In February 2025 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its decision in Case C-537/23 SIL v. Agora, reshaping how jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I Recast Regulation are interpreted and enforced. For Cyprus (Europe’s shipping hub and a regional centre for cross-border trade) the ruling has immediate implications. One-way (asymmetric) forum clauses feature routinely in charterparties, bills of lading, supply agreements, distribution deals and finance contracts. After this judgment, these clauses can still deliver commercial flexibility, but only if drafted and invoked with precision.

Table of contents

1. The CJEU Case C-537/23 explained
2. Why the ruling matters for Cyprus shipping and cross-border commerce
3. Drafting predictable jurisdiction clauses post-2025

1. The CJEU Case C-537/23 explained

The February 2025 judgment clarified Article 25 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU 1215/2012). The Court examined an asymmetric jurisdiction clause obliging one party to litigate exclusively in Brescia while giving the other a free choice of forum.

Key takeaways:

• Autonomous EU standards prevail. Ambiguity or imbalance is assessed against clarity, predictability and transparency, not national “substantive validity.”
• Only classic vitiating factors (fraud, duress, mistake, lack of capacity) remain subject to the chosen forum’s national law.
• The same approach extends to the Lugano Convention (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland), which mirrors Brussels I on jurisdiction and enforcement.

For Cypriot companies and shipowners contracting with parties in the EU or Lugano states, well-drafted one-way clauses naming EU or Lugano courts will generally be upheld and judgments recognised, provided the clause is sufficiently clear and does not conflict with Articles 15, 19 or 23 (protected parties) or Article 24 (exclusive jurisdictions).

2. Why the ruling matters for Cyprus shipping and cross-border commerce

Shipping contracts

Bills of lading and charterparties issued in Limassol may cover cargo from Asia to Europe and designate a foreign court. Under SIL v. Agora, a Cypriot court asked to enforce or disregard such a clause must apply the CJEU’s clarity and foreseeability test.

Shipowners, charterers and P&I Clubs often rely on asymmetric clauses to gain flexibility. After SIL v. Agora, these clauses survive only if the “escape” options are objectively defined (port of loading, port of discharge, domicile of counterparty). Vague wording such as “any competent court abroad” risks unenforceability in Cyprus or Lugano states.

Commercial contracts

The same reasoning applies to supply, distribution and finance agreements. Cypriot exporters may have contracts in several languages naming foreign courts. Asymmetric clauses must now specify objective triggers (domicile, place of performance, delivery points) to be enforceable.

Procedural backdrop – Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules

Under the CPR, jurisdiction objections must be raised promptly and supported with evidence at an early case-management stage. Missing that window may result in Cyprus hearing the case even where a valid foreign forum clause exists. The Rules do not change Brussels I or Lugano but they reinforce discipline around how and when such clauses are invoked.

Bottom line: forum selection is no longer a back-end dispute issue. It must be built into contract negotiation, evidence gathering and early procedural steps from day one.

3. Drafting predictable jurisdiction clauses post-2025

To take full advantage of SIL v. Agora, Cypriot shipowners, cargo interests and businesses engaged in cross-border trade should revisit how they draft and invoke forum clauses:

• Name EU or Lugano courts explicitly. Specify a Cypriot court (“Admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court of Limassol” or “District Court of Nicosia”) or another EU/Lugano court (“Commercial Court of Oslo”). This maximises Brussels I and Lugano benefits.
• Define “escape” rights. If using a one-way clause, spell out the objective conditions under which the stronger party may sue elsewhere (port of discharge, domicile of counterparty, place of damage). The more concrete the trigger, the more likely it passes the CJEU’s clarity test.
• Align procedure with substance. Incorporate the CPR’s pre-action and early-objection requirements into your internal playbook. Even a perfect clause can be undermined by procedural default.
• Harmonise with other clauses. Check that arbitration, governing law and service provisions in your charterparty, bill of lading or commercial contract are consistent with the jurisdiction clause. Conflicting clauses are a common reason for Cypriot courts to find a forum clause unclear.

By combining EU-level clarity with Cyprus-level procedural readiness, companies can secure predictable dispute resolution and faster enforcement of judgments across Europe; a decisive advantage in both time-critical shipping and competitive international commerce.

Conclusion

Cyprus remains a pivotal gateway for Europe’s maritime and cross-border trade. The CJEU’s 2025 Article 25 judgment has shifted the legal tide: asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are no longer routine boilerplate but strategic tools demanding careful drafting and disciplined procedural handling.

For shipowners, P&I Clubs and exporters alike, this creates both opportunity and pressure. Well-structured clauses reduce forum disputes and give all parties clearer visibility of legal risk, but they also impose a higher standard of precision. Weaker counterparties must push for balanced terms, while parties seeking flexibility must articulate their “escape” options in concrete, objective terms.

The Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules form the procedural backdrop. They do not rewrite Brussels I or the Lugano Convention but they set the timetable and evidential standards within which jurisdiction issues are litigated before Cypriot courts. By integrating forum selection into corporate governance, risk registers and contract templates, rather than treating it as a last-minute add-on, businesses can enhance compliance, reduce litigation costs and accelerate enforcement outcomes across Europe. This proactive approach strengthens relationships with customers, suppliers and financial partners, signalling that the company is both sophisticated and reliable in its cross-border dealings.

Looking ahead, companies that audit their contracts, train teams on procedural deadlines and build coordinated dispute-management strategies will stand out as reliable partners.

Our firm combines deep knowledge of EU and Lugano frameworks with decades of hands-on shipping and cross-border dispute resolution experience to help clients move beyond compliance and turn jurisdiction planning into a genuine commercial advantage. For more information please contact Nikoleta Kleovoulou or your usual contact at Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC.