CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

DOMINIKA MORAVCOVÁ CYIL 14 (2023) the choice of applicable law or jurisdiction. As this is an extremely broad materia . For the purposes of the present article, the author has chosen to focus only on the choice of the jurisdiction from the perspective of two key sources of law, namely the Brussels I bis Regulation (the Regulation) 2 and the Choice of Court Convention (the Convention). 3 In the context of Brussels I bis, the author will compare the general rules for civil and commercial matters. The specific requirements of the choice for protecting the weaker party will only be mentioned in passing, since in this section the selected sources do not overlap in ratione materiae . The aim of the presented article is to identify the interrelation between the selected sources of private international law which regulate the institute of choice of jurisdiction in general civil and commercial matters. As part of this aim, the author will also attempt to define the limits of the scope of each source and to identify their effects within the Union law. A partial aim is to compare the legal provisions on the choice of jurisdiction contained in the sources concerned. At the same time, the paper will focus on the effects of the Convention in the context of Brexit, since the number of legal relationships with a foreign element within the EU that have nexus with UK entities is not negligible. In the conclusion of the presented article, the author will summarize the most relevant outcomes of the individual parts of the paper and possible suggestions de lege ferenda . 1. The Brussels I bis Regulation and the Choice of Court Convention as sources of choice of forum rules in civil and commercial matters within the EU The choice of jurisdiction, choice of court agreement, or prorogation clause are instruments that underline the autonomy of the will of the parties in legal relations with a foreign element. Since this choice prorogates the jurisdiction of the courts of the chosen country, it is also referred to as prorogatio fori . There are several reasons why the parties choose to clearly define the courts of which state will have the jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of the relationship between them. These reasons include, in particular, the expeditiousness of court proceedings, the reduction of costs, e.g., for travel and legal assistance, the lack of familiarity with procedural norms under the lex fori of courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over the case, the empirical knowledge of the parties, the obligation of a particular country to be bound by fundamental human rights instruments respecting the right to a fair trial, and a number of other subjectively and objectively grounded reasons. The main purpose of the agreement is to identify a forum in which the case will be appropriately heard in the interests of all the parties. 4 Naturally, the benefit of such an agreement shall be assessed by the parties on an ad hoc basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Anyway, the parties should be aware of the consequences of this choice and should consider this step 2 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, pp. 1–32) (the Brussels I bis Regulation). 3 The Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the Choice of Court Convention or the Convention). 4 HOOK, M. 2014. The choice of law agreement as a reason for exercising jurisdiction. In: The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. [online]. 2014, vol. 63, no. 4. [online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/43301644?read-now=1&seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents last accessed on 30 May 2023.

424