Under Cabris Investment, Article 25 Brussels Ibis applies in which scenario?

Prepare for the DIPR Jurisprudence Test. Utilize flashcards, multiple-choice questions, and comprehensive explanations to enhance your understanding and readiness for the exam.

Multiple Choice

Under Cabris Investment, Article 25 Brussels Ibis applies in which scenario?

The key idea is an opt‑in provision that allows an EU court system to hear a case even when neither party is domiciled in the EU, but only if the entire dispute is centered in a non‑EU country and the parties expressly designate the courts of a member state. In this scenario, both parties are in the same third state, every element of the dispute is located there, and the parties have chosen to submit to the jurisdiction of a court in a member state. That combination triggers application of Article 25, letting Brussels Ibis govern the case despite the absence of EU domicile or EU‑situated elements. This fits the choice because it captures the precise conditions: third-state domicile for both parties, all dispute elements located in that third state, and an express designation of a member state’s courts. The other possibilities don’t meet those exact conditions (for example, when parties are in different states, or when any element lies in a member state, or when the dispute is limited to contracts), so they aren’t the scenario Article 25 covers.

The key idea is an opt‑in provision that allows an EU court system to hear a case even when neither party is domiciled in the EU, but only if the entire dispute is centered in a non‑EU country and the parties expressly designate the courts of a member state. In this scenario, both parties are in the same third state, every element of the dispute is located there, and the parties have chosen to submit to the jurisdiction of a court in a member state. That combination triggers application of Article 25, letting Brussels Ibis govern the case despite the absence of EU domicile or EU‑situated elements.

This fits the choice because it captures the precise conditions: third-state domicile for both parties, all dispute elements located in that third state, and an express designation of a member state’s courts. The other possibilities don’t meet those exact conditions (for example, when parties are in different states, or when any element lies in a member state, or when the dispute is limited to contracts), so they aren’t the scenario Article 25 covers.

More practice questions