Advocate General Emiliou’s Opinion on Case C-799/24: Res Judicata Effect Applies Despite Breach of Art 31(2) Brussels Ia

Key Takeaways

• AG Emiliou rules interim jurisdiction decisions are “judgments” under Art 36(1).
• Recognition required even when decision breaches exclusive choice‑of‑court clause.
• Decline‑jurisdiction duty arises only once jurisdiction is no longer contestable.
• Broad “judgment” interpretation aims to prevent parallel proceedings and conflicting rulings.
• Critics warn this may encourage “race to the courts” tactics.

Pulse Analysis

The Brussels Ia Regulation seeks to streamline jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments across the EU, granting parties the freedom to select a designated court. However, the definition of what constitutes a “judgment” has been contentious, especially when courts issue interim rulings that address jurisdiction without resolving the merits. By classifying such interim decisions as judgments, the CJEU’s evolving jurisprudence expands the scope of recognisable rulings, reinforcing the principle of mutual trust among Member States and aiming to curb fragmented litigation.

Emiliou’s opinion leans heavily on precedent from the Maersk and Gothaer cases, arguing that procedural decisions cannot be excluded from the judgment concept. He balances two competing objectives: safeguarding exclusive choice‑of‑court agreements under Article 31(2) and preventing parallel proceedings that could produce conflicting outcomes. While he affirms that recognition applies regardless of a decision’s finality, he limits the obligation to decline jurisdiction under Article 29(3) to moments when the first‑seised court’s jurisdiction is no longer disputable. This nuanced approach preserves the integrity of the lis pendens rules without entirely undermining contractual autonomy.

The broader impact is twofold. Practitioners must now anticipate that even early jurisdictional rulings may bind other courts, potentially prompting claimants to file “race to the courts” strategies to secure a favourable interim judgment. At the same time, the European Commission’s recent report signals a willingness to revisit the Brussels Ia framework, possibly elevating lis pendens violations to a ground for refusal of recognition. Whether the CJEU will continue this expansive reading remains uncertain, but Emiliou’s opinion undeniably pushes the EU towards tighter procedural coordination and a re‑examination of choice‑of‑court protections.