The Brussels I Regulation Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
General information
The Brussels I Regulation is called by the Commission as “matrix” of judicial cooperation in civil and
commercial matters. The main aim of it was to substitute the Brussels I Convention with some mutually
accepted changes.
The Regulation is composed of 76 articles divided into eight chapters:
I – Scope of application
II – Jurisdiction
III – Recognition and enforcement
IV – Authentic instruments and court settlements
V – General Provisions
VI – Transitional Provisions
VII – Relations with other instruments
VIII – Final Provisions courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters.
The Scope of application
We distinguish:
a) Material scope of application – article 1 of the Regulation – civil and commercial matters.
b) Territorial scope of application – domicile of the defendant in a Member State (all without
Denmark).
c) Temporal scope of application – proceedings after 1. 3. 2002.
The Brussels I regulation shall be applied only where the international element is involved. The
international element usually consists in different nationalities of parties, but it can consist in many other
circumstances of the case. According to ECJ the interpretation of the international element involved shall
be extensive.
Owusu case
On 10 October 1997, Mr Owusu (‘the claimant’), a British national domiciled in the United Kingdom, suffered a very
serious accident during a holiday in Jamaica. He walked into the sea, and when the water was up to his waist, he dived
in, struck his head against a submerged sand bank and sustained a fracture of his fifth cervical vertebra, which
rendered him tetraplegic. Following that accident, Mr Owusu brought an action in the United Kingdom for breach of
contract against Mr Jackson, who is also domiciled in that State. Mr Jackson had let to Mr Owusu a holiday villa in
Mammee Bay (Jamaica). Mr Owusu claims that the contract, which provided that he would have access to a private
beach, contained an implied term that the beach would be reasonably safe or free from hidden dangers.
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
General information
The Brussels I Regulation is called by the Commission as “matrix” of judicial cooperation in civil and
commercial matters. The main aim of it was to substitute the Brussels I Convention with some mutually
accepted changes.
The Regulation is composed of 76 articles divided into eight chapters:
I – Scope of application
II – Jurisdiction
III – Recognition and enforcement
IV – Authentic instruments and court settlements
V – General Provisions
VI – Transitional Provisions
VII – Relations with other instruments
VIII – Final Provisions courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters.
The Scope of application
We distinguish:
a) Material scope of application – article 1 of the Regulation – civil and commercial matters.
b) Territorial scope of application – domicile of the defendant in a Member State (all without
Denmark).
c) Temporal scope of application – proceedings after 1. 3. 2002.
The Brussels I regulation shall be applied only where the international element is involved. The
international element usually consists in different nationalities of parties, but it can consist in many other
circumstances of the case. According to ECJ the interpretation of the international element involved shall
be extensive.
Owusu case
On 10 October 1997, Mr Owusu (‘the claimant’), a British national domiciled in the United Kingdom, suffered a very
serious accident during a holiday in Jamaica. He walked into the sea, and when the water was up to his waist, he dived
in, struck his head against a submerged sand bank and sustained a fracture of his fifth cervical vertebra, which
rendered him tetraplegic. Following that accident, Mr Owusu brought an action in the United Kingdom for breach of
contract against Mr Jackson, who is also domiciled in that State. Mr Jackson had let to Mr Owusu a holiday villa in
Mammee Bay (Jamaica). Mr Owusu claims that the contract, which provided that he would have access to a private
beach, contained an implied term that the beach would be reasonably safe or free from hidden dangers.
