The so-called empty international competence in disputes arising from the international carriage of goods emerges when Article 31(1) of the CMR Convention provides international competence of courts in a particular state, but the national legislation of that state lacks sufficient rules to determine territorial jurisdiction of the case. Partly in Germany, but mainly in the Czech Republic, a doctrine has developed applying Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation for the direct determination of the territorial jurisdiction of national courts. The Czech judiciary has developed a doctrine to determine territorial jurisdiction depending on the place of payment of the carriage charges. It thereby expands the impact of Article 5(1) significantly. In contrast, the Austrian judiciary strictly refused that doctrine and Slovak judiciary does not use that doctrine at all.

German and Austrian lawmakers have finally stipulated specific provisions into their national procedural rules on the territorial jurisdiction of national courts relating to the international carriage of goods. In contrast, the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of national courts in the Czech Republic and Slovakia remains in specific proceedings. At the same time, of all designated states, the Czech Republic is the most favourable to plaintiffs since it is often possible to sue directly, using the place of a plaintiff's registered address as a de facto result.