Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:120
Date: 2025-02-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the applicable legislation 
6 The Court of Justice of the European Communities held (C-387/98, Coreck 
Maritime, 9 November 2000) that the interpretation to be given to the first 
paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is that there 
is no requirement for a jurisdiction clause to be formulated in such a way that the 
competent court can be determined on its wording alone, it being sufficient for the 
SOCIETA ITALIANA LASTRE 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
clause to state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed 
to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have 
arisen or which may arise between them, and that those factors, which must be 
sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has 
jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular 
circumstances of the case. 
7 Under Article 25(1) of 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, 
known as Brussels Ia, if the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed that 
a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any 
disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular 
legal relationship, those courts are to have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is 
null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State. 
That jurisdiction is to be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. 
Grounds for the reference for a preliminary ruling 
8 Article 25(1) introduced the need to refer to the law of the Member State of the 
designated court when assessing the ‘substantive’ validity of the jurisdiction 
clause. 
9 This raises the question of the scope of such a reference, particularly in the case of 
asymmetric jurisdiction clauses which give only one of the parties the ability to 
select a court which is competent under the rules of ordinary law but which differs 
from the court named in the clause. 
10 If the other party maintains that the clause is unlawful because it is too imprecise 
or because it is one-sided, should that matter be determined in accordance with 
autonomous rules derived from Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation and the 
objective of foreseeability and legal certainty pursued by that regulation, or should 
it be determined by applying the law of the Member State designated by the 
clause? To put it another way, does it pertain to the substantive validity of the 
clause, within the meaning of that provision? Or should the substantive validity of 
the clause be interpreted strictly and regarded as relating purely to the material 
grounds for invalidity, which are principally fraud, error, deceit, violence and 
incapacity? 
11 If the question of whether the clause is imprecise or one-sided is to be determined 
in the light of autonomous rules, must Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation 
be interpreted as meaning that a clause should or should not be applied if it allows 
one party to bring proceedings before only one court but allows the other party to 
bring proceedings either before that same court or before any other court which 
has competence under ordinary law? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 13. 4. 2023 – CASE C-537/23 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
12 If the asymmetry of a clause amounts to a substantive condition, how is 
Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to be interpreted, in particular the 
requirement to refer to the law of the State of the designated court in a situation 
where multiple courts are designated by the clause, or where the clause designates 
one court but leaves it open to one of the parties to choose a different court but 
where this choice has not yet been exercised on the date when a court is seised of 
the matter: 
– is the applicable national law that of the sole court to be expressly designated, 
even if proceedings could equally be brought before other courts? 
– if multiple courts have been designated, is it possible to refer to the law of the 
court before which proceedings have actually been brought? 
– lastly, in view of recital 20 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, should reference to 
the law of the Member State designated be understood to mean the material 
rules of the State or its conflict-of-law rules? 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, the Court: 
Having regard to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union; 
REFERS the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 
1) Where there is an asymmetric jurisdiction clause which gives only one of the 
parties the ability to select a court which is competent under the rules of ordinary 
law but which differs from the court named in that clause and where the other 
party maintains that the clause is unlawful because it is too imprecise and/or 
because it is one-sided, should that matter be determined in accordance with 
autonomous rules derived from Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation and the 
objective of foreseeability and legal certainty pursued by that regulation, or should 
it be determined by applying the law of the Member State designated by the 
clause[?] To put it another way, does it pertain to the substantive validity of the 
clause, within the meaning of that provision? Or should the substantive validity of 
the clause be interpreted strictly and regarded as relating purely to the material 
grounds for invalidity, which are principally fraud, error, deceit, violence and 
incapacity? 
2) If the question of whether the clause is imprecise or one-sided is to be 
determined in the light of autonomous rules, must Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia 
Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a clause should or should not be applied 
if it allows one party to bring proceedings before only one court but allows the 
other party to bring proceedings either before that same court or before any other 
court which has competence under ordinary law? 
3) If the asymmetry of a clause amounts to a substantive condition, how is 
Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to be interpreted, in particular the 
SOCIETA ITALIANA LASTRE 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
requirement to refer to the law of the State of the designated court in a situation 
where multiple courts are designated by the clause, or where the clause designates 
one court but leaves it open to one of the parties to choose a different court but 
where this choice has not yet been exercised on the date when a court is seised of 
the matter: 
– is the applicable national law that of the sole court to be expressly designated, 
even if proceedings could equally be brought before other courts? 
– if multiple courts have been designated, is it possible to refer to the law of the 
court before which proceedings have actually been brought? 
– lastly, in view of recital 20 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, should reference to 
the law of the Member State designated be understood to mean the material 
rules of the State or its conflict-of-law rules? 
[…]