The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.

英国上诉法院和德国联邦法院最近决定，布鲁塞尔一号重铸条例第 31 条第 2 款适用于不对称管辖权条款。本文认为，虽然这个结论是合理的，但将“条款”分成两个“协议”来达成它是不正确的。这种分解阻止了第 31 条第 2 款为不对称条款创造的异常情况的解决方案，即贷方根据其选择权提起诉讼，而借款人随后在锚定法院提起诉讼。本文提出了一种解决方案，该解决方案基于对整个条款的统一表征，以保护贷方的选择权并降低并行程序的风险。