Feed aggregator

As customary, few posts will be published during the Winter break on the EAPIL blog. We’ll be resuming our usual pace on 7 January 2026. The editors of the blog wish readers and subscribers, and more generally all those in the EAPIL community, all the best for the Festive Season and the new year! In […]

The holiday season is approaching. Hopefully, that will mean that most of us can leave our keyboards to rest and not only catch up with family and friends, but also enjoy some good movies. And then why not movies on private international law themes? Below is a short list of recommendations on three movies based […]

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

There is of course one additional issue on conflict of laws that is part of the Municipio judgment (Municipio de Mariana et al v BHP Group UK Limited and BHP Group Limited [2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC); I discussed the Rome II issue here), namely the question of standing for the municipalities in the English proceedings. I discuss it in an extra post here for to simply insert it in my earlier post would render that post’s title incomplete.

This is discussed [1090] ff and it is worth inserting the alternative arguments in full:

1090. BHP’s case is that the Municipalities’ claims should be dismissed as they do not have the constitutional capacity to bring proceedings abroad. Their bringing of these claims in the Courts of England and Wales constitutes acts that are exclusive to the Federal Government as representative of the Federative Republic of Brazil under Article 21(I) of the Constitution, namely: (a) a waiver of immunity from jurisdiction (such waiver being a prerogative of national sovereignty); and/or (b) establishing a legal relationship with a foreign State.
1091. It is said that the effect of the Municipalities bringing suit in England is to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court, waiving jurisdictional immunity from which they benefit as a matter of Brazilian law. This is an act on the international plane, beyond the autonomy of the Municipality and one that only the Federal Government has the constitutional capacity to carry out. Therefore, Municipalities can only bring claims abroad through or with the Federal Republic of Brazil.
1092. The Claimants’ case is that the Municipalities are local government bodies with their own separate legal personality which have administrative responsibility over defined territories within Brazil. They are thus legal persons distinct from the individuals and businesses whose interests they represent and distinct also from the Federal Republic of Brazil. The Municipalities are recognised as public entities by Article 41(III) of the Civil Code, subject to internal public law, as well as the Constitution.
1093. Under Brazilian law, Municipalities are treated as having the same capacity as a natural person so far as holding and exercising rights is concerned. In those circumstances, it is said that in the absence of express prohibition or limitation, Municipalities are in the same position as any other natural or non-natural legal person. Like any other such person they can therefore sue and be sued, both within Brazil and in courts outside Brazil as any other natural or non-natural legal person.

O’ Farrell J starts with the common ground:

1094. It is common ground that the issue of standing of a party is a matter for the lex fori, that is, the English Court, but the issue of capacity to bring proceedings of the
Municipalities, as creations of Brazilian law, is subject to Brazilian law.
1095. Further, it is common ground that the Municipalities can sue and be sued in their own name before the Brazilian Courts, including in respect of damage to their own property.
1096. The issue is whether the capacity of the Municipalities to bring proceedings for
damages is restricted to domestic proceedings in Brazil and does not extend to foreign proceedings, by reason of the Constitution.

[1097] the judge emphasises her role as holding on the issue as a matter of (proven) fact of foreign law: not as a definitive determination of Brasilian law. Defendants’ expert’s view is is that the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, acting in the name of the Federative Republic of Brazil, to waive immunity from jurisdiction. [1101] the claimants’ expert’s view echoes issues of ‘civil and commercial’ and the meaning of core concepts of foreign sovereign immunity:  his view is that

the Municipalities are not prevented from filing actions outside Brazil under Brazilian law. The legal scholarship on immunity against foreign actions applies only to the so-called acts of sovereignty or acts of state, but not to acts of management. A civil claim for compensation against a foreign private agent, even when made by a public body, such as a Municipality, is not an act of sovereignty or the State, but rather an act of management. In the case of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by environmental degradation brought against private companies based abroad, relations with foreign States are not in question, nor is the participation
of international organisations.

