Choice of Court Agreements, Coordination of Proceedings and Provisional Measures in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation

In 157 general, the thrust of the Commission Proposal in all three areas is to be welcomed, albeit with different degrees of enthusiasm. While a European conflict rule for jurisdiction agreements would be a sensible improvement (supra II. 1.), both the empirical basis (supra II. 2. a)) and the ease of implementing a priority rule for jurisdiction agreements (supra II. 2. b) c)) are more difficult to establish. As to the coordination of proceedings, the Commission is undoubtedly on the right track but should go even further than proposed (supra III. 1.). Finally, the proposals for provisional measures, so far the stepchild of European civil procedure, do away with unnecessary complication and uncertainty (supra IV. 1., 2. a)), however at the price of restricting the free circulation of provisional measures granted by courts which lack jurisdiction as to the substance (supra IV. 2. b)). It may be that such a form of »hierachisation« 158 will herald a new era of judicial cooperation in Europe which supplements the doctrine of mutual trust.