Seite - 133 - in Austrian Law Journal, Band 2/2016

ALJ 2/2016 Aleš Galič 133 withstanding the fact that the rule on submission is neither contained nor referred to in the three sections containing protective jurisdictional rules.52 However, it follows from this reasoning that although after the adoption of the Brussels I Recast, jurisdiction by submission is not per se in conflict with Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Brussels I Regulation, it nevertheless is in such conflict if it was assumed without previously giving adequate information to the weaker party. VI. Violation of the Protective Jurisdictional Regime as Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment Regulation No. 44/2001 reinforced procedural protection concerning insurance and consumer contracts providing that the violation of jurisdictional protective norms can, at the request of any interested party, result in a denial of recognition of the judgment pursuant to Art. 35(1). No such safeguard has been established for disputes arising out of employment contracts, however. This was based on a rather pragmatic reasoning that the vast majority of employment disputes in Europe (more than 90 %) concern cases where employees act as claimants and therefore in the vast majority of labour disputes it is not necessary to provide for a special safeguard concerning jurisdiction regarding the recognition and enforcement stage.53 The rule was slightly changed in the Brussels I Recast. Recognition may still be refused on the same grounds already provided for under Regulation 44/2001 (now under Art. 45), whereby breaching the grounds for jurisdiction over individual employment disputes is included as an obstacle to recognition. It is now also explicitly stated that breaching the protective jurisdictional regime is an obstacle to recognition only in cases where the weaker party (a policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of an insurance contract, an injured party, a consumer, or an employee) was the defendant. The ratio legis of the rule would lead to the same result already under the old Brussels I Regulation,54 however, at least the wording of its Art. 35(1) would imply that the rule could also adversely affect the weaker party that brought the proceedings in a court lacking ju- risdiction. VII. Conclusion Although the changes brought about by the Brussels I Regulation Recast to the protective jurisdic- tional regime for weaker parties are not as far-reaching as in certain other fields (e.g. abolishing of exequatur, enhancing jurisdiction agreements, cross-border effects of protective measures), they are nevertheless important and raise the procedural protection of these parties to an even higher level. The most significant changes concern the limited extension of the scope of applicability against defendants from third states and jurisdiction based on the entering of an appearance. This being said, a conservative approach is preferred when it comes to the reform of such a suc- cessful instrument as the Brussels I Regulation undoubtedly proved to be. Therefore, it should not be seen as regretful that certain more ambitious plans for large-scale reform were rejected. 52 See, e.g., Grušić, supra note 44, 947. 53 The EU Commission, Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal of the Brussels I Regulation, COM (1999) 348 final, Brussels, 14.07.1999, 23, available at: http://www.statewatch.org/semdoc/assets/files/commission/ COM-1999-348.pdf (last visited 31. 8. 2016). 54 REINHOLD GEIMER & ROLF A. SCHÜTZE, EUROPÄISCHES ZIVILVERFAHRENSRECHT (2010) Art. 35 at 47 and Art. 16 at 16.