BETA


2014/0021(NLE) Hague Convention (2005) on Choice of Court Agreements

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI SVOBODA Pavel (icon: PPE PPE) ROZIÈRE Virginie (icon: S&D S&D), DZHAMBAZKI Angel (icon: ECR ECR), MARINHO E PINTO António (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Former Responsible Committee JURI LEHNE Klaus-Heiner (icon: PPE PPE), REGNER Evelyn (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion INTA
Committee Opinion ECON
Committee Opinion IMCO
Former Committee Opinion INTA
Former Committee Opinion ECON
Former Committee Opinion IMCO
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 081-p2, TFEU 218-p6a

Events

2014/12/18
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2014/12/10
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

NON-LEGISLATIVE ACT: Council Decision 2014/887/EU on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

BACKGROUND: the European Union is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions.

The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘the Convention’) makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and to increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions .

In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement will be respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court will be capable of recognition and enforcement in international cases.

Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

Given that the Convention affects Union secondary legislation relating to jurisdiction based on the choice of the parties and to the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 , which is to be replaced as of 10 January 2015 by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 , it is in the interests of the EU to approve the Convention.

When signing the Convention, the Union declared under Article 30 of the Convention that it exercises competence over all the matters governed by the Convention. Consequently, the Member States shall be bound by the Convention by virtue of its approval by the Union.

It is now necessary for the Convention to be approved on behalf of the European Union.

CONTENT: under this Decision, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is approved, on behalf of the EU.

The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system .

In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

Having the EU approve the Convention would :

reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa.

Declaration on insurance contracts : a declaration seeks to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions . The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation.

A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration.

Territorial provisions : the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 4.12.2014.

2014/12/04
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
2014/12/04
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/12/04
   CSL - Council Meeting
2014/11/25
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/11/25
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 52, with 10 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Parliament gave its consent to the Convention.

Documents
2014/11/14
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

Members considered that the European Union (EU) should participate in this convention as it would ensure greater legal certainty for international exclusive choice-of-court agreements and thus foster trade between participating States. They recommended therefore that the Parliament should give its consent to this convention.

They also called on the Parliament to approve the Council's draft decision, which exempts consumer insurance contracts from the convention, thus preventing consumers from unwittingly agreeing to a choice-of-court clause. The declaration annexed to the draft decision formalises that exemption, and also preserves freedom for major commercial insurance and re-insurance contracts.

Documents
2014/11/11
   EP - Vote in committee
2014/10/23
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2014/09/25
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2014/09/23
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act.

BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations .

Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system .

In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

(i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

(ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa.

Declaration on insurance contracts : a declaration has been added to the proposal which includes a series of technical measures aiming to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention , without laying down additional conditions. The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation.

A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration.

Territorial provisions : the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

Documents
2014/09/03
   EP - SVOBODA Pavel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2014/03/19
   EP - REGNER Evelyn (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2014/02/17
   EP - LEHNE Klaus-Heiner (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2014/01/30
   EP - Preparatory document
Details

PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act.

BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations .

Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

LEGAL BASIS: Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system .

In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

(i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

(ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa.

Declaration on insurance contracts : the Brussels I Regulation (Section 3) provides for special protective jurisdiction in matters of insurance aimed at protecting the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary) and the economic interests of the general public of the place where the weaker party is located. The insured party, as plaintiff, therefore has a choice of suing the insurer at several places, including the place where the insured party is domiciled; the insurer, as plaintiff, can sue the insured party in principle only where the latter is domiciled. These protective jurisdiction rules are based on the premise that the insured party is always the weaker party, even if he acts as a commercial operator in B2B relations. There is no change to this presumption in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). For this reason, the possibility of the parties concluding the choice of court agreement has been limited (Article 13 of the Regulation). The Convention on its part applies to insurance matters without limiting party autonomy to conclude choice of court agreements. The only substantive limitation results from Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention which excludes insurance contracts entered into by private persons as consumers. This is partially contrary to the regime established in the Brussels I Regulation insofar as, for instance, the Convention would apply to insurance contracts concluded by SMEs. Once the Convention is approved by the EU, certain insurance contracts which now fall under the Brussels I Regulation, e.g. contracts between an EU policyholder and the EU branch of an insurer with headquarters outside the EU (Article 9(2) of the Regulation) would fall within the scope of the Convention (Article 26(6), in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Convention). Therefore, if the Convention were to be concluded without excluding insurance contracts, there would be a lack of parallelism with the protective policy established in the Brussels I Regulation which allows the insured party to sue an EU insurer (or a EU branch of third State insurer) in his own place of domicile irrespective of any other jurisdiction available under a choice of court agreement.

