Article 1 
1. This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority ( acta iure imperii ). 2. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage; (b) bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; (c) social security; (d) arbitration; (e) maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity; (f) wills and succession, including maintenance obligations arising by reason of death.
Article 2 
For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. For the purposes of Chapter III, ‘judgment’ includes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which by virtue of this Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It does not include a provisional, including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement; (b) ‘court settlement’ means a settlement which has been approved by a court of a Member State or concluded before a court of a Member State in the course of proceedings; (c) ‘authentic instrument’ means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the authenticity of which: (i) relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and (ii) has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose; (d) ‘Member State of origin’ means the Member State in which, as the case may be, the judgment has been given, the court settlement has been approved or concluded, or the authentic instrument has been formally drawn up or registered; (e) ‘Member State addressed’ means the Member State in which the recognition of the judgment is invoked or in which the enforcement of the judgment, the court settlement or the authentic instrument is sought; (f) ‘court of origin’ means the court which has given the judgment the recognition of which is invoked or the enforcement of which is sought.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 2 ):
For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. For the purposes of Chapter III, ‘judgment’ includes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which by virtue of this Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It does not include a provisional, including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement; (a) ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. For the purposes of Chapter III, ‘judgment’ includes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which by virtue of this Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It does not include a provisional, including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement; (b) ‘court settlement’ means a settlement which has been approved by a court of a Member State or concluded before a court of a Member State in the course of proceedings; (c) ‘authentic instrument’ means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the authenticity of which: (i) relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and (ii) has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose; (c) ‘authentic instrument’ means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the authenticity of which: (i) relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and (ii) has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose; (d) ‘Member State of origin’ means the Member State in which, as the case may be, the judgment has been given, the court settlement has been approved or concluded, or the authentic instrument has been formally drawn up or registered; (e) ‘Member State addressed’ means the Member State in which the recognition of the judgment is invoked or in which the enforcement of the judgment, the court settlement or the authentic instrument is sought; (f) ‘court of origin’ means the court which has given the judgment the recognition of which is invoked or the enforcement of which is sought.
Article 3 
For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘court’ includes the following authorities to the extent that they have jurisdiction in matters falling within the scope of this Regulation: (a) in Hungary, in summary proceedings concerning orders to pay (fizetési meghagyásos eljárás), the notary (közjegyző); (b) in Sweden, in summary proceedings concerning orders to pay (betalningsföreläggande) and assistance (handräckning), the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten).
Article 4 
1. Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State. 2. Persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that Member State.
Article 5 
1. Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Chapter. 2. In particular, the rules of national jurisdiction of which the Member States are to notify the Commission pursuant to point (a) of Article 76(1) shall not be applicable as against the persons referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 6 
1. If the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Member State shall, subject to Article 18(1), Article 21(2) and Articles 24 and 25, be determined by the law of that Member State. 2. As against such a defendant, any person domiciled in a Member State may, whatever his nationality, avail himself in that Member State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force, and in particular those of which the Member States are to notify the Commission pursuant to point (a) of Article 76(1), in the same way as nationals of that Member State.
Article 7 
A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: (1) (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question; (b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be: — in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, — in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided; (c) if point (b) does not apply then point (a) applies; (2) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur; (3) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seised of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings; (4) as regards a civil claim for the recovery, based on ownership, of a cultural object as defined in point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 93/7/EEC initiated by the person claiming the right to recover such an object, in the courts for the place where the cultural object is situated at the time when the court is seised; (5) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated; (6) as regards a dispute brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the Member State in which the trust is domiciled; (7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question: (a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or (b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given; provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 7 ):
A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: (1) (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question; (b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be: — in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, — in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided; (c) if point (b) does not apply then point (a) applies; (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question; (b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be: — in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, — in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided; (b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be: — in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, — in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided; (c) if point (b) does not apply then point (a) applies; (2) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur; (3) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seised of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings; (4) as regards a civil claim for the recovery, based on ownership, of a cultural object as defined in point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 93/7/EEC initiated by the person claiming the right to recover such an object, in the courts for the place where the cultural object is situated at the time when the court is seised; (5) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated; (6) as regards a dispute brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the Member State in which the trust is domiciled; (7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question: (a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or (b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given; provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage. (7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question: (a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or (b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given; provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage.
