Competition between European and UK jurisdictions in the context of Brexit

One of the features of the modern model of interaction between legal systems is the competition between national jurisdictions. The states use different methods to improve the efficiency of their courts in order to make their jurisdictions more attractive. The competition between jurisdictions is actively influenced by political processes. A striking example of the impact of politics on jurisdictional issues is Brexit. This article aims to consider the topical issues caused by the UK's exit from the single legal space of the EU in terms of the functioning of the civil justice system, the consequences of these processes for the mechanisms of choice of jurisdiction. Using the comparative legal method, this article explores the consequences of Brexit for Russian companies and Russia’s jurisdiction, including in connection with: a) the continuing practice of dispute resolution between Russian companies or Russian businessmen in London; b) the new conditions of competition between British and European, especially French, courts for attraction to their jurisdictions; c) the need for dispute resolution on a number of pressing issues, including those caused by the complicated geopolitical situation. The materials used include UK and European legal literature, the reports of the Council of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice and expert opinions of Russian and European lawyers. The conclusions include practical recommendations on how to improve the competitiveness of Russia’s jurisdiction and protect Russia's interests in the legal sphere. This article highlights the need to develop cooperation between the Russian court system and courts of the EAEU and EAEU countries, to create a system of economic dispute resolution courts, which would foster the transfer of important civil cases to the Russian jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the EAEU.

1. Au carrefour des droits: mélanges en l’honneur de Louis Dubouis, Paris, Dalloz, 2002, 901 p. (In Fran.)

2. Briggs A. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Seventh edition. Routledge, 2021. 1924 р.

3. Hess. The Unsuitability of the Lugano Convention (2007) to Serve as a Bridge between the UK and the EU after Brexit. Max Planck Institute Luxemburg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series. 2018; (2).

4. Vareilles-Sommieres P., Getman-Pavlova I. Violating Super-imperative Norms as Grounds to Refuse the Recognition and Execution of Foreign Arbitrage Decisions (Judicial Practice of France and Russia Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly economiki = Right. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2015;(1):22–42. (In Russ.)

5. O’Neil Sean. Russians bringf battles to London. The Times. 2018. - November 28. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russians-bring-battles-tolondon-sfdqpvx97?region=global

6. Ryzhov K. B. Incorporation of international instruments into the Russian legislation and the competition of jurisdictions. Monitoring pravoprimenenija = Law enforcement monitoring. 2012;(4):30–46. (In Russ.)

7. Zhiltsov A. N., Korabelnikov B. R. The regime of «strategic investments»: novels or collisions? Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava = Bulletin of Civil Law. 2009;(4):141–162. (In Russ.)

8. French Christopher C. English Justice for an American Company? Texas Law Revue Online. 2018. № 97; Penn State Law Research Paper. 2018. № 9. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3198353.