advisors before the Handelsgericht Wien seeking payment of EUR 360,000 in order to fulfil a contractual obligation relating to the role of Chief Financial Officer.

A similar case had already been referred to the CJEU in Case C-566/22 (Inkreal). The only (relevant) difference to the case at hand is the fact that the parties in Inkreal had both been established in the European Union when proceedings were brought against the defendant, which (due to the United Kingdom having left the European Union) was not the case here.

This seemingly significant difference to the case in Inkreal prompted Revetas Capital Advisors to challenge the international jurisdiction of the Vienna court, arguing that,

(Para. 25) “since the [Brussels Ia Regulation] has not been applicable in respect of legal relationships involving the [United Kingdom] since the end of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement of 31 December 2020”

the jurisdiction clause should not be subject to Art. 25 Brussels Ia as the action had been brought only after the end of said transition period in June 2023.

The Court’s decision

As a preliminary point, the Court clarifies that

(Para. 31) “it must be borne in mind that since a jurisdiction clause is, by its very nature, a choice of jurisdiction which has no legal effect for so long as no judicial proceedings have been commenced and which takes effect only on the date on which the judicial action is set in motion, such a clause must be assessed as at the date on which the legal proceedings are brought.“

At first glance, this clarification seems important, given that the contract had been entered into in May 2020, but the action was only brought before the Handelsgericht Wien in June 2023 after the transition period between the United Kingdom and the European Union had ended on 31 December 2020.

Actually, though, these facts would only be relevant if the action were brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, which is not the case here. If Art. 25 Brussel Ia’s requirements are met, the Austrian courts must subject the jurisdiction clause to Art. 25 Ia Brussel Ia, regardless of whether or not the Brussel Ia Regulation is still applicable in the United Kingdom.

With regard to the international scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation, the question of whether the United Kingdom is a Member State or a third State is irrelevant, as the CJEU has of course already famously clarified, in Case C-281/02 (Owusu), that the required international element need not necessarily derive from the involvement of more than one  Member State.

The Court then establishes the following:

(Para. 32) “Therefore, in order to answer the question referred, it is necessary to determine whether a dispute between two parties to a contract who are domiciled in the same third State, such as the United Kingdom since 1 February 2020, and have designated a court of a Member State to hear and determine that dispute, falls within the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation] and Article 25(1) thereof.”

As to the provision’s applicability (which the Court only considers at later point, hence the confusing paragraph numbers), the Court holds:

(Para. 40) “Third, according to the case-law of the Court, in order for the situation at issue to come within the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it must have an international element. That international element may result both from the location of the defendant’s domicile in the territory of a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised and from other factors linked, in particular, to the substance of the dispute, which may be situated even in a third State.”

This is in line with the Court’s decision in Owusu, as laid out above.

(Para. 41) “Furthermore, the Court has already clarified that a situation in which the parties to a contract, who are established in the same Member State, agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract, has an international element, even if that contract has no further connection to the other Member State. In such a situation, the existence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State other than that in which the parties are established in itself demonstrates the international nature of the situation at issue.”

Strictly speaking, this is irrelevant, as neither Cabris Investments nor Revetas Capital Advisors are domiciled in Austria. Just like in its earlier decision in Inkreal, to which the Court refers, this fact alone establishes the required international element.

With the applicability of the Brussels Ia Regulation established, the scope of Art. 25 Brussels Ia needs to be examined:

(Para. 35) “It is clear from the very wording of that provision [“regardless of their domicile”] that the rule which it lays down applies regardless of the domicile of the parties. More particularly, the application of that rule shall not be subject to any condition relating to the domicile of the parties, or of one of them, in the territory of a Member State.”

(Para. 36)“In the second place, as regards the context of Article 25(1) of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it is important, first, to point out that that provision differs from the one which preceded it, namely Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which, for its part, required, for the application of the rule of jurisdiction based on an agreement conferring jurisdiction, that at least one of the parties to that agreement be domiciled in a Member State.”

This is also confirmed by Art. 6(1) Brussels Ia (see para. 39).

These arguments (and some ancillary considerations) lead the Court to the answer that

(Para. 49) “Article 25(1) [Brussels Ia Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers a situation in which two parties to a contract domiciled in the United Kingdom agree, by an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded during the transition period, on the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract, even where that court was seised of a dispute between those parties after the end of that period.”

Commentary

Overall, the Court’s decision is hardly surprising. In fact, the decisions in Owusu and Inkreal could well have allowed the Handelsgericht Wien to consider its question acte eclairé and assume its international jurisdiction on the basis of the unambiguous wording of Art. 25(1) Brussels Ia.

What is surprising, though, is that the Court did not address the relationship between Art. 25(1) Brussels Ia and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (HCCCA) at all. According to Art. 71(1) Brussels Ia, the latter takes precedent where it is applicable. For this, at least one of the parties must be a resident of a Contracting State of the Hague Convention that is not a Member State of the European Union, Art. 26(6) lit. a) HCCCA. This seems debatable given that the jurisdiction clause in question was entered into during the transition period. However, even if the Hague Convention were applicable, its application would be precluded as the case does not fall within its international scope of application (Art. 1(1) HCCCA). As set out in Art. 1(2) HCCCA, contrary to the Brussels Ia Regulation’s international scope as established in Inkreal, a case is considered international under the Hague Convention unless the parties are resident in the same Contracting State and the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, regardless of the location of the chosen court, are connected only with that State.

Accordingly, the Court’s decision is consistent with its previous rulings on international jurisdiction clauses and does not conflict with other international instruments on the subject. To put it in the words of Geert Van Calster: “A very open door kicked open by the CJEU”.