Article 8 
A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: (1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings; (2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case; (3) on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending; (4) in matters relating to a contract, if the action may be combined with an action against the same defendant in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property, in the court of the Member State in which the property is situated.
Article 9 
Where by virtue of this Regulation a court of a Member State has jurisdiction in actions relating to liability from the use or operation of a ship, that court, or any other court substituted for this purpose by the internal law of that Member State, shall also have jurisdiction over claims for limitation of such liability.
Article 10 
In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7.
Article 11 
1. An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: (a) in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled; (b) in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled; or (c) if he is a co-insurer, in the courts of a Member State in which proceedings are brought against the leading insurer. 2. An insurer who is not domiciled in a Member State but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the Member States shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that Member State.
Article 12 
In respect of liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, the insurer may in addition be sued in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. The same applies if movable and immovable property are covered by the same insurance policy and both are adversely affected by the same contingency.
Article 13 
1. In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured. 2. Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. 3. If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.
Article 14 
1. Without prejudice to Article 13(3), an insurer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled, irrespective of whether he is the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary. 2. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 15 
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement: (1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; (2) which allows the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; (3) which is concluded between a policyholder and an insurer, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State, and which has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State even if the harmful event were to occur abroad, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State; (4) which is concluded with a policyholder who is not domiciled in a Member State, except in so far as the insurance is compulsory or relates to immovable property in a Member State; or (5) which relates to a contract of insurance in so far as it covers one or more of the risks set out in Article 16.
Article 16 
The following are the risks referred to in point 5 of Article 15: (1) any loss of or damage to: (a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes; (b) goods in transit other than passengers’ baggage where the transit consists of or includes carriage by such ships or aircraft; (2) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage: (a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) in so far as, in respect of the latter, the law of the Member State in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks; (b) for loss or damage caused by goods in transit as described in point 1(b); (3) any financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a), in particular loss of freight or charter-hire; (4) any risk or interest connected with any of those referred to in points 1 to 3; (5) notwithstanding points 1 to 4, all ‘large risks’ as defined in Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) ( 14 ) .
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 16 ):
The following are the risks referred to in point 5 of Article 15: (1) any loss of or damage to: (a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes; (b) goods in transit other than passengers’ baggage where the transit consists of or includes carriage by such ships or aircraft; (1) any loss of or damage to: (a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes; (b) goods in transit other than passengers’ baggage where the transit consists of or includes carriage by such ships or aircraft; (2) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage: (a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) in so far as, in respect of the latter, the law of the Member State in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks; (b) for loss or damage caused by goods in transit as described in point 1(b); (2) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage: (a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) in so far as, in respect of the latter, the law of the Member State in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks; (b) for loss or damage caused by goods in transit as described in point 1(b); (3) any financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a), in particular loss of freight or charter-hire; (4) any risk or interest connected with any of those referred to in points 1 to 3; (5) notwithstanding points 1 to 4, all ‘large risks’ as defined in Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) ( 14 ).
Article 17 
1. In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7, if: (a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; (b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or (c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities. 2. Where a consumer enters into a contract with a party who is not domiciled in a Member State but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the Member States, that party shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that Member State. 3. This Section shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.
Article 18 
1. A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Member State in which that party is domiciled or, regardless of the domicile of the other party, in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled. 2. Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. 3. This Article shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 19 
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement: (1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; (2) which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or (3) which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State.
Article 20 
1. In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6, point 5 of Article 7 and, in the case of proceedings brought against an employer, point 1 of Article 8. 2. Where an employee enters into an individual contract of employment with an employer who is not domiciled in a Member State but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the Member States, the employer shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that Member State.
Article 21 
1. An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: (a) in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled; or (b) in another Member State: (i) in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or (ii) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated. 2. An employer not domiciled in a Member State may be sued in a court of a Member State in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 21 ):
1. An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: (a) in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled; or (b) in another Member State: (i) in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or (ii) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated. (b) in another Member State: (i) in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or (ii) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated. 2. An employer not domiciled in a Member State may be sued in a court of a Member State in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1.
Article 22 
1. An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. 2. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 23 
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement: (1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or (2) which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.
