The Brussels Ibis reform, third state defendants and the Dutch experience

Article 79 Brussels Ibis calls for the Commission to present a report on the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The wording of this provision suggests that this report is to predominantly evaluate the need for an extension of the rules on jurisdiction to third state defendants. In doing so, the Commission must assess the practical operation of the Regulation as well as international developments that might influence the desirability of reform. While the notion of extending the Regulation’s provisions to third state defendants was proposed – and ultimately abandoned – during the 2010 revision of the Brussels I Regulation, evolving global dynamics, such as increased digitalisation, the private enforcement of the GDPR and the introduction of the AI Act, may call for a fresh examination of the issue. This article explores the potential extension of the application of the Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction to third state defendants through a Dutch lens. Starting from the premise that the Regulation principally works well, this article examines the possible inclusion of third state defendants and touches upon the Dutch experience with several important and timely topics, such as residual jurisdiction, the interplay between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and other instruments, such as the GDPR, and the growing significance of collective redress.