In others words this is a ‘money’ claim, not one related to public power. The judge [1106] prefers this opinion:

As he explained, a distinction must be drawn between sovereignty, the authority of the Federal Republic to govern itself and its laws, and administrative autonomy, the authority of private and public entities to conduct their own affairs, including by means of legal actions. By filing claims in the English Courts, the Municipalities submit to the jurisdiction of this Court to try the claims but that does not extend to any issue of sovereignty. The Municipalities do not purport to exercise any sovereign authority of the Federal Republic when advancing their private law claims. They are not required to surrender any such sovereign authority and the private law claims do not involve any issues of international relations.

Consequently [1108]

there is no constitutional impediment by way of incapacity for the Municipalities to bring proceedings in this jurisdiction. It follows that there they have standing in these proceedings.

A (factual) finding of note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, ia 4.82 ff.

Recenty, the 26th volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law has been published (available here). This year’s edition puts a particular emphasis on Choice of Court Agreements, the EU Succession Regulation as well as the impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on International Family Law:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Part I: Doctrine

Pascal DE VAREILLES SOMMIERES
Paving the Way for an Internationalist Representation of Private International Law Today

Francesca C. VILLATA
The Law Applicable to Third-Party Effects of the Assignment of Claims – The travaux préparatoires for an EU Regulation

Christiane VON BARY
New Private International Law Rules in the Law of Persons in Germany – Gender and Names

Stefano DOMINELLI
Cross-border Service of Documents via Social Media “Notifications” in
Global and EU Private International Law

 

Part II: Choice of Court Agreements – Old Issues and Recent Developments

Matthias WELLER
Delineating EU Law from Member State Law – The Latest from the CJEU on Choice of Court Agreements (Inkreal, Lastre, Maersk)

Tania DOMEJ
A Swiss Federal Court Decision on Jurisdiction Clauses and Multiple Defendants

Lyssa Maria BRITO
The Law Governing Forum-Selection Clauses in International Commercial Contracts – Interpretation and Enforcement in Light of Choice-of-Law Provisions

 

Part III: Court Decisions

Johan MEEUSEN
The Interaction between Freedom of Establishment and Corporate Conflict of Laws in the European Union – The CJEU’s Edil Work 2 Judgment

Etienne PATAUT
Selling Citizenship – A Challenge for Europe – A Commentary on the
CJEU’s Decision in Commission v Malta

 

Part IV: Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Comparative Perspective

Patrick WAUTELET
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Belgium

Iina TORNBERG / Katja KARJALAINEN
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Finland

Patrick WAUTELET
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in France

Inga KACEVSKA
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Latvia

Egle CAPLINSKIENE
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Lithuania

Paul CACHIA
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Malta

Patrick WAUTELET
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in the Netherlands

Ioana OLARU
Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Romania

 

Part V: COVID-19 Impact on International Family Law

Bogdana OSTROVSKA
International Issues of Surrogacy during the Pandemic and the War in Ukraine

Regiane PEREIRA
The Effects of the Pandemic on Cross-border Parental Relations and in Child Return Proceedings

Tiago Lindolpho CHAVES
The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on International Child Abduction – An Analysis of the Grave Risk Exception and the Prompt Enforcement of the Return Order

 

Part VI: National Reports
Tamir BOLDBAATAR / Batzorig ENKHBOLD
Child Protection in Mongolia in the Context of the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention

Mohammed RAKIB-UL-HASSAN
Beyond Judicial Patchwork – The Urgency of a Comprehensive Statute for Private International Law in Bangladesh

 

Part VII: Forum
N. Kansu OKYAY
Hybrid Dispute Resolution Clauses in International Law

Manuel José SEGOVIA GONZÁLEZ
Cross-border Insolvency Cooperation Agreements – Elements for a Contract Theory of Joint Jurisdiction

 

The Regional Hubs Bonn, Cologne and Düsseldorf of the German-American Lawyers’ Association (DAJV), together with the German-Israeli Lawyers’ Association (DIJV), the leading law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs and the University of Bonn, invite to a panel discussion at the Bonn offices of Redeker Sellner Dahs.