Article 24 
The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: (1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated. However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State; (2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law; (3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the Member State in which the register is kept; (4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place. Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that Member State; (5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 24 ):
The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: (1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated. However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State; (1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated. However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State; (2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law; (3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the Member State in which the register is kept; (4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place. Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that Member State; (4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place. Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that Member State; (5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
Article 25 
1. 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, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned. 2. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to ‘writing’. 3. The court or courts of a Member State on which a trust instrument has conferred jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any proceedings brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary, if relations between those persons or their rights or obligations under the trust are involved. 4. Agreements or provisions of a trust instrument conferring jurisdiction shall have no legal force if they are contrary to Articles 15, 19 or 23, or if the courts whose jurisdiction they purport to exclude have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24. 5. An agreement conferring jurisdiction which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. The validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction cannot be contested solely on the ground that the contract is not valid.
Article 26 
1. Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24. 2. In matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the defendant, the court shall, before assuming jurisdiction under paragraph 1, ensure that the defendant is informed of his right to contest the jurisdiction of the court and of the consequences of entering or not entering an appearance.
Article 27 
Where a court of a Member State is seised of a claim which is principally concerned with a matter over which the courts of another Member State have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.
Article 28 
1. Where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation. 2. The court shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end. 3. Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) ( 15 ) shall apply instead of paragraph 2 of this Article if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted from one Member State to another pursuant to that Regulation. 4. Where Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 is not applicable, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters shall apply if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad pursuant to that Convention.
Article 29 
1. Without prejudice to Article 31(2), where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. 2. In cases referred to in paragraph 1, upon request by a court seised of the dispute, any other court seised shall without delay inform the former court of the date when it was seised in accordance with Article 32. 3. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
Article 30 
1. Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings. 2. Where the action in the court first seised is pending at first instance, any other court may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof. 3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
Article 31 
1. Where actions come within the exclusive jurisdiction of several courts, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. 2. Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the basis of the agreement declares that it has no jurisdiction under the agreement. 3. Where the court designated in the agreement has established jurisdiction in accordance with the agreement, any court of another Member State shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. 4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the claimant and the agreement is not valid under a provision contained within those Sections.
Article 32 
1. For the purposes of this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seised: (a) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the claimant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant; or (b) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court, at the time when it is received by the authority responsible for service, provided that the claimant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged with the court. The authority responsible for service referred to in point (b) shall be the first authority receiving the documents to be served. 2. The court, or the authority responsible for service, referred to in paragraph 1, shall note, respectively, the date of the lodging of the document instituting the proceedings or the equivalent document, or the date of receipt of the documents to be served.
Article 33 
1. Where jurisdiction is based on Article 4 or on Articles 7, 8 or 9 and proceedings are pending before a court of a third State at the time when a court in a Member State is seised of an action involving the same cause of action and between the same parties as the proceedings in the court of the third State, the court of the Member State may stay the proceedings if: (a) it is expected that the court of the third State will give a judgment capable of recognition and, where applicable, of enforcement in that Member State; and (b) the court of the Member State is satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice. 2. The court of the Member State may continue the proceedings at any time if: (a) the proceedings in the court of the third State are themselves stayed or discontinued; (b) it appears to the court of the Member State that the proceedings in the court of the third State are unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time; or (c) the continuation of the proceedings is required for the proper administration of justice. 3. The court of the Member State shall dismiss the proceedings if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment capable of recognition and, where applicable, of enforcement in that Member State. 4. The court of the Member State shall apply this Article on the application of one of the parties or, where possible under national law, of its own motion.
Article 34 
1. Where jurisdiction is based on Article 4 or on Articles 7, 8 or 9 and an action is pending before a court of a third State at the time when a court in a Member State is seised of an action which is related to the action in the court of the third State, the court of the Member State may stay the proceedings if: (a) it is expedient to hear and determine the related actions together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings; (b) it is expected that the court of the third State will give a judgment capable of recognition and, where applicable, of enforcement in that Member State; and (c) the court of the Member State is satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice. 2. The court of the Member State may continue the proceedings at any time if: (a) it appears to the court of the Member State that there is no longer a risk of irreconcilable judgments; (b) the proceedings in the court of the third State are themselves stayed or discontinued; (c) it appears to the court of the Member State that the proceedings in the court of the third State are unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time; or (d) the continuation of the proceedings is required for the proper administration of justice. 3. The court of the Member State may dismiss the proceedings if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment capable of recognition and, where applicable, of enforcement in that Member State. 4. The court of the Member State shall apply this Article on the application of one of the parties or, where possible under national law, of its own motion.