Other technical provisions have been included for the EU to exclude certain types of insurance matters falling within the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The carve-out is as small as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of weaker parties in insurance contracts as reflected in the protective jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Regulation.

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0034/2014 - Pavel Svoboda - approbation #

2014/11/25 Outcome: +: 619, -: 52, 0: 10
DE IT PL ES RO FR GB NL HU AT CZ PT SE BG BE FI SK HR LT DK EL IE LV SI EE MT CY LU
Total
88
63
49
44
30
67
69
25
19
18
19
20
17
15
17
13
12
11
10
10
20
9
8
7
6
6
5
3
icon: PPE PPE
205

Sweden PPE

2
2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
170

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ECR ECR
66

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Finland ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
44

Italy GUE/NGL

2

France GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

4

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

Poland EFDD

1

France EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
43

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

2

Netherlands NI

3

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Latvia NI

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE537.485
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-537485_EN.html
events/2/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/3/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2014-0034_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2014-0034_EN.html
events/6
date
2014-11-25T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2014-0055_EN.html title: T8-0055/2014
summary
events/6
date
2014-11-25T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2014-0055_EN.html title: T8-0055/2014
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel date: 2014-09-03T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2014-09-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
associated
False
rapporteur
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
associated
False
date
committees/5/date
    committees/6/date
      committees/7/date
        events/0
        date
        2014-01-30T00:00:00
        type
        Preparatory document
        body
        EP
        docs
        summary
        events/0
        date
        2014-01-30T00:00:00
        type
        Initial legislative proposal published
        body
        EC
        docs
        summary
        events/4/docs/0/url
        Old
        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2014-0034&language=EN
        New
        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2014-0034_EN.html
        events/6/docs/0/url
        Old
        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2014-0055
        New
        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2014-0055_EN.html
        committees/0
        type
        Responsible Committee
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        committee
        JURI
        date
        2014-09-03T00:00:00
        rapporteur
        name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
        shadows
        committees/0
        type
        Responsible Committee
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        committee
        JURI
        date
        2014-09-03T00:00:00
        rapporteur
        name: SVOBODA Pavel group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
        shadows
        committees/1
        type
        Former Responsible Committee
        body
        EP
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        committee
        JURI
        associated
        False
        date
        activities
        • date: 2014-01-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046 title: COM(2014)0046 type: Initial legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52014PC0046:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice Commissioner: REDING Viviane type: Initial legislative proposal published
        • date: 2014-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=12052%2F14&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Legislative proposal published title: 12052/2014 body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice Commissioner: REDING Viviane type: Legislative proposal published
        • date: 2014-10-23T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs committee: ECON body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: MARINHO E PINTO António responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-09-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-02-17T00:00:00 2014-03-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: LEHNE Klaus-Heiner group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
        • date: 2014-11-11T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs committee: ECON body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: MARINHO E PINTO António responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-09-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-02-17T00:00:00 2014-03-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: LEHNE Klaus-Heiner group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
        • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2014-0034&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0034/2014 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs committee: ECON body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: MARINHO E PINTO António responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-09-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel body: EP responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-02-17T00:00:00 2014-03-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: PPE name: LEHNE Klaus-Heiner group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn date: 2014-11-14T00:00:00
        • date: 2014-11-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24899&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2014-0055 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0055/2014 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
        • date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3354
        • date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
        • date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00 body: EP/CSL type: Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
        • date: 2014-12-10T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32014D0887 title: Decision 2014/887 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2014:353:TOC title: OJ L 353 10.12.2014, p. 0005
        commission
        • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: REDING Viviane
        committees/0
        type
        Responsible Committee
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        committee
