Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/6635

11.11.2024

(Case C-540/24, Cabris Investments)

(C/2024/6635)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabris Investments Ltd

Defendant: Revetas Capital Advisors LLP

Questions referred

1.Is Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an agreement conferring jurisdiction in which the contracting parties, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and therefore (now) in a third State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, falls within the scope of that provision, even if the underlying contract has no further connection with that Member State chosen as the place of jurisdiction? Do the underlying principles of the decision of the European Court of Justice in Case C-566/22 of 8 February 2024 therefore also apply in the same way if the date of conclusion of a jurisdiction agreement between two parties domiciled in the United Kingdom still falls within the period before the end of the transitional phase of Brexit on 31 December 2020, but the action was only brought after Brexit took effect? This is taking into account the fact that the contractual situation between these (now) third-country nationals has no further connection to the chosen Member State of the European Union (see, however, Recitals 13 and 14 of the Brussels I Regulation) and, in addition, Article 50(3) TEU generally excludes the applicability of the European treaties for the United Kingdom after Brexit.

If the European Court of Justice rejects the application of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation in the third-country scenario in question, the following further questions arise:

2.Is Article 68 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that it has definitively repealed the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement 1968 (‘the Brussels Convention’) – including in proceedings relating to the United Kingdom (taking into account Brexit) – so that recourse to this Convention is currently no longer possible for a Member State of the European Union?

3.Are Article 69 of the Brussels I Regulation in the version of ‘List 3’ as notified pursuant to Article 76 of the Brussels I Regulation and Article 55 of the Brussels Convention, 13th indent, to be interpreted as meaning that they have also definitively repealed the British-Austrian Convention on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed in Vienna on 14 July 1961 and the Protocol signed in London on 6 March 1970 in relation to the United Kingdom (taking into account Brexit), so that in proceedings relating to the United Kingdom (taking into account Brexit), recourse to that international treaty of 14 July 1961 is no longer possible? This is also taking into account the fact that, pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the conventions referred to in Article 69 of the Brussels I Regulation retain their validity for those areas of law to which the regulation does not apply. Can an international treaty concluded with the Republic of Austria that has already been declared ‘superseded’ by primary law in the past be declared retroactively applicable again between those states after Brexit (so-called ‘revival of an international treaty’) pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Brussels I Regulation with regard to the United Kingdom?

If so: Would such a ‘revival’ also apply within the scope of application of Article 56 of the Brussels Convention, which is similar in this respect?

4.Is Article 50(3) TEU to be interpreted as meaning that it also precludes the application or ‘revival’ of Articles 17 and 18 of the Brussels Convention in relation to the United Kingdom (taking into account Brexit) if, in proceedings initiated in Austria, two litigants domiciled in the United Kingdom are facing each other who have agreed in their contract – concluded on 6 May 2020 – that the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna, Austria) has exclusive jurisdiction? Does the provision in Article 50(3) TEU take precedence over Article 66 of the Brussels Convention, according to which the Brussels Convention ‘[is concluded] for an unlimited period’?

5.Should the European Court of Justice come to the conclusion that the Brussels Convention also takes precedence in the sense of questions 2 to 4 above in relation to the United Kingdom, the question arises: Does the fundamental primacy of the Brussels Convention preclude an arrangement in the United Kingdom according to which recourse to the Brussels Convention is also expressly excluded with regard to jurisdiction agreements that were concluded prior to Brexit taking effect (see the UK provision under Section 82(1)(b)(i) of the ‘Regulations 4-25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments [amendments etc.] [EU Exit] Regulations 2019 [Sl 2019/479]’, which is valid until 29 February 2024 and is obviously still applicable here, as the action was brought on 30 June 2023)?

If not: When examining the validity of a jurisdiction agreement concluded on 6 May 2020 (i.e. before Brexit) between two British companies with the choice of an Austrian forum, is an Austrian court nevertheless bound by this exclusion of application of the Brussels Convention – standardised in the United Kingdom – pursuant to Section 82(1)(b)(i) of Regulations 4-25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (Sl 2019/479), in particular due to the primacy of primary law, which would in principle prevent effective enforcement in the United Kingdom (The last question assumes, for the purposes of question 3.), the expiry of the UK-Austrian Convention on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed in Vienna on 14 July 1961 and the Protocol signed in London on 6 March 1970)?

—

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2) ECLI:EU:C:2024:123.

(3) 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32).

(4) Information pursuant to Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2015 C 4, p. 2).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6635/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

*

Language of the case: German.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15