VII. JURISPRUDENŢA CURŢII DE JUSTIŢIE A UNIUNII EUROPENE O schimbare de paradigmă în definirea litigiului internaţional în materie civilă şi comercială – observaţii asupra hotărârilor Curţii de Justiţie a Uniunii Europene în cauzele Inkreal şi Cabris
VII. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION A paradigm shift in defining the international dispute in civil and commercial matters – remarks on the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Inkreal and Cabris

Summary/Abstract: Party autonomy, as enshrined in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, operates as an essential mechanism for the allocation of jurisdiction and for ensuring predictability in civil and commercial disputes, within a Union system structured around judicial cooperation with cross border implications. Although the application of this Regulation entails the existence of an international element, such element is not expressly defined; rather, it has been shaped through case law in light of the objectives of the rules and the need to delineate jurisdiction. Traditionally, internationality was grounded in substantive criteria placed in a foreign state. However, beginning with the Owusu case, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the application of jurisdictional rules is not contingent upon the involvement of several Member States, it being sufficient that relevant elements are connected even to a third State. Subsequent case law has confirmed the functional nature of the notion of a „cross border litigation”, accepting that the international element may arise both from the subject matter of the dispute and from the mere need to determine jurisdiction in a context open to a plurality of fora. This development is reflected in the judgments delivered in Inkreal and Cabris Investment, which mark a paradigm shift in the application of Article 25 (1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The Court held that parties domiciled in the same Member State, or even in third States, may confer jurisdiction on the courts of another Member State, and that such choice alone is sufficient to trigger the application of the Regulation, since the dispute raises an issue of determining jurisdiction within the international legal order.

• Details
• Contents