A national rule of the Member State of the designated court under which a jurisdiction agreement between natural persons is valid only if the dispute is connected with their economic or professional activity is not a ground for treating that agreement as "null and void as to its substantive validity" under Article 25(1).

A third-party assignee of a damages claim arising from non-performance of a contract may rely, in an action to recover that claim and without the debtor's consent, on the contract's jurisdiction clause against the original contracting party that is now the debtor. This applies under the same conditions as those under which the other original party could have relied on that clause, where the national law applicable to the contract, as interpreted by national case-law, provides that assignment transfers not only the claim but also the rights attached to it, including the right to rely on that clause - unless the original parties expressly agreed that the clause could not be relied on in the event of assignment to a third party of a claim arising from that contract.

Article 25(1) covers a jurisdiction agreement by which two parties domiciled in the United Kingdom, during the transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, chose a court of a Member State for disputes arising from their contract, even where that court was seised after that period ended.

When assessing whether a jurisdiction agreement is valid, complaints that the clause is imprecise or asymmetric must be examined under autonomous criteria derived from Article 25(1), not under national-law criteria on whether the clause is null and void as to substantive validity.

Whether a jurisdiction clause can be enforced against a third-party holder of the bill of lading containing it is not governed by the law of the Member State of the court designated by that clause. The clause is enforceable against that third party if, when it acquired the bill of lading, it was subrogated to all the rights and obligations of one of the original parties to the contract. That must be assessed under the national substantive law identified by the private international law rules of the Member State of the court seised.

National legislation is precluded where a third-party holder of a bill of lading, who is subrogated to all of the shipper's rights and obligations under the contract of carriage except those arising under the bill's jurisdiction clause, is bound by that clause only if the third party negotiated it individually and separately.

Article 45(1)(a) and (e)(ii) does not allow a Member State court to refuse recognition of a judgment from another Member State on the ground that the court of origin assumed jurisdiction over an action brought pursuant to a contract of international carriage in disregard of a jurisdiction agreement forming part of that contract, within the meaning of Article 25.

A jurisdiction clause is covered by Article 25(1) where parties established in the same Member State agree that the courts of another Member State will hear disputes arising from their contract, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State.

Article 4(1) and Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 preclude legislation of a Member State which, in disputes about credit agreements with international elements falling within that regulation, lets debtors sue non-authorised lenders either in the courts of the State where the lenders have their registered office or in the courts of the place where the debtors have their domicile or head office, but allows creditors to sue debtors only in the courts of the State where those debtors are domiciled - whether the debtors are consumers or professionals.

Subject to the referring court's verifications, a jurisdiction clause set out in general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012.