ABSTRACT
When the Brussels Ia Regulation was enacted in 2012 as a recast of the Brussels I Regulation, there was no consensus over following the European Commission’s proposal to unify the rules on international jurisdiction applicable to defendants not domiciled in a Member State. It was however agreed to revisit the issue a decade later. Now, it is high time to reconsider the arguments for and against unifying the rules for Third State defendants by extending the Regulation’s rules to them. Instead of simply assuming that the unification by extension is an end worthwhile pursuing in itself, the question has to be raised whether and, most importantly, for whom the extension would be beneficial. While several scholars from within the EU have argued in favour of the extension, this chapter will advocate a more cautious approach by showing that the extension would not be of greater benefit to the EU and its Member States, but rather Third States. To illustrate this, the perspective of the UK will be taken, which due to Brexit has joined the ranks of Third States and now competes with the EU over international litigation and the profits for the legal services industry. In the light of this change of circumstances 306since the extension was discussed a decade ago, it will be demonstrated that the EU would do itself a disservice if it were to unify the jurisdictional rules on Third State defendants by extending the Regulation to them while the EU Member States actually wish to win over litigation from London and other popular hubs overseas.
Ungerer, Johannes, Extending the Brussels Ia Regulation to Third State Defendants – Cui Bono? (March 19, 2023) in Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani and Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (eds), Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants: Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended? (Hart 2023), 305-318, 10.5040/9781509958948.0030.
Leave a Reply