There is some uncertainty as to the application of the hague to such clauses because of what we have described as a “risk of change of status”: in other words, whether the courts of the EU Member States will consider the hague to be in force since 1 October 2015, when it left because of its accession to The Hague, or from 1 January 2021, when it will return to its own right. The guidelines published by the European Commission in April 2019 show that it believes that the hague would only apply if the UK itself returned to Hague. These guidelines are obviously not binding on the courts that will decide this issue in the future and they were given as part of an exit without agreement and not as part of the position in which we have a withdrawal agreement and a transitional period. However, the situation remains unclear. As a result, the changes are expected to be very limited by December 31, 2020. British courts will continue to apply EU law and apply it in accordance with Court of Justice jurisprudence. The current rules on the competence and enforcement of judgments under the brussels regulation (Regulation 1215/2012) will continue to apply between the Uk and the European Union, as well as the existing provisions for services and evidence under the EU Services Regulation and the Evidence Procurement Regulation (Regulations 1393/2007 and 1206/20011). The United Kingdom will continue to fulfil its obligations under international conventions relating to judicial jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments (including) under the EU, such as the 2007 Lugano Convention (applicable between EU member states and EFTA countries, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) and the 2005 Hague Convention on Course Choice (applicable between EU Member States and Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro). By the end of December 2020, the English court will therefore have to suspend the proceedings or resurrect the jurisdiction if these conventions require it – for example, in The Hague, if an agreement has been reached since 1 October 2015 (the date Of Hague`s entry into force for Mexico), or after Lugano, if parallel proceedings have been initiated in a Swiss court. As noted above, when an EU court has jurisdiction under the brussels regulation, there is some uncertainty as to the circumstances in which it may be without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the courts of non-EU countries, as the English court will be, unless the English procedure is initiated in the first place (since there is, in these circumstances, an explicit power within the meaning of Article 33/34 of the brussels regulation overhaul).
For example, a French judgment is carried out in England in The Hague as part of a procedure rendered after the transfer under an exclusive agreement of French jurisdiction. An English judgment in a post-transfer procedure is carried out in France, in accordance with an exclusive English jurisdiction clause adopted after the switch to another. If you decide to abide by an exclusive jurisdiction clause in English at the beginning of the proceedings, it could in turn be combined with an obligation (or option) to repeat the clause after that date.