- In brief: Brussels I (recast) and interpreting art 24(2) (Koza Ltd v Akcil)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What did the Court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Angharad Parry, barrister at 20 Essex Street, considers the case Koza Ltd v Akcil. The Court of Appeal interpreted the scope of article 24 (2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (Recast)), which governs exclusive jurisdiction ‘in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat’. It held that the court is to make an overall evaluative judgment of what proceedings are principally concerned with when determining whether they fall within the parameters of article 24 (2). The court is not obliged to weigh up how much evidence or argument would arise in relation to each pleaded issue; but should rather look at what the proceedings are principally about.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial