1) The EU’s core logic: predictability and a single “jurisdiction map”
Within cross-border civil and commercial disputes, EU law answers one decisive question early: which Member State court has jurisdiction? The EU’s policy goal is legal certainty and smooth judicial cooperation across borders. The cornerstone instrument is the Brussels I Recast (Reg. 1215/2012), establishing a structured hierarchy of jurisdictional grounds.
2) General jurisdiction and the hierarchy of connecting factors
The baseline rule is defendant’s domicile in a Member State (general jurisdiction). From there, the Regulation builds:
- special jurisdiction (linking the dispute to a closely connected forum),
- exclusive jurisdiction (non-derogable fora), and
- party autonomy through jurisdiction agreements.
3) Special jurisdiction: contracts, torts, branches, multiple defendants
Special jurisdiction is where most litigation strategy happens:
- Contract matters: the “place of performance” approach aims to locate the dispute where contractual obligations are carried out.
- Tort/delict matters (Article 7(2) logic): CJEU case law famously developed the “event giving rise to the damage” vs “place where damage occurred” analysis (e.g., Bier).
- Defamation and online harm: the older Shevill framework and the internet-era eDate reasoning help define where reputational harm “occurs” and which courts may hear claims (full damages vs local harm models).
4) Exclusive jurisdiction: where party choice cannot override the system
Certain categories must be litigated in a specific Member State regardless of the parties’ domicile or agreements—classically:
- rights in rem in immovable property,
- some corporate validity and register-linked disputes,
- and specific IP registration/validity questions.
For practitioners, this means a forum clause may fail if it collides with an exclusive jurisdiction head.
5) Protective jurisdiction: consumers, employees, insured parties
EU jurisdiction rules deliberately protect weaker parties. Separate sections cover:
- consumer contracts,
- individual employment contracts, and
- insurance disputes,
often restricting the stronger party’s ability to force litigation in a distant forum.
6) Forum selection clauses (Article 25): validity, form, and “substantive invalidity”
Jurisdiction agreements are central to international contracting, but they must survive:
- formal validity requirements (writing, durable electronic record, etc.), and
- substantive validity control, where the clause may be treated as null and void under the law of the chosen Member State’s courts.
A recent CJEU ruling (Case C-398/24, 30 Oct 2025) illustrates how “substantive validity” can turn on national conditions affecting agreements between natural persons, and how such conditions interact with Article 25(1).
7) The EU’s external layer: Lugano and Hague conventions
EU litigation rarely ends at the EU border. Key bridges include:
- Lugano 2007, broadly aligning jurisdiction and enforcement circulation between the EU and Switzerland/Norway/Iceland.
- 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, strengthening the effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in international civil and commercial cases.
- 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, building a wider framework for recognition and enforcement, with the official status table showing EU participation and entry-into-force dates (and post-Brexit timelines for the UK).
8) Practical takeaway for cross-border case planning
When advising a client on an EU-related dispute, treat jurisdiction as a structured checklist:
- defendant’s domicile (general rule),
- dispute type (contract/tort),
- exclusive jurisdiction traps,
- weaker party protections,
- forum clause validity (form + substantive validity),
- and whether Lugano/Hague instruments may complement the EU regime.
Yanıt yok