Germany has recently introduced a “precedent procedure” (“Leitentscheidungsverfahren”) in the German Code of Civil Procedure (“Zivilprozessordnung”, ZPO). The new legislation, only applicable if the outcome is relevant to a “multitude” (“Vielzahl”) of other proceedings, entered into force on 31 October 2024. On that very day, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) immediately made use of this new tool and elevated to a “precedent procedure” a pending litigation against Facebook on damages for immaterial harm from “scraping” according to Article 82 European General Data Protection Regulation (“Scraping Complex”). This was to ensure that the Court be able to deliver an opinion on the relevant question of law even if the parties were to settle the case meanwhile. In the following, the parties did not settle, and the Court delivered its regular judgment soon afterwards, on 18 November 2024. Since then, the Court has not yet used this tool again, as it seems.

Germany is a civil law jurisdiction where, formally speaking (and leaving some exceptions aside), there are no binding precedents. Yet, there has been a long debate on “persuasive precedents”, i.e. the expectation and practice that lower courts follow the judgments of the Federal Court of Justice (and other highest courts), unless they put forward thorough legal reasoning for departing. A plethora of fundamental and practically relevant questions arises in this context: Do judgments of the courts create “law” or do they merely tell us what the law says that the legislator enacted? What, if any, are the constitutional constraints on judicial development of the law? Is the concept of “persuasive precedents” a satisfactory calibration between rendering justice in the individual case and stability of the legal system? What is the status of an opinion of the German Federal Court of Justice in the new precedent procedure in this context? Why does it only cover cases with relevance to a multitude of other proceedings? Is this “multitude” the same as the relevance of the point in law for a “multitude” of cases to grant access to first and final appeal (“fundamental relevance” [“grundsätzliche Bedeutung”])? What is the role of the three layer appeal system in its entirety in this regard? How does the independence of the judiciary come into play and how does this institutional guarantee relate to available disciplinary measures against “slow” and “ineffective” judges? To what extent do judges tend to discipline themselves by following precedents to promote themselves for higher-ranking posts?

All of these questions are highly relevant in other jurisdictions as well, but they are placed in fundamentally different contexts. Israel is a mixed jurisdiction with elements from common law and civil law. How do the Israeli Supreme Court and the lower courts deal with these issues? What is the law-making role of the Supreme Court in the context of constitutional tradition and practice? Is it advisable to combine the function of final appeal with judicial review of the executive and legislative branches of the state? Is there a particular politicization of final appeal proceedings as well, next to this trend in regard to judicial review proceedings? What effect should the role of precedents have on the procedure of appointing judges to the Supreme Court? Similar questions appear with a view to the United States, but there these questions are placed within a common law context. Having regard to recent decisions of the Supreme Court, how binding is precedent, and when can it be overturned? Also, what is the purpose of the “shadow docket”, and what does its apparently increased use signify in current Supreme Court practice? How important is precedent for the rule of law?

These and other questions will be addressed by a distinguished panel that represents the three jurisdictions and diverse perspectives:

Panelists:

Dr Thomas von Plehwe, Attorney admitted to the Bar of the German Federal Court of Justice (“Rechtsanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof”), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Professor Barak Medina, The Landecker-Ferencz chair in the study of Protection of Minorities and Vulnerable Groups, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel.

Professor Russell A. Miller, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law, Washington & Lee School of Law, Lexington, USA.

Moderators:

RA Professor Dr Peter Andreas Brand, Redeker Sellner Dahs Rechtsanwälte, Berlin Offices.

Professor Dr Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ., MAE, Director of the Institute for German and International Civil Procedural Law, Regional Board Member for Bonn of the DAJV.

The venue is Willy-Brandt-Allee 11, 53113 Bonn. Participation is possible on site or via video conference.

We are looking forward to seeing you there!

Registration at sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de

 

The 4th Asian Private International Law Academy (APILA) Conference was held on 13–14 December 2025 in Doshisha University (Kyoto, Japan). The two-day Conference explored a wide variety of questions and issues on private international law in Asia. It featured 21 papers delivered by leading and emerging scholars. Each paper was followed by a Q&A and discussion session among over 40 attendees. Attendees thoroughly enjoyed the rich intellectual exchanges within the close-knit (and expanding) community of APILA, and also the reception (with an impressive selection of food and drinks) on the first night of the Conference.

