The relationship between the provisions of the HCCCA and other EU regulations – and therefore with the Brussels I regulation – is governed by Article 26, paragraph 6, of the Convention. As a result, the Brussels I regulation prevails over the HCCCA when both parties are domiciled in an EU contracting state. The current scope of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Judicial Agreements is therefore limited to the exclusive choice of judicial agreements governing relations between an EU Member State (with the exception of Denmark) and Mexico. Considering that such enhanced cooperation requires, among other things, an international legal order that guarantees security and guarantees the exclusive choice of judicial agreements between parties to commercial transactions and regulates the recognition and enforcement of decisions resulting from proceedings based on such agreements, judicial comparisons (judicial transactions) than a court of a contracting state designated in an exclusive court agreement. , or which have been concluded before that court during a proceeding and are enforceable in the same way as a judgment in the Member State of origin, are executed in the same way as a judgment under this Convention. (d) an exclusive court decision as part of a contract is treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. The validity of the exclusive decision cannot be challenged solely because the contract is not valid. A state may declare that its courts may refuse recognition or enforcement of a court decision in another contracting state if the parties were domiciled in the required state and if the relationship between the parties and all other relevant elements of the dispute, the location of the chosen jurisdiction, was related only to the required state. The Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Decisions essentially defines the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of a contracting state whose jurisdiction is the subject of an exclusive forum election agreement, effectively concluded in accordance with the Convention. This exclusive jurisdiction must be respected by the other jurisdictions of the contracting states. 1. In this agreement, “judgment” refers to any decision on a court`s reasoned benefits, regardless of the reference it may have, including an order or order, and a finding of costs or expenses by the court (including a court official), provided the decision refers to a decision on the merits that can be recognized or enforced under this convention.
A provisional protection measure is not a judgment. 2. For the purposes of this agreement, a corporation or person other than a natural person is considered to be resident in the state – (a) “exclusive forum agreement,” an agreement between two or more parties that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) and intended to resolve disputes that are or may arise in connection with a particular relationship. , the courts of a contracting state or one or more specific courts of a contracting state, excluding the jurisdiction of other jurisdictions; (b) a for agreement that designates the courts of a contracting state or one or more specific courts of a contracting state is considered exclusive, unless the parties have expressly provided for it otherwise; (c) an exclusive justice agreement must be concluded or documented; (a) the original court has been appointed to a non-exclusive court agreement; (b) there is no judgment of another court before which proceedings could be initiated under the non-exclusive judicial agreement, nor a pending proceeding between the same parties in another jurisdiction for the same reason; (c) the original court was first seized.