Article 35 
Application may be made to the courts of a Member State for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that Member State, even if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.
Article 36 
1. A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required. 2. Any interested party may, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Subsection 2 of Section 3, apply for a decision that there are no grounds for refusal of recognition as referred to in Article 45. 3. If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question of refusal of recognition, that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.
Article 37 
1. A party who wishes to invoke in a Member State a judgment given in another Member State shall produce: (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53. 2. The court or authority before which a judgment given in another Member State is invoked may, where necessary, require the party invoking it to provide, in accordance with Article 57, a translation or a transliteration of the contents of the certificate referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1. The court or authority may require the party to provide a translation of the judgment instead of a translation of the contents of the certificate if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.
Article 38 
The court or authority before which a judgment given in another Member State is invoked may suspend the proceedings, in whole or in part, if: (a) the judgment is challenged in the Member State of origin; or (b) an application has been submitted for a decision that there are no grounds for refusal of recognition as referred to in Article 45 or for a decision that the recognition is to be refused on the basis of one of those grounds.
Article 39 
A judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required.
Article 40 
An enforceable judgment shall carry with it by operation of law the power to proceed to any protective measures which exist under the law of the Member State addressed.
Article 41 
1. Subject to the provisions of this Section, the procedure for the enforcement of judgments given in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the Member State addressed. A judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in the Member State addressed shall be enforced there under the same conditions as a judgment given in the Member State addressed. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the grounds for refusal or of suspension of enforcement under the law of the Member State addressed shall apply in so far as they are not incompatible with the grounds referred to in Article 45. 3. The party seeking the enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State shall not be required to have a postal address in the Member State addressed. Nor shall that party be required to have an authorised representative in the Member State addressed unless such a representative is mandatory irrespective of the nationality or the domicile of the parties.
Article 42 
1. For the purposes of enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State, the applicant shall provide the competent enforcement authority with: (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, certifying that the judgment is enforceable and containing an extract of the judgment as well as, where appropriate, relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest. 2. For the purposes of enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State ordering a provisional, including a protective, measure, the applicant shall provide the competent enforcement authority with: (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, containing a description of the measure and certifying that: (i) the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; (ii) the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and (c) where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, proof of service of the judgment. 3. The competent enforcement authority may, where necessary, require the applicant to provide, in accordance with Article 57, a translation or a transliteration of the contents of the certificate. 4. The competent enforcement authority may require the applicant to provide a translation of the judgment only if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 42 ):
1. For the purposes of enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State, the applicant shall provide the competent enforcement authority with: (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, certifying that the judgment is enforceable and containing an extract of the judgment as well as, where appropriate, relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest. 2. For the purposes of enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State ordering a provisional, including a protective, measure, the applicant shall provide the competent enforcement authority with: (a) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, containing a description of the measure and certifying that: (i) the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; (ii) the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and (b) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53, containing a description of the measure and certifying that: (i) the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; (ii) the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and (c) where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, proof of service of the judgment. 3. The competent enforcement authority may, where necessary, require the applicant to provide, in accordance with Article 57, a translation or a transliteration of the contents of the certificate. 4. The competent enforcement authority may require the applicant to provide a translation of the judgment only if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.
Article 43 
1. Where enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State, the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 shall be served on the person against whom the enforcement is sought prior to the first enforcement measure. The certificate shall be accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that person. 2. Where the person against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in a Member State other than the Member State of origin, he may request a translation of the judgment in order to contest the enforcement if the judgment is not written in or accompanied by a translation into either of the following languages: (a) a language which he understands; or (b) the official language of the Member State in which he is domiciled or, where there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where he is domiciled. Where a translation of the judgment is requested under the first subparagraph, no measures of enforcement may be taken other than protective measures until that translation has been provided to the person against whom enforcement is sought. This paragraph shall not apply if the judgment has already been served on the person against whom enforcement is sought in one of the languages referred to in the first subparagraph or is accompanied by a translation into one of those languages. 3. This Article shall not apply to the enforcement of a protective measure in a judgment or where the person seeking enforcement proceeds to protective measures in accordance with Article 40.
