The Court of Justice delivered on 30 September 2021 its judgment in case C‑296/20 (Commerzbank AG v E.O.), which is about the Lugano II Convention:

“Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007 […] must be interpreted as meaning that that provision determines jurisdiction where the parties to a consumer contract – the consumer and the professional counterparty – were, at the time that contract was concluded, domiciled in the same State bound by that convention, and where an international element in the legal relationship emerged only after that contract was concluded, on account of the subsequent transfer of the consumer’s domicile to another State bound by that convention”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=246786&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2104

The Advocate General (Campos Sanchez-Bordona) had, a few days before (9 September 2021), suggested for his part that “Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable in the case where, at the time when the contract is concluded, the parties to that contract are domiciled (within the meaning of Articles 59 and 60 of the Convention) in the same State bound by the Convention and the foreign component of the legal relationship arises only subsequently, when the consumer has transferred his or her domicile to another State also bound by the Convention.

In the alternative, Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention would be applicable in the case where the parties’ domicile at the time when the contract is concluded is situated in a single State bound by the Convention and the consumer subsequently relocates to another State also bound by the Convention, provided that the economic operator pursues in the State of the consumer’s new domicile a trade or profession such as that which gave rise to the conclusion of the contract” (source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=245765&mode=req&pageIndex=23&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2104).