Seite - 134 - in Austrian Law Journal, Band 2/2016

ALJ 2/2016 The Brussels I Regulation Recast 134 By not substantially departing from the existing regime, the EU legislature also ensured that the rich body of the case law of the CJEU, which has already brought several important clarifications and strengthened legal certainty in this area, remains fully relevant. Although in certain instances it seems that the Brussels I Recast effectively overrules the CJEU’s case law (e.g., Bilas, Glaxo- SmithKline), it should be noted that these are cases where the CJEU itself suggested that the out- comes are not necessarily preferred, but are, however, based on the clear text of the Regulation and it is therefore the responsibility of the EU legislature to intervene. By following these “hints” of the CJEU, the European legislature actually reaffirmed the preeminent position of the Court concerning the development of European civil procedure. On a negative side, the recast also brought some new dilemmas and uncertainties, perhaps due to its poor drafting, in particular regarding the question whether the rule concerning extension of applicability against non-EU based employers and traders provides merely for an EU-wide mini- mum standard or removes and replaces jurisdiction rules of member states’ national laws.