CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Kateřina zabloudilovÁ CYIL 12 (2021) validity of jurisdiction agreements should be determined by the law governing the contract as a whole. 60 The Brussels Ibis Regulation The Brussels Ibis Regulation also considers parties’ consensus to be the central element for the validity of jurisdiction agreements. 61 It provides that court or courts stipulated in a jurisdiction agreement shall have jurisdiction over any dispute arising between the parties unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that member state. 62 The issue of material (substantive) validity of jurisdiction agreements involves matters such as duress, mistake, or fraud. 63 Unlike the NY Convention, the Brussels Ibis Regulation unequivocally stipulates that the material validity of jurisdiction agreements shall be determined by the court chosen in such agreement. 64 The Hague Convention The concept of material validity of jurisdiction agreements is similar under the Hague Convention. It provides that the effect will not be given to jurisdiction agreements that are null and void. 65 The Hague Convention directly designates the law of the chosen court to determine the material validity of jurisdiction agreements. 66 The Partial Conclusion NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation as well as the Hague Convention stipulate that arbitration and jurisdiction agreements need to be materially valid. The regulation of material validity is, however, absent under all three legal regulations and should be assessed by national law, preferably the law chosen by the parties. As far as the material validity of jurisdiction and arbitration agreements is concerned, it does not matter which legal regulation governs such agreement as they all regulate this question in the same way. Summary 60 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 51; see also Kronke, H. (op. cit. sub 16), p. 55. 61 Galeries Segoura SPRL v Société Rahim Bonakdarian, ECJ C-25/76, judgment of 14 th December 1976, Para. 6; see also Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v. Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA , ECJ C-64/17, judgment of 8 March 2018, Para. 25; see also Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 626. 62 Art. 25(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 63 Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), p. 130. 64 Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), p. 130; see also Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 112. 65 Art. 5(1) and Art. 6(a) of the Hague Convention; see also Brand A. R., Herrup M. P. (op. cit. sub 43), p. 80; see also Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), pp. 168, 169. 66 Brand A. R., Herrup M. P. (op. cit. sub 43), pp. 20, 80; see also Hartley, C. T. (op. cit. sub 31), p. 168; see also Hrnčiříková, M. Právní úprava formy prorogačních doložek na pozadí požadavku písemnosti v mezinárodním právu soukromém. [Legal regulation Form of Prorogation Clauses on the background requirement of documents in international private law.] In: Rozehnalová, N., Kyselovská, T. et al. K některým vývojovým otázkám mezinárodního práva soukromého . [On Some Issues of Development of Private International Law] Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2013, p. 211; see also Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 112.

406