The European Commission has launched a formal review of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, better known as the recast Brussels Regulation, which governs jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters across the EU.
As part of this initiative, the Commission has published a Call for Evidence and launched a public consultation in the form of a detailed questionnaire. The questionnaire invites stakeholders to share their experience of the Regulation's application and provide input on how it could be improved in terms of legal clarity, procedural efficiency and alignment with digital developments and international rules.
The consultation materials identify three policy options: maintaining the status quo; targeted clarification and simplification of existing rules; or more ambitious reform that would include extending jurisdiction to non-EU defendants and introducing specific rules on collective redress.
The review is intended to build on the European Commission’s 2025 report on the application of the Regulation. The 2025 report concluded that, while the Regulation has been a highly successful instrument and is generally agreed to function well, several areas would benefit from clarification, simplification and modernisation.
Extension of jurisdiction to non-EU defendants
At present, the recast Brussels Regulation's main rules on jurisdiction apply only where the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State. Where a defendant is domiciled outside the EU (which includes the UK post-Brexit), jurisdiction is governed by each Member State's national laws.
The 2025 report identified this issue as a source of unequal access to justice and an uneven playing field, due to the variance between national laws of Member States, with parties in some Member States able to sue third country defendants based on a large array of jurisdictional grounds (some of them regarded as “exorbitant” so far as the English court is concerned), and parties in other Member States facing a more limited range. The absence of harmonised rules therefore creates different outcomes depending where proceedings are brought within the EU.
The Call for Evidence places an extension of jurisdictional rules to non-EU defendants within its most ambitious policy option (Option 3), and the consultation questionnaire asks respondents specifically whether the Regulation should be so extended.
If the Commission were to proceed with this reform, UK-domiciled defendants would find themselves subject to a uniform EU-wide regime of jurisdiction, replacing the current patchwork of national rules. EU-based claimants would operate on the basis of a more predictable set of jurisdictional grounds against UK parties. Depending on the current applicable national laws, this might in the case of some Member States narrow – and in the case of other Member States widen – the jurisdictional grounds available to them when dealing with non-EU defendants.
Extending the Regulation to non-EU defendants could also have an impact on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in favour of non-EU courts and non-EU parties. At present, if a loan agreement (for example) contains an asymmetric English jurisdiction clause in a lender’s favour, and the borrower nevertheless sues in an EU Member State, the question of whether that court will accept jurisdiction is governed by the Member State’s own national laws, assuming the lender is a non-EU defendant. Such laws may or may not respect the parties’ agreement on jurisdiction and require a stay of proceedings in favour of the English court. In contrast, where a Member State has jurisdiction under the recast Brussels Regulation, its lis pendens rules (under Articles 33 and 34) give the court a discretion to stay proceedings in favour of a non-EU court, but only if the non-EU proceedings were commenced first in time. If the Regulation is extended to non-EU defendants, there will likely be additional cases in which an EU court has jurisdiction under that Regulation, rather than its own national laws, which could mean in some cases a lesser likelihood of the court respecting the clause than might otherwise have been the case.
Arbitration exclusion
Arbitration is specifically excluded from the scope of the recast Brussels Regulation. However, the boundaries of the exclusion have proved contentious. In London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association (C-700/20), the CJEU ruled that an EU Member State judgment given in the terms of an arbitral award could prevent the recognition of an irreconcilable judgment from another Member State, but only if the content of the arbitral award could have been the subject of a judgment given in accordance with the Brussels regime. The CJEU also ruled that, where recognition was not prevented on that basis, the public policy exception could not be relied on solely because of the judgment's irreconcilability.
The 2025 report noted that national case law in a number of Member States has diverged from the CJEU's approach, with courts in these jurisdictions treating judgments confirming arbitral awards as falling within the arbitration exclusion. The report also flagged the absence of a lis pendens rule covering arbitration proceedings, giving rise to a gap that might lead to irreconcilable awards and judgments.
The consultation questionnaire invites respondents to consider which aspects of the Regulation would most benefit from clarification or simplification and gives the arbitration exclusion as an example.
Other issues of interest
The consultation also raises several further issues for consideration, including:
- Simplification of special jurisdiction rules on contract and tort (Articles 7(1) and 7(2)). The 2025 report identified an increasingly broad interpretation of the scope of “matters relating to a contract”, as well as some difficulties in determining the place of performance of contractual obligations and the place where damage occurs in cases of purely financial loss.
- Collective redress. The Regulation lacks specific jurisdictional rules for collective redress. This is seen as creating obstacles such as fragmented litigation, with claimants having to turn to more than one court in order to litigate, and in consequence a risk of irreconcilable judgments. The Commission's most ambitious policy option would introduce specific jurisdictional rules for collective actions. The consultation asks whether the current rules of the Regulation are sufficient and appropriate for dealing with collective actions, including representative actions.
- Digitalisation. The consultation asks whether measures should be taken to align the rules of the Regulation with increasing digitalisation of the economy, particularly for disputes linked to online sales, digital services, and platform-based business models.
- Relationship with international instruments. The consultation asks whether the coordination between the Regulation and international conventions should be improved.
Next steps
The consultation is open until 24 November 2026 and is open to all stakeholders including individuals, businesses, legal practitioners, national authorities, consumer associations, business associations and academic experts.
A factual summary report will be published eight weeks after the public consultation has closed. Targeted consultations and discussions with Member States, the European Judicial Network and experts in the field will follow.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
