| Abstract [eng] |
The first chapter of this thesis contains an analysis of the main peculiarities of the institution of governing jurisdiction in the international civil litigation. When overviewing the regulation of governing jurisdiction at the domestic, EU and international levels, not only the boundaries of party’s autonomy are determined but also the reasonability of some restrictions narrowing these boundaries is questioned. It is emphasised that this basis of jurisdiction in the context of its content is a multiple juridical category therefore it is analysed which legal, economic, psychological and sociological factors cause the effectiveness of governing jurisdiction and a decision of parties to make the consent to jurisdiction. The second chapter of this thesis completely covers the prorogation of jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation. According to practices of the CJEU, this chapter discloses both the content of the laconic legal acts and the requirements applicable to the consent to jurisdiction. The last version of the Brussels I bis Regulation stipulates some significant novelties therefore this chapter of the thesis assesses the reasons for reforms and an impact they have on the more effective implementation of the consents to jurisdiction. Also this chapter distinguishes still available problematic aspects of the institution of governing jurisdiction and the causal relationship between the existing problematics and practices of the CJEU. This chapter analyses and provides some suggestions and recommendations regarding the legal measures that might be useful in strengthening the effectiveness of the institution of governing jurisdiction. The third chapter of this thesis is intended to assess the unique system of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 that is exceptionally based on governing jurisdiction. When analysing the particularities of the legal act and the elements causing the legal power of consents to jurisdiction, at the same time the conceptual differences between the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 and the Brussels I bis Regulation are highlighted. Great attention is paid to the court that was not chosen by parties to evaluate the role because such court, being considered a non-traditional one from the perspective of the EU, arises many questions and is problematic. |
