Where a consumer seises a court in the Member State in whose judicial district that consumer is domiciled, in a dispute with a tour operator arising from a package travel contract, Article 18 determines both the international and the territorial jurisdiction of that court, even if both parties are domiciled in the same Member State and the travel destination is abroad.

Where the defendant is a consumer and a national of a third State, the last known domicile of that defendant is in the Member State of the court seised, the court cannot identify the current domicile, and there is no firm evidence that the defendant is domiciled in another Member State or outside the European Union, jurisdiction is determined not by the law of that Member State but by Article 18(2). Article 18(2) gives jurisdiction to the court in whose judicial district the defendant's last known domicile is situated.

In Article 18(1), "other party to a contract" means only the natural or legal person that is party to the contract in question, not other persons who are not parties to that contract, even if they are connected with that person.

Determining the domicile of the "other party to a contract" under Article 63(1) and (2), for the purposes of Article 18(1), does not limit the consumer's choice under Article 18(1). The clarifications in Article 63(2) concerning "statutory seat" are autonomous definitions.

Article 18 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which gives notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document, the power to issue writs of execution which, as is clear from the judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking ([C-551/15](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/ecli/ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2017%3A193), [EU:C:2017:193](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/ecli/ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2017%3A193)), cannot be recognised and enforced in another Member State.