Choice-of-Court Agreement in favour of a Third State’s Court. The ECJ has not entirely clarified the relationship between the EU rules and jurisdiction agreements designating the court outside the EU. However, the considerations on possible mandatory application of Article 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in virtue of Xxxxx case and on the potential application of Articles 33 and 34 concerning lis pendens between Member State and Third State will be left aside for a while. The problematic issue arises in the situation when the choice-of-court in favour of a Third State would result in the application of the law of a Third State and which might circumvent the overriding mandatory rules either of the national law or the EU law. The possibility of invalidation of the abusive choice-of-court agreements depends on the national law when the jurisdiction is conferred to Third State courts that are not a party to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement based on the jurisdiction agreement. In some civil law countries, which do not attribute directionality power to the courts, constitutional breaks have been introduced into the national legal orders which impose on the courts a requirement to verify their jurisdiction before hearing the case. This requirement prevents abusive choice-of-court agreements and enables the operation of overriding mandatory rules and public policy of the forum. For example, in Switzerland, choice-of-court agreements are not effective, if one of the parties is abusively deprived of the forum regulated by Swiss law.233 In the Czech Republic, the possibility to hear the case in the presence of 232 L. RADICATI DI BROZOLO, Deroga alla giurisdizione e deroga alle norme imperative. Un conflitto xxx xxxxxxxxx di xxxxxx e xxxxxxxxx di giurisdizione?, op.cit., p. 300. 233 See X. XXXXXXXX, Gli accordi sulla competenza giurisdizionale: tra diritto comunitario e diritto interno, op. cit., p. 215, 216 and foonotes No 37-38. derogation agreement from Czech court is expressly regulated by the Czech Act on Private International Law in case that choice-of-court agreement contravenes to the public order. Article 86 par. 2 lett. d) provides: If the jurisdiction of a foreign court has been agreed in accordance with subsection 1, this rule oust the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. A Czech court may, however, hear the matter, if the agreement on the jurisdiction of the foreign court is at odds with public order.234 Although the wording of this Article indicates a discretional power of the court, some authors d...