        JURI
        date
        2014-09-03T00:00:00
        rapporteur
        name: SVOBODA Pavel group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
        shadows
        committees/0
        body
        EP
        responsible
        False
        committee_full
        Economic and Monetary Affairs
        committee
        ECON
        committees/1
        type
        Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        International Trade
        committee
        INTA
        opinion
        False
        committees/1
        body
        EP
        responsible
        False
        committee_full
        Internal Market and Consumer Protection
        committee
        IMCO
        committees/2
        type
        Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        Economic and Monetary Affairs
        committee
        ECON
        opinion
        False
        committees/2
        body
        EP
        responsible
        False
        committee_full
        International Trade
        committee
        INTA
        committees/3
        type
        Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        associated
        False
        committee_full
        Internal Market and Consumer Protection
        committee
        IMCO
        opinion
        False
        committees/3
        body
        EP
        shadows
        responsible
        True
        committee
        JURI
        date
        2014-09-03T00:00:00
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        rapporteur
        group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
        committees/4
        type
        Former Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        committee_full
        International Trade
        committee
        INTA
        associated
        False
        date
        committees/4
        body
        EP
        responsible
        True
        committee
        JURI
        date
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        rapporteur
        committees/5
        type
        Former Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        committee_full
        Economic and Monetary Affairs
        committee
        ECON
        associated
        False
        date
        committees/6
        type
        Former Committee Opinion
        body
        EP
        committee_full
        Internal Market and Consumer Protection
        committee
        IMCO
        associated
        False
        date
        council
        • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3354 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3354*&MEET_DATE=04/12/2014 date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00
        docs
        • date: 2014-09-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE537.485 title: PE537.485 type: Committee draft report body: EP
        • date: 2014-12-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0046 title: COM(2014)0046 type: Contribution body: PT_PARLIAMENT
        events
        • date: 2014-01-30T00:00:00 type: Initial legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2014)0046 summary: PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act. BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations . Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention. The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts. The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU. LEGAL BASIS: Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention. Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system . In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties. The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between: (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States. How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa. Declaration on insurance contracts : the Brussels I Regulation (Section 3) provides for special protective jurisdiction in matters of insurance aimed at protecting the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary) and the economic interests of the general public of the place where the weaker party is located. The insured party, as plaintiff, therefore has a choice of suing the insurer at several places, including the place where the insured party is domiciled; the insurer, as plaintiff, can sue the insured party in principle only where the latter is domiciled. These protective jurisdiction rules are based on the premise that the insured party is always the weaker party, even if he acts as a commercial operator in B2B relations. There is no change to this presumption in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). For this reason, the possibility of the parties concluding the choice of court agreement has been limited (Article 13 of the Regulation). The Convention on its part applies to insurance matters without limiting party autonomy to conclude choice of court agreements. The only substantive limitation results from Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention which excludes insurance contracts entered into by private persons as consumers. This is partially contrary to the regime established in the Brussels I Regulation insofar as, for instance, the Convention would apply to insurance contracts concluded by SMEs. Once the Convention is approved by the EU, certain insurance contracts which now fall under the Brussels I Regulation, e.g. contracts between an EU policyholder and the EU branch of an insurer with headquarters outside the EU (Article 9(2) of the Regulation) would fall within the scope of the Convention (Article 26(6), in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Convention). Therefore, if the Convention were to be concluded without excluding insurance contracts, there would be a lack of parallelism with the protective policy established in the Brussels I Regulation which allows the insured party to sue an EU insurer (or a EU branch of third State insurer) in his own place of domicile irrespective of any other jurisdiction available under a choice of court agreement. Other technical provisions have been included for the EU to exclude certain types of insurance matters falling within the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The carve-out is as small as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of weaker parties in insurance contracts as reflected in the protective jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Regulation.
