Topic 7: Brussels I Regulation 2: Exclusive Jurisdiction

This principle states that courts in the country where the property is located have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to real estate rights or tenancies.

A legal right held over a specific thing, like ownership or a lease, which can be enforced against anyone.

A legal right against a specific person, like a contract debt.

The legal system of the country where the property is situated governs disputes over real estate rights and tenancies.

This exception allows jurisdiction in the defendant's home country for short-term, temporary leases where both parties reside in the same Member State.

The court in which a company is officially registered.

A legal principle that establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of a specific court to hear certain cases.

The legal process of enforcing a court judgment in another country.

Legal proceedings related to the validity or registration of intellectual property rights like patents, trademarks, or designs.

Determining the court that has the legal authority to hear a case based on the nature of the dispute.

An agreement made by the parties to a dispute that a certain court will have jurisdiction over the case, even if it's not the court that would normally handle the case.

A court's jurisdiction is based on the location where the defendant is domiciled, where the dispute arose, or where the contract was performed.

In proceedings related to IP rights, the court of the Member State where the deposit or registration took place is the exclusive jurisdiction.

The exclusive jurisdiction for IP rights applies regardless of whether the claim is brought by the patent or trademark holder, or by a defendant raising a defense.

The court where a judgment is enforced has jurisdiction, not necessarily the court where the judgment was initially issued.

In proceedings related to the validity of entries in public registers, the court of the Member State where the register is kept has jurisdiction.

A claim can be filed in the court where the defendant is domiciled, even if the claim is related to a contract that was performed in another place.

Claims related to a patent's validity should be brought in the court where the patent is registered.

In proceedings related to a contract, the court where the contract was performed may have jurisdiction, even if the defendant is domiciled elsewhere.

In proceedings related to the enforcement of judgments, the court of the Member State where the judgment is to be enforced has jurisdiction.

The legal ability of a court to hear and decide a case. In international law, it refers to which country's court has the authority to handle a dispute involving parties from different countries.

A legal principle that allows a plaintiff to choose the court where they bring their lawsuit, subject to certain rules.

A rule that generally dictates the court where a lawsuit should be filed is based on the defendant's place of residence.

The place where a contractual obligation is performed, often determining the relevant court for a dispute.

The Brussels I Regulation aims to streamline litigation by minimizing forum shopping and enhancing legal certainty regarding which court will handle the case.

A rule that allows a claimant to sue a defendant in a member state other than the defendant's domicile, based on specific criteria like place of performance or nature of the contract.

For contracts involving the sale of goods, the place of performance is generally considered to be where the goods were or should have been delivered.

For contracts involving the provision of services, the place of performance is generally where the services were or should have been provided.

A legal principle that allows parties to agree on the court that will handle their disputes, even if it is not based on the usual rules of jurisdiction.

When a court's jurisdiction is based on a specific type of case, like intellectual property or maritime law, it's called an 'exclusive ground.'

The Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides a set of rules governing international sales contracts, influencing the choice of applicable law and potentially the jurisdiction in such cases.

The Rome I Regulation governs the choice of law applicable to contractual obligations within the European Union, potentially influencing the selection of the competent court.

The enforceability of a judgment refers to the ability of a party to successfully enforce their court order in another country, often requiring cooperation between the courts of the countries involved.

The process of identifying the appropriate law to apply in a legal dispute, often driven by factors like the location of the parties, the subject matter of the contract, and applicable international treaties.

A tangible and movable object, often subject to legal rules regarding ownership, transfer, and disputes arising from sales or other transactions.

A contractual provision where parties agree to submit any future disputes to a specific court or jurisdiction. This agreement can be written, established by practice between the parties, or based on widely recognized industry usages.

The agreement conferring jurisdiction must be in writing, evidenced in writing, or follow established practices between the parties. In international trade, it can also be based on a form that is widely known and observed in that specific trade.

The court selected in a jurisdictional agreement has exclusive jurisdiction, meaning no other court can handle the case, unless the parties explicitly agree otherwise.

A jurisdictional agreement is independent of the underlying contract's validity. Even if the contract is later found to be invalid, the agreed-upon jurisdiction remains valid.

The principle of freedom of choice allows parties to agree on any court within the EU to resolve disputes, but this freedom is limited in consumer contracts where consumer protection takes precedence.

A court where a defendant appears or presents their case, demonstrating their acceptance of the court's jurisdiction. This rule does not apply to appearances made to challenge the court's jurisdiction or when another court has exclusive jurisdiction.

A court's jurisdiction is not automatically assumed when a defendant appears if they are a policyholder, insured, beneficiary, injured party, consumer, or employee. The court must ensure they are informed of their right to contest jurisdiction and the consequences of appearing or not appearing.

The 'substantive dimension' of a contract refers to the rights and obligations of the parties, while the 'conflictive dimension' deals with jurisdictional disputes.

The agreement to submit to a specific court's jurisdiction is independent of the contract's substantive terms and conditions.

Parties can implicitly agree to a court's jurisdiction by taking actions that show their submission, such as appearing without challenging jurisdiction.

In common law jurisdictions, extensive discovery processes require parties to share all evidence, even if it harms their case. This can be a significant consideration when choosing a court, as continental European courts generally don't require such a wide disclosure of evidence.

A court's jurisdiction is not automatically assumed when a party appears if they are challenging the court's competence. Their appearance is solely to question the jurisdiction, not the merits of the case.

When dealing with a jurisdictional agreement, the validity of the contract is irrelevant. The jurisdiction agreement still stands, even if the contract is void.

When a defendant appears in court without challenging jurisdiction, it is presumed they have agreed to the court's jurisdiction.

The principle of freedom of choice in jurisdiction is restricted in consumer contracts to safeguard consumers' rights and prevent unfair contractual terms.