The Brussels I Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 contains a jurisdictional regime: the rules which courts of European Union Member States use to determine if they have jurisdiction in cases with links to more than one country in the European Union. The basic principle is that the court in the member state of the party that gets sued has jurisdiction, while other grounds exist, which are diverse in content and scope, and are often classified in descending order of exclusivity and specificity.See for example Briggs, A., The Conflict of Laws, Oxford, OUP, 2008, 65 and Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 51. The original Brussels Regulation (44/2001) is, with regard to jurisdiction rules, very similar to the 2007 Lugano Convention (which applies when the dispute has links to more than one party the convention), containing the same provisions with the same numbering. Numbering and certain substantial issues are different in the 2012 recast version of the Regulation, which has applied since 1 January 2015 (1215/2012).

General jurisdiction The general principle of the Regulation is that individuals should only be sued in their member state of domicile. Domicile under the Regulation is not equivalent to the common law doctrine of domicile, but rather refers to a person's habitual or ordinary residence.

The Regulation sets out a finite number of exceptions from this general principle. Most of these exceptions are optional and enable plaintiffs to sue in a place other than the defendant's jurisdiction without requiring them to. However others are exclusive and preclude plaintiffs from suing in a place other than that of the member state conferred with the jurisdiction.

The general principle reflects the maxim Actor sequitur forum rei, or, he who acts (the plaintiff) must follow the forum (or jurisdiction) of the thing involved (the subject of the lawsuit, meaning the defendant). This rule is presented in Article 2(1) (2012 recast: Article 4(1)) of the Regulation that ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’. The law leans in favour of the defendant, since it is “more difficult, generally speaking, to defend oneself in the courts of a foreign country than in those of another town in the country where one is domiciled”.Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/18. Furthermore, Article 2(2) of the Regulation embodies the "principle of equality of treatment"Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/19. by stating that 'persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that State'. Although this is the 'general' jurisdictional rule of the Regulation, it only comes after the other articles in hierarchy and allows for many exceptions, making its general character rather relative; however, the latter is still reflected throughout the Regulation in the way how all exceptions to this rule must be interpreted strictly.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 85–86.

Exclusive jurisdiction

Article 22 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24) enumerates five specific cases in which the courts of a member state have jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties to the action: plaintiff or defendant. These are:

In disputes concerning the ownership of and rights in land and tendencies in land, exclusive jurisdiction is held by courts where the land is situated. In disputes concerning the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of legal persons or their decisions, exclusive jurisdiction is held by courts where the legal person has its seat as determined by the rules of private international law. In disputes concerning the validity of entries in public registers, exclusive jurisdiction is held by the courts of the member state in which the register is kept. In disputes concerning the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other registrable rights, the courts of the member state in which the registration has been applied for or registered. In disputes concerning the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the member state in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.Article 22(1) to (5) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24).

The term “regardless of domicile” implies on the one hand that only the subject-matter of the action is relevant for jurisdiction, but not to the residence of the defendant. More specifically, the principal subject-matter of the action must fall within the scope of Article 22.Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/34. On the other hand, parties do not have the choice of forum in this situation, and consequently, when a national court is seised that does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction, it must decline jurisdiction.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 51. This exceptional case of exclusivity is justified in various ways; ranging from the presence of special legislation which, due to its complexity, "should preferably be applied only by the courts of the country in which it is in force" to interests of "legal certainty", with the goal to "avoid conflicting judgments".Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/35-36. Sometimes however it is plainly clear why exclusive jurisdiction is needed; take for example the validity of entries in public registers.

