European Commission consults on Brussels Ia Regulation's rules on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments
In September 2026, the European Commission launched a public consultation and call for evidence to assess potential amendments to the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). The Regulation is a key pillar of the EU's private international law framework. It sets out uniform rules governing Member State court jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In this article, we highlight key changes the Commission is exploring.
Is no change a real possibility?
The Commission is considering three policy options for the Regulation: no change; targeted clarifications and simplification; or comprehensive amendment and substantial reform.
In a 2025 report, the Commission concluded that the Regulation is a "highly successful instrument", which "largely meets its goals of legal certainty and streamlined enforcement". Given the "general satisfaction" with the Regulation's operation, the Commission indicated that any modifications or reforms must "respond to real practical difficulties" and should not undermine the Regulation's "well-functioning system". It is at least possible, therefore, that the current consultation will lead to no change or only light touch reform. However, we regard this outcome as unlikely, given the Commission's statement that this would allow known issues to "persist and most likely intensify".
Potential changes
The 2025 report identified several areas as ripe for simplification, clarification, or modernisation. These challenges arise from the complexity of certain existing rules, as well as the need to adapt parts of the Regulation to a rapidly evolving legal and technological environment, and addressing litigation costs.
Key questions raised by the consultation include:
- Should jurisdiction rules be extended to non-EU domiciled defendants?
For defendants domiciled in England, any reform in this area would likely have the biggest impact. Currently, Member States' national laws govern jurisdiction over non-EU defendants, rather than the Regulation, save in limited scenarios. According to the Commission's 2025 report, this creates an uneven playing field, where parties in some Member States can sue non-EU defendants under a broad array of jurisdictional grounds, while parties in other Member States face more limited options. The fact that the Regulation allows for recognition and enforcement of any resulting judgment throughout the EU, regardless of how jurisdiction was established, exacerbates this disparity.
Extending the Regulation's rule on jurisdiction to third-country domiciled defendants could potentially level the playing field. If pursued, this reform could also address a perceived disparity in business and human rights litigation, where a claimant may want to sue a non-EU subsidiary at the seat of the EU-domiciled parent company. At present, different Member States approach the establishment of jurisdiction over the third-country subsidiary in different ways; reform could provide a uniform approach. - Are current rules sufficient for collective actions?
The Commission also questions the Regulation's interaction with EU legislation on collective actions, including the Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (RAD). One of the RAD's aims is to achieve a high level of consumer protection by enabling representative actions to be brought on behalf of consumers. However, the Brussels Ia Regulation does not contain specific rules for collective redress.
The Commission considers that the lack of specific provisions places unnecessary burdens on claimants and undermines consumers' ability to seek collective redress. The Commission notes in the 2025 report that claimants often have to commence proceedings in more than one court before applying to consolidate the claims. Representative entities do not benefit from the right provided to consumers in Article 18 to commence proceedings where the consumer is domiciled. Instead, representatives will usually rely on Article 7(2), which allows them to commence proceedings in tortious matters where the harmful event occurred. However, in collective actions, this assessment has to be undertaken for each claim irrespective of assignment or consolidation. The Commission considers the current position increases costs and creates a risk of irreconcilable judgments, and invites feedback on how it might be improved. - Do the rules on provisional measures (such as freezing orders) need clarification or simplification?
The Regulation currently excludes purely ex parte provisional measures (that is provisional measures such as freezing orders of which the respondent has not been provided notice) from cross-border enforcement. While this protects respondents' rights to be heard, the Commission's 2025 report identifies practical problems: in Austria and the Czech Republic, for example, most provisional measures are ex parte by default, meaning they cannot benefit from cross-border enforcement under the Regulation. The very purpose of provisional measures - quick and efficient enforcement - is undermined where applicants must choose between the surprise effect inherent in ex parte proceedings and cross-border enforceability. The consultation could result in ex parte measures being brought within the enforcement regime.
- Is it necessary to clarify the arbitration exclusion?
Arbitration was always excluded from EU rules, including in earlier versions of the Regulation. However, the Brussels Ia Regulation includes additional provisions designed to avoid overlap with the New York Convention, which provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Despite this, the Commission's 2025 report highlighted the uneven application of the arbitration exclusion by Member States. The Regulation provides that recognition of a judgment may be refused if it is irreconcilable with a judgment already given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State where recognition is sought. In London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association (C-700/20), the CJEU ruled that a judgment confirming an arbitral award can constitute a judgment for these purposes and, therefore, block recognition of an "irreconcilable" judgment from another Member State. However, this is only the case where the decision in the award could have been made by a Member State court without contravening the Regulation. This is complex and, according to the Commission's 2025 report, the courts of eight different Member States appear to be applying the arbitration exception in a way that is "at odds" with the London Steam-Ship decision.
It appears, therefore, that the Commission may look to clarify the operation of the arbitration exception. However, it did not suggest how this might be achieved, although it does invite views in the consultation. In the 2025 report, the Commission did suggest that the introduction of a lis pendens rule in relation to arbitration proceedings, to give a clear rule of priority, would likely reduce, and potentially eliminate, the risk of judgments confirming arbitral awards clashing with judgments handed down in parallel litigation. - Is it necessary to clarify the rules relating to jurisdiction over "matters relating to a contract" and "place of performance"?
Article 7(1) of the Regulation provides for special jurisdiction in disputes relating to a contract. However, the Regulation does not provide any definition of contractual matters. The CJEU has interpreted "matters relating to a contract" under Article 7(1) broadly, extending the concept to claims linked to contracts that are void or between parties other than those to the proceedings, creating uncertainty for parties who may find themselves sued in the place of performance of a contract of which they were unaware.
Additionally, determining the place of contractual performance remains difficult, particularly in relation to multiple places of performance, multiple obligations and digital services. The Commission reports that national courts continue to seek guidance from the CJEU where fact patterns deviate from the CJEU's case law. The Commission is therefore likely to consider whether clarification should be provided through amendment of the Regulation, rather than organically through additional CJEU case law.
The consultation and call for evidence close on 24 November 2026, with indicative planning targeting legislative proposals for Q4 2027.
Authors: Philip Linton, Partner and Edvin Morell, Trainee Solicitor.
