The CJEU this morning has entirely and in succinct fashion confirmed the Opinion of Emiliou AG which I discuss here.
[30] that the contract between the parties, both domiciled in the same Member State, is meant to be performed either in another Member State or a third State, by its nature triggers the question which court might have jurisdiction (reference to CJEU Inkreal) and sufficiently qualifies as the international element required to trigger Brussels Ia. Like the AG, the CJEU also refers to the use of the wording in A18(1) ‘regardless of the domicile of the other party’ to corroborate that finding.
[35]-[36] the Court like the AG also warns against a symmetric application of non-BIa authority to Brussels at least one that is assumed too readily.
Confirmation of the consumer title assigning not just national but territorial jurisdiction is backed up ia by reference to CJEU Allianz (on the insurance title).
After the solid AG Opinion, an equally solid judgment.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, 2.22 ff and 2.233 ff.
https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1817834126927446343