Which case extended Inkreal's solution by confirming Article 25 Brussels Ibis applies even when both parties are domiciled in the same third state and all elements are located there, given designation of a member state's courts?

• A. Inkreal
• B. Cabris Investment
• C. GAT
• D. Maersk

Answer: (B)

The key idea tested is how a valid choice-of-court clause interacts with Brussels Ibis, specifically Article 25, to give a designated member state’s courts jurisdiction even when all connections (domicile of the parties and the location of the elements) point to a non-EU or third state. Cabris Investment extends Inkreal by confirming that this mechanism works even if both parties are domiciled in the same third state and the entire dispute center lies there, as long as the contract designates a member state’s courts. In other words, the explicit forum chosen in the contract activates the Brussels Ibis framework for jurisdiction regardless of where the parties live or where the elements are located, ensuring the designated EU court can hear the case and that any resulting judgment is recognized or enforced under the Regulation. GAT and Maersk address different aspects and do not extend this particular principle in the same way.