European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

In addition to its international character, according to Regulation No 1215/2012, the dispute must have a close link with the Member State of the court seized. According to Recital 8, there must be a link between proceedings to which this regulation applies and the territory of the Member States bound by this regulation. The fact that the defendant is domiciled in a Member State constitutes such a …

Concept of integrated dispute

In addition to its international character, according to Regulation No 1215/2012, the dispute must have a close link with the Member State of the court seized. According to Recital 8, there must be a link between proceedings to which this regulation applies and the territory of the Member States bound by this regulation. The fact that the defendant is domiciled in a Member State constitutes such a link.

According to the Court of Justice , “involvement of a Contracting State and a non-Contracting State, for example because the claimant and one defendant are domiciled in the first State and the events at issue occurred in the second [...]” makes it possible to apply the principle of jurisdiction of the court where the defendant's domicile is located laid down in Article 2 of the regulation. By resorting to the concept of “involvement”, the Court requires the litigation to be “integrated”, i.e. has such a connecting factor with the Member State of the court seized that the latter's jurisdiction will be founded pursuant to the regulation. The closeness of the link so required will however depend on the nature of the applicable rule - general jurisdiction, optional jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction - and the related connecting factor.

The jurisdiction principle laid down in the regulation relies on the criterion of domicile of the defendant : it is sufficient that one defendant be domiciled on the territory of a Member State for the jurisdiction principle to apply. 

Optional jurisdiction (contractual, tort, etc.)  is used to determine the court jurisdiction according to a connecting criterion other than that of the place where the defendant's domicile is located (place of performance of obligation serving as the basis of the demand, place where the harmful event occurred, etc.), provided however that the dispute is sufficiently “integrated”. In case of option of jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the connecting factor be realized in the Member State of the court seized for the option of jurisdiction to apply in its favor.Where the link between the litigation and the Member State of the court seized is insufficient to admit the facultative jurisdiction of that court, only the courts of the Member States where the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction. Thus, the extension of jurisdiction to which Article 8(1) leads, when there are more than one defendant, is subject to the requirement that the court seized is that of domicile of one of the defendants, located on the territory of a Member State. The fact that a court in a Member State has accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the co-defendants under Article 7(2) regarding matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict, and not in view of the criterion of the domicile of that defendant, cannot make it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in another Member State, before that same court under Article 8(1) . 

Lastly, the rules of exclusive jurisdiction , which substitute for the general jurisdiction on which the regulation is based, are mandatory. Thus their application implies the existence of a “particularly close connection between the dispute and a [Member] State, irrespective of the domicile both of the defendant and of the plaintiff” . This is the case, in particular, regarding tenancies of immovable property, where the place in which the property which is the subject-matter of the dispute is situated, must be in the Member State of the court seized for its jurisdiction to apply, and the place where the defendant is domiciled is entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute. 

Case C-281/02 Owusu [2005] ECR I-1383, LawLex200900001376JBJ.

In Article 4(1), the regulation lays down the principle of jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States where the defendant is domiciled as part of the general system of jurisdiction rules provided for in Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter II and recalls it, as part of the 'Lex specialis' system laid down in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the same Chapter, in Article 11(1)(a), regarding insurance, in Article 17(1) regarding consumer contracts, and in Article 20, regarding contracts of employment.

The special jurisdiction rules laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of Section 2 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012, but also all the options of jurisdiction opened to the claimant who is the 'weaker party' as part of the 'lex specialis' laid down in Sections 3, 4 and 5, are optional jurisdiction.

Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne and others [1998] ECR I-6511, LawLex200900001016JBJ.

The jurisdiction rules laid down in Article 24 of Regulation No 1215/2012 are exclusive, as those laid down in Article 25, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

Case C-412/98 Group Josi [2000] ECR I-5925, LawLex200700001646JBJ.

European Business Law

321. Concept of integrated dispute

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

321. Concept of integrated dispute

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise