CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

DOMINIKA MORAVCOVÁ CYIL 14 (2023) of the court of another Member State has been expressly negotiated between the parties. In such a case, the court seized cannot declare ex officio lack of jurisdiction if the defendant has not contested jurisdiction. 24 In the following subsection, the author will discuss prorogation under the Convention and compare it with the Brussels regime, which has been examined in this part of the paper. 1.2 Choice of jurisdiction under the Convention and comparison of selected provisions with the Brussels I bis Regulation The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 30 June 2005 was adopted at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The Hague Conference is an intergovernmental organisation with the aim of harmonising private international law rules between States around the world. Since, unlike the European Union, States from all over the world are part of the Conference, the disparities between the legal systems of these countries are more significant, which makes only compromised wordings of the Conventions possible. 25 The Conference focuses on civil and commercial matters, exclusively addressing the progressive unification of the rules of private international law. 26 The Convention, unlike the Brussels I bis Regulation, is devoted exclusively to the jurisdiction of courts based on an agreement. Its final wording was drawn up at the twentieth session of the Hague Conference in June 2005. The Final Act was adopted on 30 June 2005 and the Convention was opened for signing from that date. 27 The aim of the Convention is to lay down uniform rules on jurisdiction and the subsequent recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, with a particular focus on international trade and investment. This objective can only be achieved provided that the chosen court hears the case after the action has been brought, the other courts decline jurisdiction in favour of the chosen court, and the recognition and enforcement of the subsequent decision is also ensured. All the elements defined are covered by the Convention. 28 As with the Regulation, the application of the Convention requires, first of all, the fulfilment of its scope of application. Given the stated aim of the paper, the author is interested in the temporal scope of the Convention for the EU and its Member States. The EU ratified the Convention following Decision 2014/887/EU approving the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements between Parties to International Transactions. 29 The entry into force occurred on 01 October 2015. 30 The year 2015 is not accidental, as it was with the adoption of the Brussels I bis Regulation that the EU ensured consistency between the EU provisions on choice of court in civil and commercial matters and the provisions of the Convention. The territorial scope is defined within all Contracting Parties to the Convention, and EU Member States, with the exception of Denmark, are bound by the Convention only by virtue 24 Judgment of the Court of 17 March 2016, Taser International , C-175/15, EU:C:2016:176. 25 ŠTEFANKOVÁ, N., SUMKOVÁ, M. Medzinárodné právo súkromné [International private law]. Plzeň: Aleš Černek, 2017. p. 53. 26 Art. 1 of the Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 27 HARTLEY, T., DOGAUCHI, M. 2013. Explanatory report – Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 30 June 2005. Haag: HCCH, 2013. 28 Ibid. 29 Council Decision of 4 December 2014 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (OJ L 353, 10.12.2014, pp. 5–8). 30 HCCH (n 6).

428