The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating which courts have jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals resident in different member states of the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

They establish a general rule that individuals are to be sued in their state of domicile and then proceed to provide a list of exceptions.

Other than the original signatories–three of which left EFTA to join the EU in 1995–only Poland has subsequently acceded to the Lugano Convention.

It substantially replaced the 1968 Brussels Convention, and applied to all EU member states excluding Denmark, which has a full opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice.

[8] Should Denmark decide not to implement any change to the Regulation or its successor, then the Agreement ends automatically.

In 2007, the European Community and Denmark[9] signed with Iceland, Switzerland and Norway the new Lugano Convention.

The UK has sought participation in the Lugano Convention after Brexit,[24] and has secured support from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland for accession.

In 1978, the convention was amended to include the sentence: "It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters."

Where the principal matter of a dispute is one of family law, bankruptcy or insolvency, social security, or relates to arbitration, the case is not subject to the rules.

The regime prescribes that, subject to specific rules set out in the various instruments, a person (legal or natural) may only be sued in the member state in which he or she has its habitual residence or domicile.

This is determined by the law of the court hearing the case, so that a person can be domiciled in more than one state simultaneously.

The Lugano Convention does not require non-EU states to refer questions of interpretation to the ECJ, but has a protocol regarding "uniform interpretation" of the convention, requiring courts "pay due account to the principles laid down by any relevant decision" and allowing for the exchange of relevant judgments.