65 cf. Fentiman (2013) CLJ 24 (n 51), 25 the French court did not apply Directly French law, so the decision does not contribute to the known controversy about the relevance of national law in determining the validity of the agreements in accordance with Article 23. Under the old Brussels regulation, the second court before it still had to suspend the proceedings under the corresponding appeals (or suspension provisions). Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Brussels overhaul introduced a delimitation of the rules relating to related remedies, in order to limit the use of the “Italian torpedo” in disputes in which the parties had agreed to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. These amendments allow a jurisdiction of the EU Member State, which is defined in an exclusive jurisdiction clause, to decide a dispute, even if proceedings have been initiated before another jurisdiction of a Member State (in violation of the treaty). It should be noted that in January 2019, the Convention on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Decisions was signed by the mainland courts and HKSAR (2019 agreement). The 2019 agreement, with its entry into force, will succeed the 2016 agreement and remove the requirement for an exclusive court decision. However, there is no timetable for the implementation of the 2019 agreement by local legislation in Hong Kong and, before it comes into force, the parties should consider whether to apply asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in light of that ruling. Some consider this to be potential evidence of positive treatment by Turkish courts of asymmetric international arbitration clauses in the future. It remains to be seen whether this is true. For the time being, the validity of asymmetric international arbitration clauses remains uncertain and these clauses must be treated with caution. When the UK leaves the EU, the Brussels regulation will no longer apply automatically. It is not clear that the rules of jurisdiction and recognition of mutual judgments apply, if any, between the United Kingdom and the EU-27, but in the absence of an alternative agreement: the natural meaning of the terms of Article 31, paragraph 2, “an agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction” contains asymmetric jurisdiction clauses.
An asymmetrical jurisdiction clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a Member State, in this case England, and the fact that it applies to a party`s claim does not alter the analysis. The judge supported this proposition in the case of Nikolaus Meeth/Glacetal Sarl  CMLR 520, in which the European Court of Justice found that a jurisdiction clause requiring a French party to bring legal action in Germany and a German party to bring an action in France confers on Germany, in the proceedings of the French party, the exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction of France in a court formed by the German party. In announcing the High Court`s decision, the Court of Appeal found that the dispute settlement clause was a valid arbitration agreement. The Tribunal found that, in determining the validity of the arbitration agreement, it is “insignificant” that the compromise clause is asymmetrical and that arbitration of a future dispute is entirely optional, rather than imposing an immediate obligation on the parties to settle their disputes. (a) agrees that [C] has jurisdiction to rule on appeals, appeals or any other proceedings in connection with this agreement (“procedure”) and submits irrevocably to the jurisdiction of those courts (provided that this does not prevent us from taking an action before the courts of other jurisdictions); However, Russian law does not seem to require a simple symmetrical arbitration agreement.