Opposes the deletion (even partial) of the arbitration exclusion in the Regulation.

Considers that the arbitration exclusion should make clear that judicial procedures ruling on the validity or extent of arbitral competence, whether as a principal issue or an incidental or preliminary question, are excluded from the scope of the Regulation. This should also be clarified in a recital to the Regulation.

Advocates that a paragraph be added to Article 31 of the Regulation to the effect that a judgment should not be recognised if the member state court which gave the judgment disregarded a rule of the arbitration law in the member state in which enforcement is sought, unless the judgment of that member state produces the same result as if the arbitration law of the enforcing court had been applied.

It advises against the introduction of an exclusive head of jurisdiction for court proceedings in support of arbitration, given the lack of a common position on this issue among member states and having regard to "world competition in this area".

The report suggests that "national procedural devices" to protect arbitral jurisdiction should continue to be available. These would include anti-suit injunctions, declarations of validity of arbitration clauses, and the negative effect of the kompetenz-kompetenz principle. As such, the report advocates a return to the position prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc (Case C-185/07), in which the ECJ held that anti-suit injunctions in favour of arbitration were inconsistent with the Regulation.

Update on the reform of the Brussels Regulation.