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

The recast Brussels I regulation provides no precise indication as to the extent of the power of the court seized during the examination of its international jurisdiction. The concern of ensuring legal certainty makes it necessary for the court to be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction, without having to consider the substance of the case .  

The Court of Justice, in a case based on matters relating to contract, held that the jurisdiction of the national court to rule on  questions relating to a contract includes the power to consider the existence of the constituent parts of the contract itself, as the court may examine, even of its own motion, the essential preconditions for its jurisdiction having regard to conclusive and relevant evidence adduced by the party concerned, establishing the existence or the inexistence of the contract . For disputes concerning matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, the court seized does not examine either the admissibility or the substance of the application for a negative declaration in the light of national law, but identifies only the points of connection with the State in which that court is sitting, which support its claim to jurisdiction . It may thus consider as established the applicant's assertions as regards the conditions for liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict . It is not necessary for the court seized to conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence at an early stage as regards the facts relevant both to jurisdiction and substance and to the existence of the claim, as this could prejudge the assessment of the substance . It is, however, permissible for the court seized to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant. 

Case C-269/95 Francesco Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl [1997] ECR I-3767, LawLex200900001340JBJ at pt 27.

Case 38/81 Effer Spa v Kantner [1982] ECR 825, LawLex200900002155JBJ.

Case C-133/11 Folien Fischer AG, Judgment of 25 October 2012, LawLex201200002244JBJ.

Case C-387/12 Hi Hotel HCF, Judgment of 3 April 2014, LawLex201400000562JBJ.

Case C-375/13 Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc, Judgment of 28 January 2015, LawLex201500000107JBJ.

Case C-375/13 Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc, cited above.

353. Extent of review