THE LUGANO CONVENTION

In 1988, the Member States of the European Union and some other States concluded the
Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters. At present, apart from the EU Member States, Switzerland, Norway,
Iceland and Poland are contracting parties to that convention. The Lugano Convention
extended the rules determining jurisdiction between Member States that used to be laid
down in the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
in civil and commercial matters beyond the boundaries of the European Union. In March
2002 the 1968 Brussels Convention was replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters. The Regulation modified some of the jurisdictional provisions. That
is why the Lugano Convention will soon be changed to bring it fully in line with the rules
that apply within the European Union.

What are the main principles of the Lugano Convention as regards jurisdiction?

In general the factor determining jurisdiction is the domicile of the defendant. Persons
domiciled in a Contracting State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of
that State. Nevertheless, the Convention contains a number of provisions that depart from
this principle and allow court proceedings to be brought in another Contracting State
other than where the defendant is domiciled. The most important examples of these
special rules are:

Top
in matters relating to a contractual obligation a person can be sued in the courts
for the place of performance of that obligation. For example, the French vendor
of a lorry can be sued in Norway if that is where the vehicle was to be delivered.
in an action for damages the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred
are competent. Thus, in the case of a traffic accident that happened in Switzerland
between a tourist domiciled in the U.K. and a Swiss local, the Swiss plaintiff can
use the Swiss courts. Sometimes the place of the event giving rise to liability in tort
(e.g. the emission of toxic substances into a river in Poland) and the place where
that event results in damage (e.g. harm to plants irrigated with the water of the
polluted river in Germany) are not located in the same Contracting State. In that
case the plaintiff is free to choose the courts of either of those Contracting States.
in matters relating to maintenance the maintenance creditor can turn to the
courts of the Contracting State in which he himself is domiciled.
in some contractual relationships that are characterized by a marked imbalance of
power between the parties such as matters relating to consumer contracts and to
insurance the weaker party is deemed to be in need of special protection. As a
 general rule, the weaker parties (the consumer, the insured) can only be sued in the
Contracting State where they are domiciled. The stronger parties (the dealer, the
insurer), on the other hand, can also be sued, sometimes subject to certain
conditions, in the Contracting State where the weaker party is domiciled.
The rules on special jurisdiction listed above constitute an additional option for the
plaintiff who can also choose to sue the defendant in the courts of the Contracting State in
which that person is domiciled. There are, however, also some cases of so-called
exclusive jurisdiction that do not supplement but replace the jurisdiction based on the
defendant's domicile. For example,
in matters relating to the ownership or tenancy of immovable property only the
courts of the Contracting State where the property is situated have jurisdiction.
in matters relating to rights that have to be registered such as patents or
trademarks the courts of the Contracting State in which the registration has taken
place are exclusively competent.
subject to some conditions the parties also have the possibility of freely choosing
the Contracting State whose courts are to have jurisdiction. Such a choice of court
agreement usually leads to the exclusive competence of the courts of the chosen
Contracting State unless the parties stipulate otherwise.
Subject to certain exceptions, the mere fact that the defendant enters an appearance in
court leads to the jurisdiction of the courts of that Contracting State even if they are not
ordinarily competent.
Top
Please note that the above description of the rules on jurisdiction in the Convention is
neither exhaustive nor sufficiently thorough to allow a reliable assessment of the issue of
jurisdiction in a specific case.

What happens if proceedings concerning the same dispute are brought in two
Contracting States?

It may happen that both parties to a dispute initiate court proceedings on the same matter
in different Contracting States. For example, after a traffic accident between two persons
living in Iceland and Finland, respectively, it could be that they both sue one another for
damages in the Contracting State of the other party's domicile. In that situation the
Regulation basically establishes a “first come first served” rule. The second court used
has to stay its proceedings and wait for the other court to decide on its jurisdiction. If the
first court considers itself competent the other court has to dismiss the case. Only if the
first court comes to the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction can the other court
continue its proceedings.

How is international jurisdiction determined if a Member State of the European

Union and a non-Member State that is not a signatory of the Lugano Convention
are involved?
If the defendant is domiciled in a Member State of the European Union but the plaintiff is
not domiciled in another Member State or in a Contracting State of the Lugano
Convention the courts of the Member States assess their international jurisdiction based
on the provisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Where the defendant is domiciled outside the sphere of application of this Regulation and
of the Lugano Convention, the national procedural law of each Member State determines
under which conditions its courts are competent. To find out about the national
procedural law on international jurisdiction of a Member State, please click on the flag of
that Member State.
Under the aegis of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, an international
organization, attempts are currently being made to negotiate a world-wide convention on
international jurisdiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Reference documents

• Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of

judgments in civil and commercial matters
• 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters
• Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters