Preach what you practice: The allocation of claims in cross-border multi-party disputes

The system for establishing jurisdiction in cross-border cases within the European Union, as first established through the 1968 Brussels Convention and carried over in the Brussels I and Brussels Ibis Regulations, is predominantly built on the logic of two-party proceedings. Claims are allocated to the competent courts on an individual basis, subject to the presumption that the defendant should in principle be sued at the place where he is domiciled. The paper explores whether and to what extent this “Brussels Regime” is apt to accommodate multi-party disputes in the light of those premises. In particular, the paper scrutinizes the jurisdictional design of the Brussels Regime and explores the ramifications of that design for the allocation of adjudicatory authority in the context of multi-party proceedings, including collective redress, under Brussels Ibis. Moreover, a potential direction for change is suggested that takes into account the system on which Brussels I bis is based and may be more suitable to cater to the needs of collective redress and other types of multi-party proceedings than the current status quo allows.