EUPillar Keyturn Investments Limited. Roj: STS 430/2013

Summary

Conflict of jurisdiction based on the application of Brussels I Regulation provisions Key facts: Commercial matters case with a plurality of defendants. One of them is domiciled in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff alleges the application of art. 2 of Brussels I Regulation (jurisdiction based on the defendant´s domicile). Court decision: the court comes to the conclusion that there is not a unique jurisdiction exclusively competent to decide on the case according to art. 22 of Brussels I Regulation. At the end, the court points out that Spanish courts are competent to decide on the case according to art. 24 of that Regulation (the defendant stood trial in Spain and did not oppose to the Spanish jurisdiction which meant an implied submission). The court makes a correct interpretation of Brussels I Regulation provisions on prorogation of jurisdiction according to which apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of the Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction (provided that the appearance was not entered to contest the jurisdiction, which is not the case). Appeal history (not available in the database): Court decision: Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, sección 28ª (Spain) (Second Instance) Date: 08-10-2010 Court decision: Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 5 de Madrid (Spain) (First instance) Date: 26-05-2009