Without a jurisdiction clause you litigate where your counterparty is domiciled. With one in the form Article 25 recognises, you do not — and the judgment that follows is enforceable across the Union without any declaration of enforceability, on four narrow grounds of refusal.
The default, and why it is rarely where you want to be
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Brussels I bis — decides which court hears a cross-border dispute inside the Union and what happens to the judgment afterwards. Its starting point is Article 4: a person domiciled in a Member State is sued in the courts of that Member State, whatever their nationality. A defendant domiciled in the Union may be sued elsewhere only on the grounds the Regulation itself provides.
So without a clause in the contract, you litigate where your counterparty sits. That is the single fact most commercial negotiations get wrong by not discussing it.
The alternatives the Regulation gives you
Article 7 adds optional grounds, and two matter in ordinary trade:
Contract. The courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. Unless otherwise agreed, that is where the goods were or should have been delivered, or where the services were or should have been provided.
Tort. The courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
These are alternatives to the defendant's home court, not replacements. They also turn on facts — place of delivery, place of performance — which is why they produce argument before they produce a hearing.
A jurisdiction clause, and what makes it work
Article 25 lets the parties agree which Member State's courts decide, regardless of their domicile. That jurisdiction is exclusive unless the parties agree otherwise, and the agreement stands unless it is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of the chosen Member State.
The form requirements are the part that fails in practice. The agreement must be in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form matching practices the parties have established between themselves; or, in international trade, in a form accords with a usage the parties knew or ought to have known. An exchange of emails can satisfy the first. A term on the back of an invoice sent after the deal usually does not.
One practical consequence of exclusivity: a clause naming a Member State's courts also keeps the dispute away from the courts you did not choose, which is often worth more than the convenience of the ones you did.
What happens to the judgment
This is where the Regulation earns its place in a contract negotiation. A judgment given in one Member State is recognised in the others without any special procedure (Article 36), and if it is enforceable at home it is enforceable in the others without any declaration of enforceability (Article 39). There is no exequatur to obtain.
What the creditor produces instead is modest: a copy of the judgment satisfying the conditions for authenticity, and the Article 53 certificate from the court of origin, which states that the judgment is enforceable and sets out an extract, with information on recoverable costs and interest where relevant. Enforcement itself then runs under the law of the Member State addressed, on the same terms as a local judgment — and an enforceable judgment carries by operation of law the power to take whatever protective measures that State provides.
The grounds for refusal, which are few
Article 45 lists them, and they are deliberately narrow: recognition manifestly contrary to public policy; a default judgment where the defendant was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to arrange a defence, unless he failed to challenge it when he could; irreconcilability with a judgment between the same parties in the State addressed; or with an earlier judgment elsewhere meeting the conditions for recognition.
Notably absent: that the first court got the law wrong. The system trades review for speed.
What to do about it
Decide jurisdiction when you sign, not when you sue — and put it in a form Article 25 recognises. Keep proof of service, because Article 45(b) is the refusal ground most often available to a defendant who ignored the proceedings. And when planning enforcement, ask early where the assets are: the judgment travels, but the enforcement procedure is the local one.