Jurisdiction and the Brussels I recast regulation : a missed opportunity?

Abstract

On the 10th of January 2015 the legislative organs of the European Union enacted the Brussels I Recast Regulation which has replaced its predecessor, Regulation 44/2001. However, it may not necessarily be stated that major reforms have been effected with regards to the European jurisdictional regime, as was catered for by such previous legislation. This thesis will tackle the recasting of Regulation 44/2001 and provide a critique thereof in order to bring to light the various parallelisms and inconsistencies between the recast per se and the Commission’s proposal that preceded this Recast. An analysis as to if, why, how and to what extent the legislative organs of the European Union have been modest in this regard is of necessity. In fact, some may consider the title of the new regulation itself to be a misnomer, as what has actually come about is not a recast in toto but simply an amendment, with the core jurisdictional features of Regulation 44/2001 remaining largely unchanged. Whilst bold adjustments have been made to the original regulation in the sphere of the enforcement of judgements, further steps could have been taken towards strengthening the Regulation’s application and function in the international legal order as was initially set out by the Commission in both its Green Paper and Proposal for this Recast. As the title suggests, this thesis shall not focus on the enforcement of judgments but shall provide analytical consideration of the jurisdictional developments that have come about by means of Regulation 1215/2012. These include changes to the lis pendens rules, the addition of new provisions concerning third state defendants as well as changes to the rules concerning choice of court agreements, amongst various other practical alterations.