INTRODUCTION: BRUSSELS CALLING

During the nineteen-sixties the European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation with only six Member States, all adhering to the continental European civil law legal tradition. They were only at the start of a long process to incorporate their markets. Already at this early stage, it became apparent that in order to ensure the proper functioning of an internal market and to avoid abuses (debtors quickly and easily moving their assets), a regime of the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the EEC was necessary.

From an outside (sometimes referred to as ‘third State’) perspective, two elements of this early choice are significant. First, the focus was on the recognition and enforcement within the EEC: this was an internal initiative serving an internal goal. Its aims were different from the initiatives undertaken by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which were more global in their nature.

Second, the Member States of the EEC opted for a double convention (sometimes called a ‘mixed convention’), i.e. a convention including provisions not only on recognition and enforcement, but also on jurisdiction. This choice has had a vital impact outside the Member States.

The purpose of this contribution is to examine the effect of the Brussels Ibis Regulation outside its natural place of functioning, namely the EU. Many transactions today are concluded and/or executed partly in the EU and partly elsewhere. This extra-EU effect was not a major concern for the drafters of the previous editions of the Brussels Convention or the Brussels I Regulation (2001 version)4. At the time of the drafting of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the EU institutions did consider the issue of its global effect. However, only small changes were made. These include a broadened scope for the benefit of certain forum agreements and of EU consumers dealing with companies outside the EU. Important improvements in Brussels Ibis include the limited possibility to decline jurisdiction in favour of courts outside the EU and a yielding to the Hague Choice of Court Convention. All considered, the current calls by Brussels to the world are still insufficient in a global context.