        • date: 2014-09-23T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=12052%2F14&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 12052/2014 summary: PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act. BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations . Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention. The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts. The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU. CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention. Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system . In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties. The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between: (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States. How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa. Declaration on insurance contracts : a declaration has been added to the proposal which includes a series of technical measures aiming to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention , without laying down additional conditions. The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation. A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration. Territorial provisions : the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
        • date: 2014-10-23T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
        • date: 2014-11-11T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
        • date: 2014-11-14T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2014-0034&language=EN title: A8-0034/2014 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. Members considered that the European Union (EU) should participate in this convention as it would ensure greater legal certainty for international exclusive choice-of-court agreements and thus foster trade between participating States. They recommended therefore that the Parliament should give its consent to this convention. They also called on the Parliament to approve the Council's draft decision, which exempts consumer insurance contracts from the convention, thus preventing consumers from unwittingly agreeing to a choice-of-court clause. The declaration annexed to the draft decision formalises that exemption, and also preserves freedom for major commercial insurance and re-insurance contracts.
        • date: 2014-11-25T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24899&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
        • date: 2014-11-25T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2014-0055 title: T8-0055/2014 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 52, with 10 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. Parliament gave its consent to the Convention.
        • date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00 type: Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament body: EP/CSL
        • date: 2014-12-04T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
        • date: 2014-12-10T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal summary: PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. NON-LEGISLATIVE ACT: Council Decision 2014/887/EU on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. BACKGROUND: the European Union is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘the Convention’) makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and to increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions . In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement will be respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court will be capable of recognition and enforcement in international cases. Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention. Given that the Convention affects Union secondary legislation relating to jurisdiction based on the choice of the parties and to the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 , which is to be replaced as of 10 January 2015 by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 , it is in the interests of the EU to approve the Convention. When signing the Convention, the Union declared under Article 30 of the Convention that it exercises competence over all the matters governed by the Convention. Consequently, the Member States shall be bound by the Convention by virtue of its approval by the Union. It is now necessary for the Convention to be approved on behalf of the European Union. CONTENT: under this Decision, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is approved, on behalf of the EU. The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements : the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system . In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties. The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between: the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States. Having the EU approve the Convention would : reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention. How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation : the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention , and vice versa. Declaration on insurance contracts : a declaration seeks to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions . The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation. A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration. Territorial provisions : the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 4.12.2014. docs: title: Decision 2014/887 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32014D0887 title: OJ L 353 10.12.2014, p. 0005 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2014:353:TOC
        other
        • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: REDING Viviane
        procedure/Modified legal basis
        Old
        Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
        New
        Rules of Procedure EP 159
        procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
        Old
        JURI/8/00351
        New
        • JURI/8/00351
        procedure/final/url
        Old
        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32014D0887
        New
        https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32014D0887
        procedure/subject
        Old
        • 6.20.05 Multilateral economic and trade agreements and relations
        • 7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
        New
        6.20.05
        Multilateral and plurilateral economic and trade agreements and relations
        7.40.02
        Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
        activities/0/docs/0/celexid
        CELEX:52014PC0046:EN
        activities/0/docs/0/celexid
        CELEX:52014PC0046:EN
        activities/5/docs/0
        url
        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24899&l=en
        type
        Results of vote in Parliament
        title
        Results of vote in Parliament
        activities/5/type
        Old
        Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
        New
        Results of vote in Parliament
        links/European Commission/title
        Old
        PreLex
        New
        EUR-Lex
        activities/9/text
        • PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          NON-LEGISLATIVE ACT: Council Decision 2014/887/EU on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          BACKGROUND: the European Union is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions.

