This Practice Note considers the different articles set out in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) dealing with domicile of both the claimant and the defendant. Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) sets out the general rule that a defendant should be sued in their own domicile when they are domiciled in an EU Member State, while Article 63 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) deals with the jurisdiction in which a company/corporation should have proceedings brought against them. In cases in which the claimant is the more vulnerable party, eg consumer and insurance cases, specific provisions enable a claimant to commence proceedings in their own domicile rather than those of the defendant. For defendants not domiciled in an EU Member State, Article 6 applies. Domicile of the claimant When determining the court’s jurisdiction, the claimant's domicile is only of relevance in a limited number of situations. If they apply, the claimant may depart from the general rule in Article 4 (see: Domicile of the defendant—the general rule (Article 4) below) and commence proceedings

This Practice Note explains Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) gives the courts of an EU Member State exclusive jurisdiction to determine specific types of claims, irrespective of the defendant’s domicile or any contrary party agreement. The Practice Note covers claims involving immovable property (Article 24(1)), a company’s constitution/corporate governance and validity of actions (Article 24(2)), public registry entries (Article 24(3)), IP rights (Article 24(4)) as well as all proceedings involving the enforcement of judgments (Article 24(5)). For general guidance on the application of this article to third states, as well as the other provisions of the regulation relevant to third states, namely Articles 18(1), 21(2), 25, 26, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to third states [Archived]. This Practice Note refers to the following EU regulations: • Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) • Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I Remit of article 24 The provisions in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) are mandatory. Article 24

This Practice Note considers Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the jurisdiction of the court when dealing with multiple defendants. The courts of an EU Member State have special jurisdiction to hear a dispute when a co-defendant is not domiciled in the jurisdiction but only if certain criteria are met. This Practice Note considers those criteria and how the Court of Justice has applied them in practice. In particular, it considers the meaning of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ and ‘anchor defendants’. Although this Practice Note is not focused on competition damages litigation, the Court of Justice’s reasoning in such cases is included where it is relevant to the interpretation of Article 8(1) more generally. Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) also covers three other bases on which the court would have special jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8). Relevant article and recitals Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: '8 A person domiciled in a Member State

This Practice Note considers the provisions in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which deal with multiple proceedings, specifically parallel proceedings involving the same cause of action and the same parties. The Practice Note considers how the courts deal with these types of proceedings and examples of how such proceedings are dealt with in practice are provided. These provisions were previously found in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) contains some changes to the provisions previously found in Brussels I, but the case law on Article 27 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I will continue to inform the meaning of Article 29 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 be laid down to that end. The same need for continuity

This Practice Note considers the approach of the courts when related proceedings have been commenced in different jurisdictions within the EU. Related proceedings are proceedings in which multiple proceedings are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments which would result if separate proceedings were pursued. This Practice Note explains the meaning of ‘related proceedings’ as set out in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and explores the different issues the courts may consider when exercising their discretion to stay proceedings. In addition, to related proceedings, another form of multiple proceedings are ‘parallel proceedings’ or ‘lis pendens’. These are addressed in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). For guidance on: • parallel proceedings, see Practice Notes: Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) and Brussels I (recast)—the exception to the lis pendens rule (art 31(2)) • determining when a court is seised of proceedings, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—when is a court seised? (art 32)

This Practice Note considers Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the requirements that need to be met to show the court there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position already adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on such agreements and what changes have been brought into place under the regulation and what that might mean in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) was found in its predecessors, being Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Cases referenced in this Practice Note therefore include those decided under that convention and regulation as they are relevant to understanding the requirements of Article 25. For general information about choice of court agreements, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—requirements for an effective choice of court agreement (art 25). Key requirements The general rule is that a defendant is

This Practice Note looks at the special jurisdiction provisions in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), when dealing with different types of claims and disputes. The special jurisdiction under Article 7 enables a claimant to bring proceedings against a defendant in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. Such jurisdiction is non-exclusive and so, if applicable, does not oust the jurisdiction of any other EU Member State. Matters relating to contract claims (art 7(1)) This area is addressed separately, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)) . Matters relating to tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) This area is addressed separately, see Practice Notes: Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) and Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event (art 7(2)). Civil claims for damages or restitution based on criminal proceedings (art 7(3)) Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides, that in claims for damages or restitution based on criminal proceedings, a person domiciled in one EU Member State may be sued in the

This Practice Note considers the exception to the lis pendens rule as set out in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The provision only applies where there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement between the parties, also known as an exclusive choice of court agreement—it is not applicable where there is a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Where Article 31(2) applies, the designated court in the agreement can determine whether it has jurisdiction notwithstanding that they are not the first court seised of the dispute. The lis pendens rule is set out in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) Provisions in Article 31(2) Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: ‘Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the

This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what may constitute the place where the harmful event occurred for specific types of claims, including economic loss, damaged or defective goods, road traffic accident claims involving insurers and assignees, intellectual property claims and representative actions. For guidance: • on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) • when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (Art 7(1)) Authorities When considering the construction and application of the wording in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), authorities decided under the same provisions in either Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I or the Brussels Convention will be applicable. This is because: • the wording of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), is materially

This Practice Note considers Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and exceptions to the general rule that a claimant must bring proceedings in the jurisdiction of the defendant’s domicile. It considers third parties, counter-claims and rights in rem. It does not deal with the provisions in Article 8(1) dealing with multiple defendants which is considered in Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8). Third parties—art 8(2) Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) provides: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: (2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case.’ This provision is identical to that found in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 Brussels I. Article 8(2) deals with the situation in which a defendant

This Practice Note explains how tort and delict claims are dealt with under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It considers the meaning of tort and delict claims under Article 7(2) and explains how the article is to be interpreted. One key element in the application of the article is the determination of where the harmful event occurred and this is considered alongside examples for specific types of claims. The Practice Note also considers the position on co-defendants and on claims for a declaration of non-liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict. It should be noted that Article 7(2) is a derogation from the general rule, set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), that the defendant is sued in the courts of the jurisdiction in which they are domiciled. For an understanding of the application of Article 4, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63). For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—contract

This Practice Note considers when a court is seised of proceedings under Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Deciding which court is first seised is fundamental to the operation of Articles 29–31 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) which concern the prevention and regulation of concurrent proceedings. Text of article 32 Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) replicates its predecessor provision in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I and provides additional clarification. The beginning of Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) is identical to its predecessor provision: '1. For the purposes of this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seised: (a) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the claimant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant; or (b) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court,