CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) THE WITHDRAWAL ACT OF 2018 AND THE EUROPEAN JUDICIAL AREA … of companies and other legal persons and which are functional to the operation of the rules on jurisdiction are also maintained. In this regard, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Regulations is limited to indicating that the rights of consumers and workers have been preserved by maintaining the particularly favorable regime provided for by European standards. However, one can imagine that among the reasons that suggested keeping the special protective regime there is also the concern to avoid that the exercise of jurisdiction in the United Kingdom in these matters could be based on criteria deemed unacceptable in other Member States of the Union and EFTA, with the consequence that the measures adopted would be unrecognizable: The European forums of the consumer and worker have in fact an imperative character whose non-compliance could justify the refusal of recognition 21 . At the end of the implementation period, instead, the regime envisaged for third States, generally established by national rules or by any agreements, will apply to reciprocal relations with the States remaining in the Union. The Regulations contain transitional rules applicable to cases that will be pending and it is very likely that other Member States will have to do the same with regard to UK-related matters 22 . The need for a specific procedure will therefore be reintroduced for the execution of the sentences, which will entail the control of a larger number of requirements for recognition and will inevitably require a certain expenditure of time and will become more complex, also because it will no longer be possible of the profit forms foreseen by the Brussels-Lugano system. A possible strengthening of the limit of public order has even been advocated, which in relations between EU countries and the United Kingdom could lose its “regional” character and would therefore become more linked to the particular interests of each individual State 23 . At the moment, there is no conventional multilateral text that provides for a regime similar to that of Brussels-Lugano and is open to all States: An instrument of this type was adopted by the Hague Conference on 2 July 2019 but so far it has not received any ratification 24 . It is, of course, still too early to assess whether the instrument will be successful and whether it will be able to regulate relations between the Member States of the Union and the United Kingdom in the future. Compared to the Brussels-Lugano regime, this 21 In this regard in particular, art. 45, e), i), of the Brussels I-bis regulation. Although of course in the EU and EFTA States the rules of the Brussels-Lugano regime will no longer apply to matters connected with the United Kingdom, but the internal rules (with the exception of the few exceptions established by that same regime), these are still principles in jurisdiction matters which have now influenced the national rights of practically all Member States. For example, in Italy, as is known, art. 3 of the law of private international law states that the internal rules of jurisdiction are modeled on those of the Brussels regime. 22 Agreement between Italy and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the mutual recognition and execution of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Rome, February 7, 1964. The 1968 Brussels Convention (Article 55) and the Brussels I and Brussels I-bis Regulations (Articles 69 respectively) expressly declare that they replace, in relations between the Contracting Parties, the bilateral conventions between two or more Member States expressly listed, among which is precisely the Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom. The two Lugano Conventions have identical provisions. It is hardly necessary to remember that bilateral conventions have continued to apply to decisions concerning matters not included in the scope of the Brussels-Lugano regime. 23 ABDEL WAHAB, M. Brexit’s chilling effect on choice of law and arbitration in the United Kingdom: Practical reflections between aggravation and alleviation , op. cit., pp. 478ss. 24 LIAKOPOULOS, D. ‘The Convention of the Hague of 2 July 2019 on the recognition of foreign sentences: Approaches and comments’, (2019), 15 (2), AUDJ .

263