JURISDIKCIJOS PROROGACIJA PAGAL „BRIUSELIS I-BIS“ REGLAMENTĄ: GALIOJANČIŲ SUSITARIMŲ DĖL TEISMINGUMO SUDARYMAS IR JŲ VEIKSMINGUMO UŽTIKRINIMAS

Abstract

Despite the impressive popularity of choice-of-court agreements under the Brussels regime, statistics provided by the European Commission revealed that nearly 10 per cent of all concluded jurisdiction agreements are breached by parties once a dispute arises. Such flawed practice and the obvious lack of a binding nature were among the reasons behind the need to recast the Brussels I regulation.
This article focuses on the current regulation and attempts to answer the question “what makes a jurisdiction agreement valid and binding?”. The regulation’s provisions on such agreements are of a general nature, so the formal requirements for valid jurisdiction agreements are analysed in the context of the case law of the CJEU. In addition, taking into account that the validity of such agreements does not presuppose their effectiveness, the article investigates the new provisions aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of choice-of-court agreements. The regulation now provides a uniform rule on the substantive validity of jurisdiction agreements, allowing the parties involved to identify applicable law even before consenting to confer jurisdiction to a particular court. Furthermore, the recast now limits the application of a rigorous lis pendens rule and prioritises the principle of party autonomy over the “first seized court” rule.