Article 44 
1. In the event of an application for refusal of enforcement of a judgment pursuant to Subsection 2 of Section 3, the court in the Member State addressed may, on the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought: (a) limit the enforcement proceedings to protective measures; (b) make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine; or (c) suspend, either wholly or in part, the enforcement proceedings. 2. The competent authority in the Member State addressed shall, on the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, suspend the enforcement proceedings where the enforceability of the judgment is suspended in the Member State of origin.
Article 45 
1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused: (a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed; (b) where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so; (c) if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Member State addressed; (d) if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed; or (e) if the judgment conflicts with: (i) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant; or (ii) Section 6 of Chapter II. 2. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, the court to which the application was submitted shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction. 3. Without prejudice to point (e) of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction. 4. The application for refusal of recognition shall be made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Subsection 2 and, where appropriate, Section 4.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 45 ):
1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused: (a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed; (b) where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so; (c) if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Member State addressed; (d) if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed; or (e) if the judgment conflicts with: (i) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant; or (ii) Section 6 of Chapter II. (e) if the judgment conflicts with: (i) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant; or (ii) Section 6 of Chapter II. 2. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1, the court to which the application was submitted shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction. 3. Without prejudice to point (e) of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction. 4. The application for refusal of recognition shall be made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Subsection 2 and, where appropriate, Section 4. Subsection 2 Refusal of enforcement
Article 46 
On the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, the enforcement of a judgment shall be refused where one of the grounds referred to in Article 45 is found to exist.
Article 47 
1. The application for refusal of enforcement shall be submitted to the court which the Member State concerned has communicated to the Commission pursuant to point (a) of Article 75 as the court to which the application is to be submitted. 2. The procedure for refusal of enforcement shall, in so far as it is not covered by this Regulation, be governed by the law of the Member State addressed. 3. The applicant shall provide the court with a copy of the judgment and, where necessary, a translation or transliteration of it. The court may dispense with the production of the documents referred to in the first subparagraph if it already possesses them or if it considers it unreasonable to require the applicant to provide them. In the latter case, the court may require the other party to provide those documents. 4. The party seeking the refusal of enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State shall not be required to have a postal address in the Member State addressed. Nor shall that party be required to have an authorised representative in the Member State addressed unless such a representative is mandatory irrespective of the nationality or the domicile of the parties.
Article 48 
The court shall decide on the application for refusal of enforcement without delay.
Article 49 
1. The decision on the application for refusal of enforcement may be appealed against by either party. 2. The appeal is to be lodged with the court which the Member State concerned has communicated to the Commission pursuant to point (b) of Article 75 as the court with which such an appeal is to be lodged.
Article 50 
The decision given on the appeal may only be contested by an appeal where the courts with which any further appeal is to be lodged have been communicated by the Member State concerned to the Commission pursuant to point (c) of Article 75.
Article 51 
1. The court to which an application for refusal of enforcement is submitted or the court which hears an appeal lodged under Article 49 or Article 50 may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the Member State of origin or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired. In the latter case, the court may specify the time within which such an appeal is to be lodged. 2. Where the judgment was given in Ireland, Cyprus or the United Kingdom, any form of appeal available in the Member State of origin shall be treated as an ordinary appeal for the purposes of paragraph 1.
Article 52 
Under no circumstances may a judgment given in a Member State be reviewed as to its substance in the Member State addressed.
Article 53 
The court of origin shall, at the request of any interested party, issue the certificate using the form set out in Annex I.
Article 54 
1. If a judgment contains a measure or an order which is not known in the law of the Member State addressed, that measure or order shall, to the extent possible, be adapted to a measure or an order known in the law of that Member State which has equivalent effects attached to it and which pursues similar aims and interests. Such adaptation shall not result in effects going beyond those provided for in the law of the Member State of origin. 2. Any party may challenge the adaptation of the measure or order before a court. 3. If necessary, the party invoking the judgment or seeking its enforcement may be required to provide a translation or a transliteration of the judgment.
Article 55 
A judgment given in a Member State which orders a payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the Member State addressed only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the court of origin.
Article 56 
No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required of a party who in one Member State applies for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State on the ground that he is a foreign national or that he is not domiciled or resident in the Member State addressed.
