The Commission is preparing changes for cross-border civil proceedings, including in disputes with defendants from outside the EU.

Brussels is analyzing the simplification of the rules that establish where civil and commercial disputes can be adjudicated and how judgments circulate between member states. Among the options are common rules for parties from third countries, collective actions, and digital procedures, with a potential legislative proposal expected for 2027.

The European Commission is reviewing the rules that determine where cross-border civil and commercial disputes are adjudicated and how judgments are recognized and enforced between member states. Brussels states that the current system generally works well, but sees problems in cases involving parties from outside the EU, in some contractual and tort disputes, in consumer protection, and in collective actions. The open consultation starting on September 1 will continue until November 24, and the Commission indicates the fourth quarter of 2027 for a potential legislative proposal.

In short The Commission is reviewing the Brussels I rules, which establish the competent court in cross-border civil and commercial disputes and allow for the recognition of judgments in other member states. The assessment so far shows that the system has largely achieved its objectives, but there are uncertainties and procedures that can be simplified or modernized. One of the issues concerns parties located outside the EU, for which the rules of jurisdiction are not harmonized in the same way and can create different conditions for European companies. The Commission is also analyzing rules for collective actions, the digitalization of procedures, contractual and tort disputes, consumer contracts, and the connection to SLAPP-type lawsuits. The consultation ends on November 24, 2026, and a potential legislative amendment is tentatively planned for the end of 2027.

The rules known as Brussels I are used when a civil or commercial dispute has connections to multiple member states. They establish, for example, in which country a company can be summoned in a contractual conflict and allow a judgment issued in one member state to be recognized and enforced in another without restarting the entire process. For companies operating across borders, the predictability of these rules can influence legal costs and how contracts are drafted.

The Commission has evaluated the functioning of the system after more than ten years of application and concluded that it generally provides legal certainty and facilitates the enforcement of judgments. At the same time, areas have been identified where the rules are complex, unclear, or less adapted to technological changes and new types of disputes. Brussels is particularly focused on reducing costs and procedural burdens for companies, consumers, and others involved in cross-border disputes.

One of the most important issues concerns disputes with individuals or companies domiciled outside the European Union. Currently, European rules do not provide the same degree of uniformity in all these situations, which can mean that access for a European company to court depends more on the national legislation of the state in which the process is initiated. The Commission believes that this fragmentation can create additional costs and different competitive conditions for firms engaged in international activities.

In the most comprehensive scenario analyzed, Brussels could introduce European jurisdiction rules for parties domiciled in third countries. Such a change would go beyond simply clarifying the current text and would aim to provide a more predictable framework when a dispute simultaneously involves a company from the EU and an actor from outside the Union. The Commission will analyze the impact of this option before deciding whether to include it in a future proposal.

Another targeted area is that of contractual disputes and claims for damages. The current rules allow, in certain situations, for a defendant to be summoned in a different state than the one in which they are domiciled, depending on where the contract was to be performed or where the damage occurred. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified some of these situations, but the Commission believes that uncertainties persist that can be reduced through simpler and more coherent rules.

Consumer contracts are also included in the assessment. European rules provide special protections for consumers in cross-border disputes, including the possibility of bringing an action in certain conditions in their own country. The Commission is analyzing whether these provisions need to be simplified or adapted to how digital commerce and services have changed the relationships between companies and clients located in different states.

The review may also address collective actions, through which multiple individuals seek redress for similar damages. The Commission is examining whether clearer rules regarding the competent court for such cases are necessary, especially when victims, the targeted company, and the effects of a practice are spread across multiple states. In a more ambitious reform scenario, specific provisions for such actions could be introduced.

Brussels will also analyze the connection between Brussels I and strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPP. These actions can be used against journalists, activists, or civil society organizations, including in cross-border litigation. The Commission has previously committed to examining whether jurisdiction rules need to be adapted to better respond to such situations.

Digitalization represents another possible direction for modification. The Commission is analyzing whether certain procedures can be simplified through the use of digital tools and whether the current rules sufficiently reflect how contracts are concluded and disputes arise in an economy where commercial activity is increasingly less tied to a physical location. The stated objective is to reduce costs and increase predictability for companies operating in multiple jurisdictions.

The assessment also includes the relationship between Brussels I and parallel European mechanisms for the cross-border enforcement of judgments. The Commission will examine whether all existing instruments are still necessary or whether certain procedures can be strengthened, simplified, or eliminated to avoid overlaps. This analysis is being conducted alongside the evaluation of the European Enforcement Order. Brussels is analyzing three scenarios. The first would maintain the current rules, and any potential issues would continue to be resolved through the case law of the Court of Justice and other existing instruments. The second would bring clarifications and targeted simplifications, including for digitalization, while the third would allow for a broader reform that would include rules for parties from outside the EU and for collective actions. The Commission links the review to European competitiveness. Complicated cross-border processes can generate disproportionate costs for small businesses and start-ups, which have fewer resources for litigation conducted simultaneously or successively in multiple jurisdictions. A more predictable system could reduce these costs and the legal risk associated with expanding into another member state.

For citizens and consumers, the goal is for access to court and the enforcement of a judgment in another member state to remain as simple as possible. The Commission estimates that potential changes could strengthen judicial protection and access to remedies, including for vulnerable individuals and for consumers involved in collective actions. Freedom of expression is mentioned separately in the assessment of the possible impact of the rules on cross-border litigation.

The consultation is open to individuals, companies, including SMEs, lawyers and other legal professionals, courts, national authorities, consumer associations, business organizations, and researchers. In parallel, the Commission will organize targeted discussions with member states and the contact points of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.

Contributions will be used alongside the assessment of the current rules and an impact analysis for choosing the final option. The fact that an assessment is being prepared does not mean that all the options presented will lead to a legislative proposal. The indicative timeline foresees a potential initiative in the fourth quarter of 2027, after the completion of the analysis and consultations. The Brussels I Regulation has been in effect since 2015 and represents the main European framework for the jurisdiction of courts and the circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The system is based on the mutual recognition of judgments between member states and aims to reduce situations where the same dispute must be re-litigated in another country. The public consultation and the call for contributions launched on September 1 will remain open for 12 weeks, until November 24, 2026. The Commission will use the results to decide the scope of any potential revision.

https://2eu.brussels/en/news/commission-prepares-changes-for-cross-border-civil-proceedings-including-in-disputes-with-defendants-from-outside-the-eu