This Practice Note considers the impact of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) in cases in which there are identical or related proceedings pending before the courts of a non-EU Member State (or ‘third state’ as they are often known). The relevant provisions in the regulation are Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of relevant provisions in the regulation to the UK as a third state following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on these articles, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 25 and 26 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. 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 at the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived as it explains the changes to CPR 6 when Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) came into force in 2015. This Practice Note refers to: • Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The provisions within the CPR refer to this regulation as the 'previous Judgments Regulation' • Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The provisions within the CPR refer to this regulation as the 'Judgments Regulation' Regulation definition The definition of the Judgments Regulation in the CPR for the purposes of the service provisions changed from: ‘the Judgments Regulation’ means Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended from time to

This Practice Note considers the provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) dealing with the submission of a defendant to the jurisdiction. Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) set out provisions to determine whether a defendant has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. The fundamental requirement being that the defendant must enter an ‘appearance’. The meaning of ‘an appearance’ as well as the practicalities involved are explored. If the defendant does not enter an appearance, there may be no submission to the jurisdiction and the court may stay the proceedings. This is considered along with the practical issues that arise when considering whether the defendant has received sufficient information to enter an appearance (Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)). This Practice Note also considers the position where the proceedings have a connection with the UK following its departure from the EU. The regulation no longer applies generally to new UK proceedings post-Brexit, save to the extent preserved by transitional provisions,

This Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), including its application following a state’s accession to the EU and where a defendant is domiciled in a third state. It explains the requirements that a matter be civil and commercial and have an international element, and considers the matters expressly excluded from the regulation’s scope. The European Commission has launched a public consultation and call for evidence on a possible revision of Brussels I (recast). It closes on 24 November 2026 with any legislative proposal provisionally planned for the fourth quarter of 2027. See Commission consults on revision of Brussels Ia Regulation—LNB News 01/09/2026 21. New EU Member States In cases in which a state accedes to the European Union, proceedings may be brought after that accession but the legal relationship, giving rise to the proceedings, was entered into prior to accession. The Court of Justice in Pula Parking v Tederahn (2017) held that Brussels I (recast) applied in such circumstances. In that case, a parking fine had been issued in Croatia

This Practice Note considers the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This includes discussion of applicable provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. Relevant domestic legislation is also discussed, including, where relevant, transitional provisions, as well as the position of the EU Commission. Where relevant, the implications for Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I are also noted. It is important to be aware that there are other enforcement regimes that are impacted by the UK leaving the EU. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners—Recognition and enforcement of judgments [Archived]. Definitions This Practice Note uses a number of definitions: • Civil Procedure Rules—CPR • EU Commission notice to stakeholders dated 27 August 2020, titled: ‘Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of Civil Justice and Private International Law’—EU Notice 2020 • European Communities Act 1972—ECA 1972

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to determine jurisdictional disputes. This includes discussion of applicable provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. Relevant domestic legislation is also discussed, including, where relevant, transitional provisions, as well as the position of the EU Commission. Finally, the implications of the UK becoming a third state in light of its departure from the EU are considered. It is important to be aware that there are other jurisdictional regimes that are impacted by the UK leaving the EU. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners—Jurisdiction. For specific guidance on the position during the implementation period, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [Archived]. Definitions This Practice Note uses a number of definitions: • EU Commission notice to stakeholders dated 27 August 2020, titled: ‘Withdrawal

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) to disputes involving non-EU Member States (often known as third states). It sets out the various provisions in this regulation that can apply to situations involving third states, all of which concern jurisdiction, and discusses the impact for the UK in the application of those provisions following its departure from the EU. Definitions This Practice Note using a number of definitions: • European Communities Act 1972—ECA 1972 • European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—EU(W)A 2018 • European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—EU(WA)A 2020 • exit day—is defined in EU(W)A 2018, s 20, as 31 January 2020 at 11 pm • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 at The Hague—the Hague Convention • implementation period—is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 1 as the ‘transition or implementation period provided for by Part 4 of the withdrawal agreement and beginning with exit day and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides general background and an overview of the amendments to provisions in CPR 6, CPR 74 and Practice Direction 74A required to ensure consistency with the changes to the jurisdiction provisions now found in Brussels I (recast) which applied from 10 January 2015. Detailed information on the changes to the CPR which came into force on 10 January 2015 are set out in Practice Note: CPR changes—January 2015 (Brussels I (recast)) [Archived]. This Practice Note was updated in January 2015 and will not be subject to further update. The links in the Related Documents are to maintained documents and give the up to date position. Note: Lexis+® UK Dispute Resolution refers to Brussels I and Brussels I (recast). The provisions within the CPR will refer to the previous Judgments Regulation and the Judgments Regulation respectively. Background The CPR Committee made changes to CPR 6, CPR 74 and CPR PD 74A in light of the

This Practice Note explains choice of court agreements, as set out in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It covers a range of issues such as derogation, when Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) does not apply, the effect on non-EU parties and the requirements for a valid choice of court agreement. This Practice Note includes discussion of the application of Article 25 to the UK as a non-EU Member State (or a third state as they are often known) following its departure from the EU (subject to the application of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement). For general guidance on the application of this article to third states, as well as the other provisions of the regulation that are relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 24, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. Note, there are provisions for trust instruments within Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels

This Practice Note explains how contract claims are dealt with under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the connecting factors required, the characteristics of the contract in terms of obligations, the place of performance and place of delivery. It also distinguishes between sale of goods and provision of services contracts. The provisions dealing with contract claims are set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), previously Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. The recast of the regulation resulted in some changes to the provisions, but the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I should be observed when considering the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and its application. This can be seen from recital 34, of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which emphasises a need for continuity. It provides that: ‘Continuity between the 1968 Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and this Regulation should be ensured, and transitional provisions should

This Practice Note considers the court’s jurisdiction when dealing with consumer contracts as set out in Articles 17–19 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which makes up section 4 of the regulation. This section provides added protection for consumers given that they are regarded as the weaker party in a dispute. The general rule is that the consumer can bring proceedings in the EU Member State in which they are domiciled even if the defendant is domiciled elsewhere. It is important to be aware of the definition of a ‘consumer’ and the difficulties that may arise when determining the application of the provisions. Overview of the consumer provisions This Practice Note sets out the relevant issues when considering jurisdiction in relation to consumer contracts under Brussels I (recast). It covers: • definition of a consumer (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast))—identical to the provisions in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I • classes of protected consumer contracts (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast))—identical to the provisions in

This Practice Note is of assistance when seeking to determine which Member State’s courts have jurisdiction to hear an insurance claim. Specifically, it addresses the reforms in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) as they relate to insurance matters. These are set out in the regulation at Chapter II, section 3 in Articles 10–16. This Practice Note considers the general rule that a defendant should be sued in the country in which they are domiciled and exemptions to that general rule when dealing with an insured who is regarded as the weaker party. The position where parties are on an equal footing is also explored. Additional protection, where there might otherwise be tacit prorogation of jurisdiction, is considered as is the impact of an agreed jurisdiction clause in an insurance dispute. Special regime for insurance matters The special insurance regime in Brussels I (recast) is largely the same as that under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It is important to be aware that before considering whether the insurance regime applies, the court will consider whether