Article 57 
1. When a translation or a transliteration is required under this Regulation, such translation or transliteration shall be into the official language of the Member State concerned or, where there are several official languages in that Member State, into the official language or one of the official languages of court proceedings of the place where a judgment given in another Member State is invoked or an application is made, in accordance with the law of that Member State. 2. For the purposes of the forms referred to in Articles 53 and 60, translations or transliterations may also be into any other official language or languages of the institutions of the Union that the Member State concerned has indicated it can accept. 3. Any translation made under this Regulation shall be done by a person qualified to do translations in one of the Member States.
Article 58 
1. An authentic instrument which is enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required. Enforcement of the authentic instrument may be refused only if such enforcement is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed. The provisions of Section 2, Subsection 2 of Section 3, and Section 4 of Chapter III shall apply as appropriate to authentic instruments. 2. The authentic instrument produced must satisfy the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity in the Member State of origin.
Article 59 
A court settlement which is enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be enforced in the other Member States under the same conditions as authentic instruments.
Article 60 
The competent authority or court of the Member State of origin shall, at the request of any interested party, issue the certificate using the form set out in Annex II containing a summary of the enforceable obligation recorded in the authentic instrument or of the agreement between the parties recorded in the court settlement.
Article 61 
No legalisation or other similar formality shall be required for documents issued in a Member State in the context of this Regulation.
Article 62 
1. In order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall apply its internal law. 2. If a party is not domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, then, in order to determine whether the party is domiciled in another Member State, the court shall apply the law of that Member State.
Article 63 
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its: (a) statutory seat; (b) central administration; or (c) principal place of business. 2. For the purposes of Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom, ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place. 3. In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.
Article 64 
Without prejudice to any more favourable provisions of national laws, persons domiciled in a Member State who are being prosecuted in the criminal courts of another Member State of which they are not nationals for an offence which was not intentionally committed may be defended by persons qualified to do so, even if they do not appear in person. However, the court seised of the matter may order appearance in person; in the case of failure to appear, a judgment given in the civil action without the person concerned having had the opportunity to arrange for his defence need not be recognised or enforced in the other Member States.
Article 65 
1. The jurisdiction specified in point 2 of Article 8 and Article 13 in actions on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third-party proceedings may be resorted to in the Member States included in the list established by the Commission pursuant to point (b) of Article 76(1) and Article 76(2) only in so far as permitted under national law. A person domiciled in another Member State may be invited to join the proceedings before the courts of those Member States pursuant to the rules on third-party notice referred to in that list. 2. Judgments given in a Member State by virtue of point 2 of Article 8 or Article 13 shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Chapter III in any other Member State. Any effects which judgments given in the Member States included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 may have, in accordance with the law of those Member States, on third parties by application of paragraph 1 shall be recognised in all Member States. 3. The Member States included in the list referred to in paragraph 1 shall, within the framework of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC ( 16 ) (‘the European Judicial Network’) provide information on how to determine, in accordance with their national law, the effects of the judgments referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 2.
Article 66 
1. This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted, to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 10 January 2015. 2. Notwithstanding Article 80, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 shall continue to apply to judgments given in legal proceedings instituted, to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded before 10 January 2015 which fall within the scope of that Regulation.
Article 67 
This Regulation shall not prejudice the application of provisions governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in specific matters which are contained in instruments of the Union or in national legislation harmonised pursuant to such instruments.
Article 68 
1. This Regulation shall, as between the Member States, supersede the 1968 Brussels Convention, except as regards the territories of the Member States which fall within the territorial scope of that Convention and which are excluded from this Regulation pursuant to Article 355 of the TFEU. 2. In so far as this Regulation replaces the provisions of the 1968 Brussels Convention between the Member States, any reference to that Convention shall be understood as a reference to this Regulation.
Article 69 
Subject to Articles 70 and 71, this Regulation shall, as between the Member States, supersede the conventions that cover the same matters as those to which this Regulation applies. In particular, the conventions included in the list established by the Commission pursuant to point (c) of Article 76(1) and Article 76(2) shall be superseded.
Article 70 
1. The conventions referred to in Article 69 shall continue to have effect in relation to matters to which this Regulation does not apply. 2. They shall continue to have effect in respect of judgments given, authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and court settlements approved or concluded before the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
Article 71 
1. This Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which, in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments. 2. With a view to its uniform interpretation, paragraph 1 shall be applied in the following manner: (a) this Regulation shall not prevent a court of a Member State which is party to a convention on a particular matter from assuming jurisdiction in accordance with that convention, even where the defendant is domiciled in another Member State which is not party to that convention. The court hearing the action shall, in any event, apply Article 28 of this Regulation; (b) judgments given in a Member State by a court in the exercise of jurisdiction provided for in a convention on a particular matter shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States in accordance with this Regulation. Where a convention on a particular matter to which both the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed are parties lays down conditions for the recognition or enforcement of judgments, those conditions shall apply. In any event, the provisions of this Regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments may be applied.
