By Salih Okur, College of Augsburg
On 9 October 2025, the CJEU, in Case C-540/24 (Cabris Funding), needed to resolve whether or not Artwork. 25 Brussels Ia applies to “an settlement conferring jurisdiction by which the contracting events, who’re domiciled in the UK and subsequently (now) in a 3rd State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising below that contract, falls inside the scope of that provision, even when the underlying contract has no additional reference to that Member State chosen because the place of jurisdiction.“
Unsurprisingly, the Court docket held that it does.
Information
The case involved a consultancy contract entered into by Cabris Investments and Revetas Capital Advisors in Might 2020, each established in the UK, accompanied by a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Handelsgericht Wien in Austria. In June 2023 Cabris Investments introduced proceedings in opposition to Revetas Capital Advisors earlier than the Handelsgericht Wien looking for cost of EUR 360,000 with a view to fulfil a contractual obligation referring to the position of Chief Monetary Officer.
The same case had already been referred to the CJEU in Case C-566/22 (Inkreal). The one (related) distinction to the case at hand is the truth that the events in Inkreal had each been established within the European Union when proceedings have been introduced in opposition to the defendant, which (as a result of United Kingdom having left the European Union) was not the case right here.
This seemingly vital distinction to the case in Inkreal prompted Revetas Capital Advisors to problem the worldwide jurisdiction of the Vienna courtroom, arguing that,
(Para. 25) “for the reason that [Brussels Ia Regulation] has not been relevant in respect of authorized relationships involving the [United Kingdom] for the reason that finish of the transition interval supplied for within the Withdrawal Settlement of 31 December 2020”
the jurisdiction clause shouldn’t be topic to Artwork. 25 Brussels Ia because the motion had been introduced solely after the tip of stated transition interval in June 2023.
The Court docket’s resolution
As a preliminary level, the Court docket clarifies that
(Para. 31) “it have to be borne in thoughts that since a jurisdiction clause is, by its very nature, a alternative of jurisdiction which has no authorized impact for as long as no judicial proceedings have been commenced and which takes impact solely on the date on which the judicial motion is about in movement, such a clause have to be assessed as on the date on which the authorized proceedings are introduced.“
At first look, this clarification appears vital, on condition that the contract had been entered into in Might 2020, however the motion was solely introduced earlier than the Handelsgericht Wien in June 2023 after the transition interval between the UK and the European Union had ended on 31 December 2020.
Truly, although, these info would solely be related if the motion have been introduced earlier than the courts of the UK, which isn’t the case right here. If Artwork. 25 Brussel Ia’s necessities are met, the Austrian courts should topic the jurisdiction clause to Artwork. 25 Ia Brussel Ia, no matter whether or not or not the Brussel Ia Regulation continues to be relevant in the UK.
With regard to the worldwide scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation, the query of whether or not the UK is a Member State or a 3rd State is irrelevant, because the CJEU has after all already famously clarified, in Case C-281/02 (Owusu), that the required worldwide component needn’t essentially derive from the involvement of a couple of Member State.
The Court docket then establishes the next:
(Para. 32) “Subsequently, with a view to reply the query referred, it’s needed to find out whether or not a dispute between two events to a contract who’re domiciled in the identical third State, equivalent to the UK since 1 February 2020, and have designated a courtroom of a Member State to listen to and decide that dispute, falls inside the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation] and Article 25(1) thereof.”
As to the availability’s applicability (which the Court docket solely considers at later level, therefore the complicated paragraph numbers), the Court docket holds:
(Para. 40) “Third, based on the case-law of the Court docket, to ensure that the scenario at problem to return inside the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it will need to have a world component. That worldwide component could end result each from the situation of the defendant’s domicile within the territory of a Member State aside from the Member State of the courtroom seised and from different components linked, specifically, to the substance of the dispute, which can be located even in a 3rd State.”
That is consistent with the Court docket’s resolution in Owusu, as laid out above.
(Para. 41) “Moreover, the Court docket has already clarified {that a} scenario by which the events to a contract, who’re established in the identical Member State, agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of one other Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract, has a world component, even when that contract has no additional connection to the opposite Member State. In such a scenario, the existence of an settlement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State aside from that by which the events are established in itself demonstrates the worldwide nature of the scenario at problem.”
Strictly talking, that is irrelevant, as neither Cabris Investments nor Revetas Capital Advisors are domiciled in Austria. Identical to in its earlier resolution in Inkreal, to which the Court docket refers, this truth alone establishes the required worldwide component.
With the applicability of the Brussels Ia Regulation established, the scope of Artwork. 25 Brussels Ia must be examined:
(Para. 35) “It’s clear from the very wording of that provision [“regardless of their domicile”] that the rule which it lays down applies whatever the domicile of the events. Extra notably, the applying of that rule shall not be topic to any situation referring to the domicile of the events, or of one in every of them, within the territory of a Member State.”
(Para. 36)“Within the second place, as regards the context of Article 25(1) of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it is vital, first, to level out that that provision differs from the one which preceded it, specifically Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which, for its half, required, for the applying of the rule of jurisdiction primarily based on an settlement conferring jurisdiction, that a minimum of one of many events to that settlement be domiciled in a Member State.”
That is additionally confirmed by Artwork. 6(1) Brussels Ia (see para. 39).
These arguments (and a few ancillary concerns) lead the Court docket to the reply that
(Para. 49) “Article 25(1) [Brussels Ia Regulation] have to be interpreted as which means that that provision covers a scenario by which two events to a contract domiciled in the UK agree, by an settlement conferring jurisdiction concluded throughout the transition interval, on the jurisdiction of a courtroom of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract, even the place that courtroom was seised of a dispute between these events after the tip of that interval.”
Commentary
General, the Court docket’s resolution is hardly shocking. In reality, the choices in Owusu and Inkreal may effectively have allowed the Handelsgericht Wien to think about its query acte eclairé and assume its worldwide jurisdiction on the idea of the unambiguous wording of Artwork. 25(1) Brussels Ia.
What’s shocking, although, is that the Court docket didn’t tackle the connection between Artwork. 25(1) Brussels Ia and the Hague Conference on Selection of Court docket Agreements (HCCCA) in any respect. In line with Artwork. 71(1) Brussels Ia, the latter takes precedent the place it’s relevant. For this, a minimum of one of many events have to be a resident of a Contracting State of the Hague Conference that’s not a Member State of the European Union, Artwork. 26(6) lit. a) HCCCA. This appears debatable on condition that the jurisdiction clause in query was entered into throughout the transition interval. Nevertheless, even when the Hague Conference have been relevant, its utility could be precluded because the case doesn’t fall inside its worldwide scope of utility (Artwork. 1(1) HCCCA). As set out in Artwork. 1(2) HCCCA, opposite to the Brussels Ia Regulation’s worldwide scope as established in Inkreal, a case is taken into account worldwide below the Hague Conference until the events are resident in the identical Contracting State and the connection of the events and all different components related to the dispute, whatever the location of the chosen courtroom, are related solely with that State.
Accordingly, the Court docket’s resolution is in step with its earlier rulings on worldwide jurisdiction clauses and doesn’t battle with different worldwide devices on the topic. To place it within the phrases of Geert Van Calster: “A really open door kicked open by the CJEU”.