          The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘the Convention’) makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and to increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions.

          In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement will be respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court will be capable of recognition and enforcement in international cases.

          Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Integration Organisations such as the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

          Given that the Convention affects Union secondary legislation relating to jurisdiction based on the choice of the parties and to the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, which is to be replaced as of 10 January 2015 by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, it is in the interests of the EU to approve the Convention.

          When signing the Convention, the Union declared under Article 30 of the Convention that it exercises competence over all the matters governed by the Convention. Consequently, the Member States shall be bound by the Convention by virtue of its approval by the Union.

          It is now necessary for the Convention to be approved on behalf of the European Union.

          CONTENT: under this Decision, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is approved, on behalf of the EU.

          The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system.

          In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

          The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

          • the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and
          • the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

          Having the EU approve the Convention would :

          • reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention
          • would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation: the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention, and vice versa.

          Declaration on insurance contracts: a declaration seeks to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation.

          A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration.

          Territorial provisions: the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

          ENTRY INTO FORCE: 4.12.2014.

        activities/9
        date
        2014-12-10T00:00:00
        docs
        type
        Final act published in Official Journal
        procedure/final
        url
        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32014D0887
        title
        Decision 2014/887
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal
        New
        Procedure completed
        activities/2/committees/3/shadows/2
        group
        ALDE
        name
        MARINHO E PINTO António
        activities/3/committees/3/shadows/2
        group
        ALDE
        name
        MARINHO E PINTO António
        activities/4/committees/3/shadows/2
        group
        ALDE
        name
        MARINHO E PINTO António
        committees/3/shadows/2
        group
        ALDE
        name
        MARINHO E PINTO António
        activities/5/docs/0/text
        • The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 52, with 10 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Parliament gave its consent to the Convention.

        activities/6
        date
        2014-12-04T00:00:00
        body
        CSL
        type
        Council Meeting
        council
        Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
        meeting_id
        3354
        activities/7
        date
        2014-12-04T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        End of procedure in Parliament
        activities/8
        date
        2014-12-04T00:00:00
        body
        EP/CSL
        type
        Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Awaiting final decision
        New
        Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal
        activities/5/docs
        • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2014-0055 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0055/2014
        activities/5/type
        Old
        Vote scheduled
        New
        Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
        New
        Awaiting final decision
        activities/5/type
        Old
        Vote in plenary scheduled
        New
        Vote scheduled
        activities/2/committees/3/shadows/1
        group
        ECR
        name
        DZHAMBAZKI Angel
        activities/3/committees/3/shadows/1
        group
        ECR
        name
        DZHAMBAZKI Angel
        activities/4/committees/3/shadows/1
        group
        ECR
        name
        DZHAMBAZKI Angel
        activities/4/docs/0/text
        • The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Members considered that the European Union (EU) should participate in this convention as it would ensure greater legal certainty for international exclusive choice-of-court agreements and thus foster trade between participating States. They recommended therefore that the Parliament should give its consent to this convention.

          They also called on the Parliament to approve the Council's draft decision, which exempts consumer insurance contracts from the convention, thus preventing consumers from unwittingly agreeing to a choice-of-court clause. The declaration annexed to the draft decision formalises that exemption, and also preserves freedom for major commercial insurance and re-insurance contracts.

        activities/5/date
        Old
        2014-12-16T00:00:00
        New
        2014-11-25T00:00:00
        activities/5/type
        Old
        Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
        New
        Vote in plenary scheduled
        committees/3/shadows/1
        group
        ECR
        name
        DZHAMBAZKI Angel
        activities/4/docs
        • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2014-0034&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0034/2014
        activities/0/docs/0/text
        • PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

          ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act.

          BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations.

          Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

          The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

          Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

          The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

          LEGAL BASIS: Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

          CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system.

          In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

          The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

          (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

          (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

          How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation: the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention, and vice versa.

