Back to issue
Cover of: Brüssel Ia extendenda est?
Tobias Lutzi, Felix M. Wilke

Brüssel Ia extendenda est?

[Brussels I bis extendenda est?]
Section: Essays
Volume 86 (2022) / Issue 4, pp. 841-875 (35)
Published 11.10.2022
DOI 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0079
Published in German.
  • article PDF
  • Open Access
    CC BY 4.0
  • 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0079
Due to a system change, access problems and other issues may occur. We are working with urgency on a solution. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Summary
Brussels I bis extendenda est? – On the Future of the International Jurisdiction of German Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters after an Extension of the Regulation. – With the expiry of the deadline of art. 79 Brussels I bis, the academic debate on a possible further extension of the Regulation to situations involving non-EU defendants is (again) gaining momentum. The present study aims to contribute to this discussion. It compares the relevant German rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants with those of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order to be able to assess the consequences of a possible extension from a German perspective. The study reveals that even replacing the national rules in their entirety would not amount to a radical change. In particular, the addition of typified places of performance under art. 7 no. 1 lit. b Brussels I bis to the forum contractus and the availability of a common forum for joint defendants under art. 8 no. 1 Brussels I bis would constitute welcome improvements of the current framework. The loss of jurisdiction based on the presence of assets under § 23 ZPO would arguably be a disadvantage if not properly compensated for, e.g. through a forum necessitatis provision. The biggest advantage, though, would most likely be the harmonization of the law of international jurisdiction across the EU – which, from a German perspective, would come at a rather reasonable price.