Edited by Peter Mankowski
Chapter 15: Overriding mandatory provisions and choice of court agreements
This chapter offers some arguments against the use of overriding mandatory provisions to invalidate otherwise valid choice of court agreements under the prorogation regime established in the Brussels Ibis Regulation. It presents these arguments from the angle of both the intentions of the EU legislators and the directions provided by the CJEU in past judgments. It concludes that the existing uncertainty about the precise relationship between choice of court agreements and overriding mandatory provisions negatively affects the proper functioning of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and its objectives such as predictability, certainty of law and the uniformity of the legal treatment of choice of court agreements throughout EU Member States, not to mention the potential for forum shopping for the party who wants to challenge a choice of court agreement for purely strategic reasons.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.