PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.62.2
M. Lieberknecht addresses the functional boundary between Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation and national law in relation to the validity of choice-of-court agreements. The focus is an Estonian procedural rule requiring the dispute to be connected with the parties’ economic or business activity.
In the Pome decision discussed in the article, the Court of Justice held that the national rule was displaced by Article 25 and did not affect the validity of a choice-of-court agreement within the Regulation’s scope. Lieberknecht explains the result by treating Article 25 as containing its own substantive validity requirements, which take precedence over national law in that respect, and relates the analysis to the criteria referred to from Lastre.
Whether an Estonian procedural rule requiring a dispute to be connected with the parties’ economic or business activity affects the validity of a choice-of-court agreement under Article 25 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
The article clarifies how Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation limits the field left to national law when assessing the validity of choice-of-court agreements. The analysis provides a basis for determining whether a national economic-activity connection requirement can operate in relation to agreements falling within the Regulation’s scope.
IPRax · 2026
Publication ID Heft 5/2026 (September 2026) · 437
M. Lieberknecht, “Zur Funktionsabgrenzung von Art. 25 EuGVVO und nationalem Recht in Bezug auf die Wirksamkeit von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen”, IPRax, 2026-09-01, Heft 5/2026 (September 2026) · 437. https://www.iprax.de/de/inhalte/#iprax-Heft%205%2F2026%20(September%202026)%20%C2%B7%20437