The Legal Regulation and Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements in the European Union

Law School

Associated organisational unit

CILHR Centre for International Law and Human Rights

Electronic data

he_Legal_Regulation_and_Enforcement_of
Rights statement: Copyright © 2017 Kluwer Law International All rights reserved
Accepted author manuscript, 632 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The Legal Regulation and Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements in the European Union. / Ahmed, Mukarrum.
In: European Business Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, 28.05.2017, p. 403-425.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Bibtex

@article{a3c007fb3a4643ffab5d8c3195cde8f5,

title = "The Legal Regulation and Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements in the European Union",

abstract = "This article examines the legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric choice of court agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast). The two significant and related issues of the effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation and whether proceedings commenced in the primary non-exclusive court identified in the agreement should trigger the application of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation are analyzed. Notwithstanding, the rulings of the French Cour de Cassation in Banque Rothschild and ICH v Credit Suisse, it will be argued that asymmetric choice of court agreements should in principle be effective under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation from the perspectives of validity, certainty, form and fairness. The validity and effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the jurisprudence of the English courts is already well established. There also exists some support for the argument that proceedings initiated in the English courts (as the primary non-exclusive court identified in the clause) may invoke the protective cover of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation where the borrower in an international finance agreement has breached his obligation to sue exclusively in the English courts.",

author = "Mukarrum Ahmed",

year = "2017",

month = may,

day = "28",

language = "English",

volume = "28",

pages = "403--425",

journal = "European Business Law Review",

issn = "0959-6941",

publisher = "Wolters Kluwer (UK) Ltd.",

number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Legal Regulation and Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements in the European Union

AU - Ahmed, Mukarrum

PY - 2017/5/28

Y1 - 2017/5/28

N2 - This article examines the legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric choice of court agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast). The two significant and related issues of the effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation and whether proceedings commenced in the primary non-exclusive court identified in the agreement should trigger the application of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation are analyzed. Notwithstanding, the rulings of the French Cour de Cassation in Banque Rothschild and ICH v Credit Suisse, it will be argued that asymmetric choice of court agreements should in principle be effective under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation from the perspectives of validity, certainty, form and fairness. The validity and effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the jurisprudence of the English courts is already well established. There also exists some support for the argument that proceedings initiated in the English courts (as the primary non-exclusive court identified in the clause) may invoke the protective cover of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation where the borrower in an international finance agreement has breached his obligation to sue exclusively in the English courts.

AB - This article examines the legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric choice of court agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast). The two significant and related issues of the effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation and whether proceedings commenced in the primary non-exclusive court identified in the agreement should trigger the application of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation are analyzed. Notwithstanding, the rulings of the French Cour de Cassation in Banque Rothschild and ICH v Credit Suisse, it will be argued that asymmetric choice of court agreements should in principle be effective under Article 25 of the Recast Regulation from the perspectives of validity, certainty, form and fairness. The validity and effectiveness of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the jurisprudence of the English courts is already well established. There also exists some support for the argument that proceedings initiated in the English courts (as the primary non-exclusive court identified in the clause) may invoke the protective cover of Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation where the borrower in an international finance agreement has breached his obligation to sue exclusively in the English courts.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 28

SP - 403

EP - 425

JO - European Business Law Review

JF - European Business Law Review

SN - 0959-6941

IS - 3

ER -

Research

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

Links