While the Hague Convention offers only a full jurisdiction regime for cases relating to exclusive forum agreements, it offers the jurisdiction of the UK courts designated in such an agreement considerable protection, which is respected in the rest of the EU, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. After Brexit, the regime for the recognition and enforcement of judgments that do not fall within the scope of the Hague Convention could be the new Hague Convention currently being negotiated in The Hague (see Working Paper No. 2016/3 – Respect for reverse subsidiarity as an excellent strategy for the European Union at the Hague Conference on Private International Law – reflections in the context of Paul Beaumont`s draft judgment). Professor Beaumont will continue to be part of the EU negotiating team on this convention in the Special Commission in The Hague from 13 to 17 November 2017. It is very positive that the British Government has reaffirmed its commitment to an internationalist and not just a regional approach to civil cooperation: the Supreme Court has pointed out that the Greek company has a high turnover and considerable profits. According to the Court, its representatives are familiar with travelling abroad for discussions and negotiations; Consequently, the difficulties and the increase in costs linked to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts did not make it impossible or unduly incriminated to a dispute before those courts. Good decision of the Aréopagus. It`s simply not clear why traders should be the only commercial parties who are not bound by forum selection clauses. Art. 25 The Brussels Ibis Regulation does not provide for a derogation from public policy. We should have confidence that the Dutch courts will be able to apply the distribution right correctly. The United Kingdom will undoubtedly avoid any break in the application of the Convention.
With Brexit, the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the UK will almost certainly come to an end. The reason for this is that the ECJ ensures its uniform interpretation by the preliminary ruling system of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The UK is not prepared to accept this competence after Brexit (”Withdrawal from the EU will therefore end the ECJ`s direct competence in the UK, as the ECJ delegates its competence and authority from the EU Treaties”. ` see the provision of a framework for cross-border civil cooperation in paragraph 20). Therefore, although the British negotiators are calling for a tailor-made agreement with the EU in order to pursue something like Brussels Ia (”The UK will therefore strive to reach an agreement with the EU that allows for close and comprehensive cross-border judicial cooperation on a mutual basis, which accurately reflects the substantive principles of cooperation within the current EU framework”, It seems unlikely that the EU will accept such a tailor-made agreement only with the United Kingdom if the United Kingdom does not accept the system of preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice. The EU can say that the option for close EU partners in this area is the Lugano Convention. The United Kingdom Government has stated that it wishes to remain a member of the Lugano Convention (see paragraph 22 of paragraph 22 for the provision of a framework for cross-border judicial cooperation in civil matters). In this regard, it would continue to instruct the UK courts to take into account the case law of the ECJ – if that court votes for Brussels Ia or the Lugano Convention – when UK courts interpret the Lugano Convention (see the UK Government`s opaque statement that ”the UK and the EU must ensure that future civil cooperation takes account of regional legal arrangements”. the supreme arbiter of EU legislation within the EU. `see paragraph 20 of the provision of a framework for cross-border judicial cooperation in civil matters` … .