Brussels I (recast) and third states
Produced in partnership with Ian McDonald of 4 New Square
Brussels I (recast) and third states

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note Produced in partnership with Ian McDonald of 4 New Square provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Brussels I (recast) and third states
  • What are the relevant articles in the regulation?
  • The Application of Brussels I (recast)
  • A limited international lis pendens rule
  • Discretion to stay proceedings
  • Criteria for the court to consider whether to grant a stay
  • The treatment of exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of a third state
  • Exclusive jurisdiction agreements under Article 25
  • Lifting a stay granted under Article 33 and 34
  • Articles 33 and 34—an exclusive answer to the Owusu problem

Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day, ie Friday 31 January 2020, has implications for practitioners considering jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Cross border considerations—checklist—Jurisdiction—Brexit specific.

This Practice Note considers the impact of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) on jurisdictional issues for disputes involving non-EU Member States or third states as they are often known. This has always been an area of difficulty for practitioners following the Court of Justice decision in Owusu v Jackson which left many questions unanswered. The provisions in Article 33 and Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) seek to address these issues. The decision in Blomqvist, although obiter, provides some insights into the application of Article 34(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast).

What are the relevant articles in the regulation?

Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) were completely new provisions added in 2015 and they effected the main change to the regime in this area. They permit an EU Member State court, with jurisdiction under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to stay its proceedings in favour of identical (Article 33) or related (Article 34) proceedings pending before the courts of a third state in certain circumstances. This seeks to resolve the previous uncertainty created by the Court of Justice’s decision in