The chapter addresses the issue of jurisdiction against non-EU-domiciled defendants in the light of EU private international law in civil and commercial matters. According to the so-called ‘Brussels System’, such defendants are still subject to the residual application of Member States’ national rules on jurisdiction, including those which are normally considered as having an exorbitant reach. While these grounds of jurisdiction are seen as improper and unfair to such an extent that their use in intra-EU disputes is prohibited, they are nonetheless available when it comes to proceedings against non-EU-domiciled defendants. This gap seems problematic on the sides of both non-EU-domiciled defendants and EU-domiciled claimants, since it ends up generating unequal treatments in relation to foreseeability and access to justice. Against this background, some possible solutions will be therefore evaluated, also in the light of some recent developments at the international level.
Residual Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters through the Lens of Non-Discrimination and Reciprocity / E. Benvenuti - In: More Equal than Others? : Perspectives on the Principle of Equality from International and EU Law / [a cura di] D. Amoroso, L. Marotti, P. Rossi, A. Spagnolo, G. Zarra. - [s.l] : T.M.C. Asser Press, 2023. - ISBN 978-94-6265-538-6. - pp. 269-301 [10.1007/978-94-6265-539-3_13]
Residual Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters through the Lens of Non-Discrimination and Reciprocity
E. Benvenuti
2023
Abstract
The chapter addresses the issue of jurisdiction against non-EU-domiciled defendants in the light of EU private international law in civil and commercial matters. According to the so-called ‘Brussels System’, such defendants are still subject to the residual application of Member States’ national rules on jurisdiction, including those which are normally considered as having an exorbitant reach. While these grounds of jurisdiction are seen as improper and unfair to such an extent that their use in intra-EU disputes is prohibited, they are nonetheless available when it comes to proceedings against non-EU-domiciled defendants. This gap seems problematic on the sides of both non-EU-domiciled defendants and EU-domiciled claimants, since it ends up generating unequal treatments in relation to foreseeability and access to justice. Against this background, some possible solutions will be therefore evaluated, also in the light of some recent developments at the international level.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.