          Declaration on insurance contracts: the Brussels I Regulation (Section 3) provides for special protective jurisdiction in matters of insurance aimed at protecting the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary) and the economic interests of the general public of the place where the weaker party is located. The insured party, as plaintiff, therefore has a choice of suing the insurer at several places, including the place where the insured party is domiciled; the insurer, as plaintiff, can sue the insured party in principle only where the latter is domiciled. These protective jurisdiction rules are based on the premise that the insured party is always the weaker party, even if he acts as a commercial operator in B2B relations. There is no change to this presumption in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). For this reason, the possibility of the parties concluding the choice of court agreement has been limited (Article 13 of the Regulation). The Convention on its part applies to insurance matters without limiting party autonomy to conclude choice of court agreements. The only substantive limitation results from Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention which excludes insurance contracts entered into by private persons as consumers. This is partially contrary to the regime established in the Brussels I Regulation insofar as, for instance, the Convention would apply to insurance contracts concluded by SMEs. Once the Convention is approved by the EU, certain insurance contracts which now fall under the Brussels I Regulation, e.g. contracts between an EU policyholder and the EU branch of an insurer with headquarters outside the EU (Article 9(2) of the Regulation) would fall within the scope of the Convention (Article 26(6), in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Convention). Therefore, if the Convention were to be concluded without excluding insurance contracts, there would be a lack of parallelism with the protective policy established in the Brussels I Regulation which allows the insured party to sue an EU insurer (or a EU branch of third State insurer) in his own place of domicile irrespective of any other jurisdiction available under a choice of court agreement.

          Other technical provisions have been included for the EU to exclude certain types of insurance matters falling within the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The carve-out is as small as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of weaker parties in insurance contracts as reflected in the protective jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Regulation.

        activities/4
        date
        2014-11-14T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
        committees
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Awaiting committee decision
        New
        Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
        activities/3
        date
        2014-11-11T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
        committees
        procedure/Modified legal basis
        Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
        activities/1/docs/0/text
        • PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

          ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act. 

          BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations.

          Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

          The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

          Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

          The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

          CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system.

          In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

          The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

          (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

          (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

          How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation: the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention, and vice versa.

          Declaration on insurance contracts: a declaration has been added to the proposal which includes a series of technical measures aiming to exclude certain types of insurance contracts from the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The exclusion should be limited to what is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties (in principle, the policy holder, the insured or beneficiary) in insurance contracts, as is defined in the rules on protective jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation.

          A second declaration stipulated that the Union should at the same time make a unilateral declaration stating that it may, at a later stage in light of the experience acquired in the application of the Convention, reassess the need to maintain its declaration.

          Territorial provisions: the United Kingdom and Ireland are bound by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and are therefore taking part in the adoption and application of this Decision. On the other hand, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

        activities/2
        date
        2014-10-23T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
        committees
        procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
        JURI/8/00351
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Preparatory phase in Parliament
        New
        Awaiting committee decision
        activities/0/docs/0/text
        • PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

          ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act. 

          BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations.

          Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

          The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

          Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

          The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

          LEGAL BASIS: Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

          CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system.

          In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

          The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

          (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

          (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

          How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation: the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention, and vice versa.

          Declaration on insurance contracts: the Brussels I Regulation (Section 3) provides for special protective jurisdiction in matters of insurance aimed at protecting the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary) and the economic interests of the general public of the place where the weaker party is located. The insured party, as plaintiff, therefore has a choice of suing the insurer at several places, including the place where the insured party is domiciled; the insurer, as plaintiff, can sue the insured party in principle only where the latter is domiciled. These protective jurisdiction rules are based on the premise that the insured party is always the weaker party, even if he acts as a commercial operator in B2B relations. There is no change to this presumption in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). For this reason, the possibility of the parties concluding the choice of court agreement has been limited (Article 13 of the Regulation). The Convention on its part applies to insurance matters without limiting party autonomy to conclude choice of court agreements. The only substantive limitation results from Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention which excludes insurance contracts entered into by private persons as consumers. This is partially contrary to the regime established in the Brussels I Regulation insofar as, for instance, the Convention would apply to insurance contracts concluded by SMEs. Once the Convention is approved by the EU, certain insurance contracts which now fall under the Brussels I Regulation, e.g. contracts between an EU policyholder and the EU branch of an insurer with headquarters outside the EU (Article 9(2) of the Regulation) would fall within the scope of the Convention (Article 26(6), in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Convention). Therefore, if the Convention were to be concluded without excluding insurance contracts, there would be a lack of parallelism with the protective policy established in the Brussels I Regulation which allows the insured party to sue an EU insurer (or a EU branch of third State insurer) in his own place of domicile irrespective of any other jurisdiction available under a choice of court agreement.