Article 72 
This Regulation shall not affect agreements by which Member States, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, undertook pursuant to Article 59 of the 1968 Brussels Convention not to recognise judgments given, in particular in other Contracting States to that Convention, against defendants domiciled or habitually resident in a third State where, in cases provided for in Article 4 of that Convention, the judgment could only be founded on a ground of jurisdiction specified in the second paragraph of Article 3 of that Convention.
Article 73 
1. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the 2007 Lugano Convention. 2. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the 1958 New York Convention. 3. This Regulation shall not affect the application of bilateral conventions and agreements between a third State and a Member State concluded before the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 which concern matters governed by this Regulation.
Article 74 
The Member States shall provide, within the framework of the European Judicial Network and with a view to making the information available to the public, a description of national rules and procedures concerning enforcement, including authorities competent for enforcement, and information on any limitations on enforcement, in particular debtor protection rules and limitation or prescription periods. The Member States shall keep this information permanently updated.
Article 75 
By 10 January 2014, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission: (a) the courts to which the application for refusal of enforcement is to be submitted pursuant to Article 47(1); (b) the courts with which an appeal against the decision on the application for refusal of enforcement is to be lodged pursuant to Article 49(2); (c) the courts with which any further appeal is to be lodged pursuant to Article 50; and (d) the languages accepted for translations of the forms as referred to in Article 57(2). The Commission shall make the information publicly available through any appropriate means, in particular through the European Judicial Network.
Article 76 
1. The Member States shall notify the Commission of: (a) the rules of jurisdiction referred to in Articles 5(2) and 6(2); (b) the rules on third-party notice referred to in Article 65; and (c) the conventions referred to in Article 69. 2. The Commission shall, on the basis of the notifications by the Member States referred to in paragraph 1, establish the corresponding lists. 3. The Member States shall notify the Commission of any subsequent amendments required to be made to those lists. The Commission shall amend those lists accordingly. 4. The Commission shall publish the lists and any subsequent amendments made to them in the Official Journal of the European Union . 5. The Commission shall make all information notified pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 3 publicly available through any other appropriate means, in particular through the European Judicial Network.
Article 77 
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 78 concerning the amendment of Annexes I and II.
Article 78 
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 77 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 9 January 2013. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 77 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 77 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
Article 79 
By 11 January 2022 the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this Regulation. That report shall include an evaluation of the possible need for a further extension of the rules on jurisdiction to defendants not domiciled in a Member State, taking into account the operation of this Regulation and possible developments at international level. Where appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendment of this Regulation.
Article 80 
This Regulation shall repeal Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex III.
Article 81 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . It shall apply from 10 January 2015, with the exception of Articles 75 and 76, which shall apply from 10 January 2014.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General Context Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters, litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12 December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters[1] ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10 January 2015. In December 2012, an agreement was reached on the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of two Regulations[2] (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union. The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25 Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. On 15 October 2012, the three Member States Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice. As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first, to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States. 1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal The present proposal aims, firstly, at allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965. The Unified Patent Court will be a court common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned. In order to ensure the combined and coherent application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the Brussels I Regulation (recast) it is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation (recast): 1. Clarify in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation; 2. Clarify the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide for such rules but refers to national law; 3. Define the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and 4. Clarify the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the respective international agreements.