Because exclusivity is an exception in the Brussels regime, it must interpreted as being such: strictly.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 59. For example, an action with regards to the first exception of immovable property must strictlyThe exception to this strictness are the tenancies in immovable property, which constitute personal jurisdiction. This is justified in the Hacker v Euro-Relais case, because they are "closely bound up". (§8) be based on a right in rem,Case C-115/88 Mario Reichert et al v Dresdner Bank, , ECR 1–27, §11. which consequently means that a preventive action geared solely towards halting the nuisance coming from an immovable property does not fall under the provision's scope.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 53. And with regards to the second exception; e.g. only challenging the validity of a decision of an organ of a company under the company law applicable or under the provisions governing the functions of its organs, as laid down in its Articles of Association, can warrant exclusivity, and not for example, the manner in which power is exercised by an organ of the company.Case C-372/07 Hassett, ECR 1–7403, §26–29. Or finally, take the final exception with regards to the enforcement of judgments; only judgments can fall under the scope of the provision, and not say, preparatory steps such as freezing injunctions.Case C-261/90 Reichert v Dresdner Bank, ECR 2149, §26.

Jurisdiction by appearance

Article 24 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 26(1)) defines another ground for a national court to stay or decline proceedings by setting forth that a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This deals with the hypothesis of a plaintiff suing the defendant in a Member State that initially does not have jurisdiction; if the defendant shows up and does not plead that the court has no jurisdiction, the court will have jurisdiction from then on.Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/38. The main rationality behind this provision is legal certainty, for it acts as an implicit choice of forum clause: the plaintiff gives his consent to the choice of new forum by initiating the procedure, while the defendant consents by appearing and not pleading lack of jurisdiction.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 60. Apart from the situation in which the defendant explicitly contests jurisdiction, Article 24 furthermore states that the rule of jurisdiction by appearance is not applicable whenever the exclusivity of the above-mentioned Article 22 comes into picture.

Insurance, consumer and employment contracts

The Regulation provides special rules for insurance, consumer and employment contracts which may permit the "weaker party" to these contracts – i.e. insurance policy holders, consumers and employees – to sue in their state of domicile.Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 61. The Regulation also provides that where a defendant to such an action is domiciled outside of the EU but has a "branch, agency or other establishment" in the EU, it shall be deemed to be domiciled where the "branch, agency or other establishment" is located.

The underlying rationality for dealing with this matter under the Regulation is that failure to do so “might not only have caused recognition and enforcement to be refused in certain cases on grounds of public policy, (...) contrary to the principle of free movement, but also (...) a general re-examination of the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin”.Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/28. Consequently, article 35 of the Regulation defines that no judgment will be recognised contrary to these special rules for protection.This only includes the insurance and consumer contracts, but not the newly inserted category of employment contracts.

The special protection these articles provide has as a main effect the broadening of the domicile of the 'stronger' party, so that the 'weaker' party, be it the consumer, employer or insured individual, has an increased range of locations for suing the first, while at the same time not allowing this broadened sense of domicile the other way around.Articles 9, 16 and 19 of the Regulation. For example, Article 18 of the Regulation states that a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party in both the Member State in which that party is domiciled as the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled, while at the same time providing that proceedings against a consumer may only be brought in the courts in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. Furthermore, when a 'stronger' party has no domicile in any Member State, but merely a "branch, agency or other establishment" in one of the Member States, it will be "deemed to be domiciled in that Member State".Articles 9, 15 and 18 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 11, 17 and 20). Lastly, an additional safeguard is installed by providing further mandatory rules governing an agreement that would deviate from the previously mentioned rules.Articles 13, 17 and 21 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 15, 19 and 23).

To be regarded as consumer contracts, several requirements must be met. First, there has to be a contract between parties, implying that there are “reciprocal and interdependent obligations between the two parties”.Case C-27/02 Engler ECR I-481, §34. Secondly, there has to be a consumer contract, referring to the conditions set forth in Article 15(1) of the Regulation (2012 recast: 17(1)). Third, the consumer contract must be concluded with a consumer, implying that the concerning party is a “private final consumer not engaged in trade or professional activities”. As this protection is an exception to the general rule, it is the person invoking the protection to prove that he is a consumer, and if there is business and personal use to his purchase, to prove that “the business use is only negligible”.Case C-464/01 Gruber ECR I-439, §46. The court must not only take into consideration the "content, nature and purpose" of the contract, but also the "objective circumstances in which it was concluded".Case C-464/01 Gruber ECR I-439, §47.

Agreements on jurisdiction ('choice of court' or 'prorogation of jurisdiction')