          Other technical provisions have been included for the EU to exclude certain types of insurance matters falling within the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The carve-out is as small as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of weaker parties in insurance contracts as reflected in the protective jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Regulation.

        activities/0/docs/0/type
        Old
        Legislative proposal published
        New
        Initial legislative proposal published
        activities/0/type
        Old
        Legislative proposal published
        New
        Initial legislative proposal published
        activities/1
        date
        2014-09-23T00:00:00
        docs
        url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=12052%2F14&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Legislative proposal published title: 12052/2014
        body
        EC
        commission
        DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice Commissioner: REDING Viviane
        type
        Legislative proposal published
        activities/1
        date
        2014-12-16T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
        procedure/instrument
        Decision
        committees/3/shadows
        • group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
        committees/3/date
        2014-09-03T00:00:00
        committees/3/rapporteur
        • group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
        committees/4/rapporteur/0/mepref
        Old
        4de186300fb8127435bdc007
        New
        4f1ad248b819f27595000016
        committees/4/rapporteur/1/mepref
        Old
        4de187fe0fb8127435bdc298
        New
        4f1adaa9b819f207b3000083
        committees/4
        body
        EP
        responsible
        True
        committee
        JURI
        date
        committee_full
        Legal Affairs
        rapporteur
        committees/3/date
        • 2014-02-17T00:00:00
        • 2014-03-19T00:00:00
        committees/3/rapporteur
        • group: EPP name: LEHNE Klaus-Heiner
        • group: S&D name: REGNER Evelyn
        activities/0/docs/0/url
        Old
        http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046
        New
        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046
        activities/0/docs/0/url
        Old
        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046
        New
        http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046
        committees/3/date
        Old
        2014-02-17T00:00:00
        New
        • 2014-02-17T00:00:00
        • 2014-03-19T00:00:00
        committees/3/rapporteur/1
        group
        S&D
        name
        REGNER Evelyn
        activities/0/docs/0/text
        • PURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.

          PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.

          ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Council may adopt the act only if Parliament has given its consent to the act. 

          BACKGROUND: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law makes a valuable contribution to promoting party autonomy in international commercial transactions and increasing the predictability of judicial solutions in such transactions. In particular, the Convention ensures the necessary legal certainty for the parties that their choice of court agreement is respected and that a judgment given by the chosen court is eligible for recognition and enforcement in cross-border situations.

          Article 29 of the Convention allows Regional Economic Organisations such us the European Union to sign, accept, approve or accede to the Convention.

          The Convention affects Union secondary legislation on jurisdiction based on choice by the parties and the recognition and enforcement of the resulting judgments, in particular Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (to be replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as of 10 January 2015), it is in the interests of the European Union to approve the Hague Convention so that it enters into force on the same date of the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

          Moreover, the Union, should, when approving the Convention, make the declaration allowed under Article 21 excluding from the scope of the Convention insurance contracts in general, subject to defined exceptions in order to preserve the protective jurisdictional rules available to the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary in insurance contracts under Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The exclusion should be limited to whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the weaker parties in insurance contracts.

          The Convention was signed by the Union on 1 April 2009 on the basis of the Council Decision 2009/397/EC. It is now necessary to approve the Convention on behalf of the EU.

          LEGAL BASIS: Article 81(2), in conjunction with point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

          CONTENT: under this proposal, the Council is requested to adopt a decision to approve, on behalf of the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

          Having the EU approve the Convention would reduce legal uncertainty for EU companies trading outside the EU by ensuring that choice of court agreements included in their contracts are respected and that judgments issued by the courts designated in such agreements would be eligible for recognition and enforcement in the other Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          Overall, approval of the Convention by the EU would complement the realisation of the aims underlying the EU rules on the prorogation of jurisdiction, by creating a harmonised set of rules within the EU in respect of third states which will become Contracting Parties to the Convention.