|52013PC0554Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters /* COM/2013/0554 final - 2013/0268 (COD) */EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL1.1. General ContextCouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on\r jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and\r commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation") sets out rules determining\r the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States and rules\r preventing parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States. It\r also lays down rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments of\r national courts in other Member States. It covers, among other matters,\r litigation in the area of intellectual property rights, including patents. On 12\r December 2012, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of\r the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in\r civil and commercial matters[1]\r ("Brussels I Regulation (recast)"), recasting Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,\r was adopted. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 will enter into application on 10\r January 2015.In December 2012, an agreement was reached on\r the so-called “patent package” – a legislative initiative consisting of\r two Regulations[2]\r (the "Unified Patent Regulations") and an international Agreement (the\r "Unified Patent Court Agreement" or "UPC Agreement"), laying\r the ground for the creation of unitary patent protection in the European Union.The Unified Patent Regulations were adopted in\r enhanced cooperation including 25 Member States (all Member States except Italy and Spain). The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by most Member States. Once the\r Regulations apply, it will be possible to obtain a European patent with unitary\r effect – a legal title ensuring uniform protection for an invention across 25\r Member States – on a one-stop shop basis, providing cost advantages and\r reducing administrative burdens.Article 89(1) of the UPC Agreement provides\r that the Agreement cannot enter into force prior to the entry into force of the\r amendments to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) regulating the relationship\r between both instruments. The aim of these amendments is twofold. First, the\r amendments aim at ensuring compliance between the UPC\r Agreement and Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, at addressing the particular\r issue of jurisdiction rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union\r States.On 15 October 2012, the three Member States\r Contracting Parties to the Treaty of 31 March 1965 concerning the establishment\r and statute of a Benelux Court of Justice have signed a Protocol modifying the\r said Treaty. The Benelux Court of Justice is a court common to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands which has the task to ensure the uniform application of\r rules common to the Benelux Member States concerning various matters such as\r intellectual property (in particular certain types of rights relating to\r trademarks, models and designs). Up to today, the Benelux Court's task consists\r mainly in giving preliminary rulings on the interpretation of these rules. The\r 2012 Protocol, however, creates the possibility to extend the competences of\r the Benelux Court of Justice to include jurisdictional competences in specific\r matters which come within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. This\r possibility may be executed by a revision of the separate agreements between\r the Benelux Member States on specific matters; this revision will effectively\r transfer jurisdiction from the national courts to the Benelux Court of Justice.\r As a result, similar to the UPC Agreement, the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty\r requires an amendment to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) with the aim first,\r to ensure compliance between the revised Treaty and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast), and second, to address the lack of common jurisdiction\r rules vis-à-vis defendants in non-European Union States.1.2. Grounds for and objectives of the\r proposalThe present proposal aims, firstly, at\r allowing the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. Art. 89(1) of the UPC\r Agreement makes the entry into force of the Agreement dependent on the\r amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012. In addition, the proposal aims at\r ensuring compliance with the Brussels I Regulation of this Agreement as well as\r the Protocol to the Benelux Treaty of 1965.The Unified Patent Court will be a court\r common to certain Member States and will be subject to the same obligations\r under Union law as any national court. The Unified Patent Court will have\r exclusive competence, thus replacing national courts, for the matters governed\r by the UPC Agreement. The UPC Agreement regulates the internal distribution of\r competences between the different divisions of the Unified Patent Court and the\r enforcement of the judgments of the Unified Patent Court in the Contracting\r Member States. The Benelux Court of Justice is equally a court common to\r certain Member States which will have jurisdictional competence in matters to\r be defined by the Contracting Member States concerned.In order to ensure the combined and coherent\r application of the above Agreement and Protocol and the\r Brussels I Regulation (recast) it\r is necessary to address the following issues in the Brussels I Regulation\r (recast):1.           Clarify\r in the text of the Regulation that the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux\r Court of Justice are ‘courts’ within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation;2.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on jurisdiction with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice insofar as defendants domiciled in\r Member States are concerned. Create uniform rules for the international\r jurisdiction vis-à-vis third State defendants in proceedings against\r such defendants brought in the Unified Patent Court and Benelux Court of\r Justice in situations where the Brussels I Regulation does not itself provide\r for such rules but refers to national law;3.           Define\r the application of the rules on lis pendens and related actions in\r relation to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice on the\r one hand and the national courts of Member States which are not Contracting\r Party to the respective international agreements on the other hand. Define also\r the operation of these rules during the transitional period referred to in\r Article 83(1) UPC Agreement; and4.           Clarify\r the operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement in the relations\r between Member States which are and Member States which are not Contracting\r Parties to the respective international agreements.Detailed explanation on the issues to be\r addressed is given in point 3 below (“Legal elements of the proposal”).
Revised version (Article 81 ):
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . It shall apply from 10 January 2015, with the exception of Articles 75 and 76, which shall apply from 10 January 2014. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.