EU Commission's report released: signalling a shift towards Brussels I tris?
On 2 June 2025, the European Commission released its long-awaited report on the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation (so-called “Brussels Recast”). Accompanied by a comprehensive Staff Working Document, the report offers an in-depth look at how the Regulation is functioning in practice. Overall, the Regulation is considered a “highly successful instrument” that has enhanced legal certainty, facilitated access to justice and reinforced judicial cooperation among Member States.
However, the report also highlights that some aspects remain overly complex and could benefit from further clarification and simplification. This indicates that we may soon see further legislative developments aimed at streamlining and modernising the existing framework. For businesses, clearer definitions and streamlined jurisdiction rules could reduce legal uncertainty and costs, particularly in complex cases involving digital business models, numerous jurisdictions and/or multiple parties. However, this may also increase litigation risks, especially in consumer-facing sectors and in case it could lead to increased involvement of third-party funders in the EU.
Key areas under the microscope
The report identifies several critical areas for reform to clarify, simplify, and modernise the existing framework.
Collective Redress
As anticipated, the report particularly addresses collective redress. The current Regulation does not set out specific rules for collective redress or mass actions, leaving these cases to be handled by general rules on jurisdiction, which have been questioned for their fitness in practice although recent case law from the CJEU has offered some guidance. Particularly in areas like data privacy, competition, product liability, or ESG the lack of appropriate rules can lead to jurisdictional fragmentation, rising costs and the risk of irreconcilable judgments. Consequently, the Commission suggests that a future review of the Regulation could address whether current jurisdiction rules satisfactorily accommodate collective consumer claims.
Digitalisation
Also more generally, the Commission observes that the Regulation may need to be adapted to the rise of digital business models, which poses challenges to connecting disputes to a “place” or “jurisdiction”. In addition, the report points out that disputes over digital content increasingly involve questions on jurisdiction and enforceability, sometimes leading to parallel actions in several Member States.
Scope
The paper calls for clear guidance on what counts as a cross-border dispute that should fall within the ambit of the Regulation and when an issue should be deemed “civil and commercial” under Article 1 of the Regulation. It also recommends introducing clear rules relating to the exclusion of arbitration from the Regulation’s scope to avoid potential conflicts between arbitral awards (or judgments confirming them) and other judgments.
Definitions
The Commission inter alia suggests revisiting the definition of “court or tribunal” and streamlining the enforcement of provisional measures, especially those granted without notice, in cross-border cases.
Extension to defendants based outside the EU
As during the last reform process, it is being discussed to extend parts of the rules on jurisdiction to defendants based outside the EU. For the time being, the Regulation only applies to such defendants in certain scenarios (e.g. jurisdiction clauses designating EU courts), which the Commission considers insufficient for various reasons (particularly in case of business and human rights litigation).
Special grounds for jurisdiction
With regard to contractual disputes Article 7(1), the report raises concerns about the inconsistent interpretation of the term “matters relating to a contract”. The Commission also identified challenges in determining the place of performance.
Similar problems exist according to the report regarding the location of damage in case of non-contractual disputes under Article 7(2), particularly in cases of pure financial loss. The so-called “mosaic” principle under the Shevill doctrine is also seen as problematic in case of the violation of personality rights as it may lead to a multiplication of fora.
The Commission thus recommends to simplify and modernise Article 7(1) and (2).
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
The report stresses that Articles 17 et seqq., setting out jurisdiction rules over consumer contracts, raised most questions in practice. Against this background, the Commission particularly highlights the need for clearer definitions regarding who qualifies as a “consumer” and what it means for commercial activities to be considered “directed” towards a consumer in a particular Member State (which is a condition of application of the consumer contracts protective rules).
Exclusive jurisdiction for patent proceedings
While the report acknowledges that the rules on exclusive jurisdiction in Article 24 generally seem to work well in practice, the Commission addressed criticism relating to the extension of the scope of application of Article 24(4) to proceedings concerned with the validity of patents where the issue is raised as a defence. Moreover, the Commission recommends adapting the provision’s wording to the CJEU’s landmark judgment in BSH Hausgeräte, in which the court confirmed that courts in the EU Member States have jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning patents from other EU Member States and even third-party states.
Recognition and enforcement
Finally, the Commission concludes that Articles 36 et seqq. generally work well in practice, but identified some technical issues that could be addressed in a possible reform process. These relate, in particular, to the interaction between the grounds for refusal in Article 45 and the rules on pending actions.
The path towards Brussels I tris?
In the coming months, the Commission will launch a stakeholder consultation as part of its formal review of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It will gather feedback from businesses, legal experts, consumer groups and Member States about practical challenges and unclear areas in the current rules and will publish an impact assessment in that regard.
It remains to be seen whether changes to jurisdiction clause rules will be envisaged, in light of the recent Lastre case of the CJEU (C-537/23), which has confirmed the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, but only where they can be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, leaving a number of questions open (read more in our article).
If the review shows that changes are needed, the Commission will propose targeted legislative amendments or even a further recast of the Regulation. Any new legislative measures will aim to resolve practical problems while preserving the Regulation’s core benefits of legal certainty, predictability and strong judicial cooperation.
The potential reforms to the Brussels I Recast Regulation signal a need to prepare for a shifting landscape in the jurisdiction rules applicable to cross-border disputes. Clearer definitions and streamlined jurisdiction rules could reduce legal uncertainty and costs, particularly in complex cases involving digital business models, numerous jurisdictions and/or multiple parties. However, this may also increase litigation risks, especially in consumer-facing sectors and in case it could lead to increased involvement of third-party funders in the EU.