          The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is designed to offer greater legal certainty and predictability for parties involved in business-to-business agreements and international litigation by creating an optional worldwide judicial dispute resolution mechanism alternative to the existing arbitration system.

          In particular, the objective of the Convention is to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial cooperation by introducing uniform rules on jurisdiction based on exclusive choice of court agreements and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the chosen courts in its Contracting Parties.

          The Convention seeks to achieve a balance between:

          (i) the need to guarantee to the parties that only the courts chosen by them will hear the case and that the resulting judgment will be recognised and enforced abroad, and

          (ii) the need to allow States to pursue some aspects of their public policy, related in particular to the protection of weaker parties, protection against serious unfairness in particular situations and guaranteed respect for some grounds of exclusive jurisdiction of States.

          How the Convention relates to the Brussels I Regulation: the Convention affects the application of the Brussels I Regulation if at least one of the parties is resident in a Contracting State to the Convention. The Convention will prevail over the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation except if both parties are EU residents or come from third states, not Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Convention will give EU business the necessary legal certainty that their choice of court agreements in favour of a court outside the EU are respected in the EU, and that agreements in favour of a court in the EU are respected in third States. It will also ensure that EU businesses can be confident that a judgment given by the chosen court in the EU is eligible for recognition and enforcement in third states, Contracting Parties to the Convention, and vice versa.

          Declaration on insurance contracts: the Brussels I Regulation (Section 3) provides for special protective jurisdiction in matters of insurance aimed at protecting the weaker party (the policyholder, the insured party or a beneficiary) and the economic interests of the general public of the place where the weaker party is located. The insured party, as plaintiff, therefore has a choice of suing the insurer at several places, including the place where the insured party is domiciled; the insurer, as plaintiff, can sue the insured party in principle only where the latter is domiciled. These protective jurisdiction rules are based on the premise that the insured party is always the weaker party, even if he acts as a commercial operator in B2B relations. There is no change to this presumption in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). For this reason, the possibility of the parties concluding the choice of court agreement has been limited (Article 13 of the Regulation). The Convention on its part applies to insurance matters without limiting party autonomy to conclude choice of court agreements. The only substantive limitation results from Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention which excludes insurance contracts entered into by private persons as consumers. This is partially contrary to the regime established in the Brussels I Regulation insofar as, for instance, the Convention would apply to insurance contracts concluded by SMEs. Once the Convention is approved by the EU, certain insurance contracts which now fall under the Brussels I Regulation, e.g. contracts between an EU policyholder and the EU branch of an insurer with headquarters outside the EU (Article 9(2) of the Regulation) would fall within the scope of the Convention (Article 26(6), in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Convention). Therefore, if the Convention were to be concluded without excluding insurance contracts, there would be a lack of parallelism with the protective policy established in the Brussels I Regulation which allows the insured party to sue an EU insurer (or a EU branch of third State insurer) in his own place of domicile irrespective of any other jurisdiction available under a choice of court agreement.

          Other technical provisions have been included for the EU to exclude certain types of insurance matters falling within the scope of the Convention, without laying down additional conditions. The carve-out is as small as is needed to achieve the goal of protecting the interests of weaker parties in insurance contracts as reflected in the protective jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I Regulation.

        committees/3/date
        2014-02-17T00:00:00
        committees/3/rapporteur
        • group: EPP name: LEHNE Klaus-Heiner
        activities/0/commission/0
        DG
        Commissioner
        REDING Viviane
        activities/0/docs/0/url
        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0046
        other/0
        body
        EC
        dg
        commissioner
        REDING Viviane
        activities
        • date: 2014-01-30T00:00:00 docs: title: COM(2014)0046 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52014PC0046:EN type: Legislative proposal published body: EC commission:
        committees
        • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs committee: ECON
        • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO
        • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA
        • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
        links
        European Commission
        other
          procedure
          reference
          2014/0021(NLE)
          title
          Hague Convention (2005) on Choice of Court Agreements
          legal_basis
          stage_reached
          Preparatory phase in Parliament
          subtype
          Consent by Parliament
          type
          NLE - Non-legislative enactments
          subject