This thesis examines the special head of jurisdiction for contractual matters in Article 7(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Particularly, the thesis aims to establish how the concept ‘matters relating to a contract’ is understood for the purposes of Article 7(1). In applying Article 7(1), the seized court must first determine whether the contract is one for the sale of goods or for the provision of services, for which the rule provides autonomously defined places of performance in subparagraph (b). If not, the court has to identify the obligation forming the basis of the legal proceedings for the purposes of subparagraph (a). Subsequently, the court has to apply its rules of conflict of laws rules and determine the place of performance for that obligation in accordance with the designated law. As regards ‘matters relating to a contract’, this expression is the point of departure for the application of Article 7(1) and has an autonomous definition. Essentially, ‘contract’ refers to a situation in which there is an obligation freely assumed by one party towards another. The thesis examines how this definition operates to characterize claims or rights arising out of representation, assignments, pre-contractual dealings and company law. Furthermore, the thesis examines the requirement that the matter must be one ‘relating to’ a contract, with special notice to two recent CJEU cases concerning the identity of the parties to the contract vis-à-vis the parties to the dispute. In conclusion, it is submitted that the CJEU’s expansion and application of the autonomous concept of contract do not necessarily serve the objective of predictability, which ultimately risks impeding the facilitation of the sound administration of justice.