The main accomplishment of the Property Regimes Regulations lies in their bringing more coherence into the cross-border family law adjudication. In the field of international jurisdiction, they strive to align the competence in couples? patrimony disputes to that in succession and in separation proceedings, or else to align the competence of the courts to the applicable law. These tendencies are clearly visible in the Regulations? provisions on choice of court agreements. Namely, the Regulations allow for such agreements, but severely limit parties? choice and the possible effects of these clauses. When succession or separation proceedings are pending, it is often only possible to institute patrimonial disputes at the same court as the said proceedings. When proceedings concerning matrimonial or registered partners? property are initiated without previously pending succession or divorce proceedings, or else when the necessary consent to the joinder is not given, parties can avail themselves of a fairly limited list of options to choose a court from. The Regulations leave several questions regarding choice of court agreements unanswered. Often, analogy with other EU regulations and the CJEU case-law can be of help. The critical eye of the doctrine is, however, mainly cast on the unpredictable fate of the choice of court agreements under the Regulations. The paper analyses the complex regulation of the choice-ofcourt agreements in the Property Regimes Regulations, draws attention to open questions and provides possible answers.