CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) Universal, Regional, and National Ways of Regulation of Jurisdiction … which would be competent in the absence of the agreement. 35 Non-exclusive agreements give both parties the option to commence proceedings in a nominated forum but do not exclude otherwise competent courts. 36 The Brussels Ibis Regulation raises a presumption that the parties generally intended an exclusive effect of their jurisdiction agreement which may be rebutted if the parties agree that the jurisdiction agreement will be non-exclusive. 37 Non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements do not invoke the inapplicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 38 Moreover, the Brussels Ibis Regulation provides that the validity of the jurisdiction agreement cannot be contested solely on the ground that the main contract is not valid. 39 Thus, the validity of the jurisdiction agreement must be adjudicated independently of the main contract. 40 Finally, the Brussels Ibis Regulation requires jurisdiction agreements to concern matters which fall within the material scope 41 of its application. 42 The Hague Convention The Hague Conventions defines jurisdiction agreements as arrangements concluded for the purpose of deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that designate the courts of one contracting state or one or more specific courts of one contracting state to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts. 43 Jurisdiction agreements under the Hague Convention cover existing and future disputes which relate to a particular legal relationship. 44 Unlike the Brussels Ibis Regulation, however, the Hague Convention applies only to exclusive jurisdiction agreements. 45 “ To be exclusive, the Hague Convention requires the agreement to select the courts of only one jurisdiction. Any agreement which does not exclude the jurisdiction 35 In literature Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 83; see also Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 657; see also Keyes, M., Brook, A. M. (op. cit. sub 5), p. 345. In case law Meeth v. Glacetal , ECJ C-23/78, judgment of 9 November 1978, para. 5. 36 Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 83; see also Keyes, M. Brook, A. M. (op. cit. sub 5), p. 362. 37 Art. 25(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation; see also Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 657; see also Rozehnalová, N., Mahdalová, S., Zavadilová, L. Czech Republic: The Treatment of Optional and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements. In: Keyes, M. Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law . Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 336-337. 38 Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), p. 140. 39 Art. 25(5) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 40 Francesco Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl , ECJ C-269/95, judgment of 3 rd July 1997, Paras. 29 and 32. 41 These are civil and commercial matters unless they are excluded by Art. 1(1) and (2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. What is more, parties’ autonomy to conclude jurisdiction agreements is restricted in matters relating to insurance, consumer contracts, and individual contracts of employment and ousted in matters regulated by Art. 24 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, source: Arts. 1, 15, 19, 23, and 24 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 44 Brand A. R., Herrup M. P. The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: commentary and documents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 44, 45; see also Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), pp. 144,174. 45 Brand A. R., Herrup M. P. (op. cit. sub 43), p. 17; see also Newing, G. Webster, L. (op. cit. sub 10), pp . 109, 110. 42 Art. 25 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 43 Art. 3(a) of the Hague Convention.

403