The keynote address this year was delivered by Dr Chukwuma Okoli, Assistant Professor in Commercial Conflict of Laws at the University of Birmingham. Dr Okoli spoke about his ongoing project, ‘Choice of Law for Employment Contracts in Africa: Imitation, Evolution and Revolution’. He argued that Africa plays an important role in shaping cross-border issues of employment contracts, and African perspectives should be considered in future harmonisation efforts on the topic. He also reflected critically on the development of African private international law, and the lessons from and for Asian private international law.

The 20 papers focused on a vast array of topics, encompassing theoretical and practical aspects of private international law in a wide range of Asian jurisdictions. A list of papers presented at the Conference (in alphabetical order of their titles) is as follows:

• Bankruptcy and Foreign Immovable Property: The Way Forward from Kireeva
• Beyond Performance Metrics: Explaining the Slow Growth of International Commercial Courts Compared to Arbitration
• Can Genuine Harmonisation in International Commercial Arbitration be Achieved without Islamic Law: Reconsidering Islamic Law’s Alleged Incommensurability with Civil and Common Law
• Cross-Border Insolvency and International Arbitration Agreements at Common Law
• Do Directors Owe a Duty to Ensure Corporate Compliance with (Foreign) Law?
• Global Standard Setting for the North? Rethinking the Regulatory Transformation of Private International Law from a Global South Perspective
• How to Unintentionally Win Two Japanese Moots: AI Tools and Multilingual Advocacy
• International Family Law: Quo Vadis?
• Islamic Law and Private International Law in Non-Muslim Majority Jurisdictions: Rethinking Private International Law through the Philippine and Australian Experience
• Islamic Law before Japanese Courts: Special Focus on Dissolution of Marriage
• Law Applicable to Tokenisation: Medium-Centred vs Right-Centred Approaches
• LGBTQ and Private International Law: Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage and its Effects in Japan
• Overstepping TRIPS
• Private International Law in Transnational Personal Data Litigation: Chinese Perspective
• Reassessing the Mode of Proof of Foreign Law
• Recognising Foreign Gender Identity in Hong Kong through Private International Law
• Rethinking Jurisdiction in the Era of Generative AI
• Standing and Characterisation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disputes in Private International Law: Türkiye’s Position as a Bridge between Asia and Europe
• The Establishment of the Competence-Competence Principle in the Chinese Arbitration Act 2026
• The Law Applicable to Crypto Assets in Japanese Courts: Comparative and Methodological Considerations

The 5th APILA Conference will be held on 12–13 December 2026 in Seoul, South Korea. Interested speakers and attendees may wish to mark their diaries now. A call for papers will be circulated in due course.

This post was prepared together with Aleksandra Karlińska (student researcher in EUSuccess Project at Jagiellonian University). This post describes the outcome of the OP case, after the ruling given by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-21/22), back in front of the referring court, as in 2025 the Regional Court in Opole (II […]

Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.

 

It’s rare for conflict of laws to come up in South African courts (with the notable exception of the Turkcell litigation from earlier this year; see the summary on this site at https://conflictoflaws.net/2025/south-africa-grapples-with-the-act-of-state-doctrine-and-choice-of-law-in-delict/).

 

A recent High Court judgement, Placement International Group Limited v Pretorius, is an opportunity missed. A Hong Kong company is in the business of recruiting South Africans and placing them with international companies. It employed two South Africans to do the recruitment. They worked for the company for several years and, so the company alleged, acquired confidential information about the company’s customers, methods, and the rest. The two employees resigned and started their own competing company. The employment contracts were governed by Hong Kong and had restraints of trade (the judgement does not say if there were dispute resolution/jurisdiction clauses). The company applied for an interdict against the two employees and the competing company in South Africa.

 

The company chose not to sue on the restraints of trade in the employment contracts (or on any contractual rights to confidentiality that are usually included in restraints). Instead, the company based its cause of action on delict (in general, the use of trade secrets and confidential information is a species of unlawful competition under South African law). The company seems to have made that choice because, so it thought, it had no cause of action under Hong Kong law.

 

The court dismissed the application, but its reasons are unclear. According to one interpretation of the judgement, the primary reason for dismissing the application was that the main harm, a specific job fair where the company conducts most of its recruitment, had already occurred, making an interdict no longer necessary. On another reading, the court seems to doubt that the company even made out the necessary prima facie right, partly because there was nothing confidential to protect but also, importantly, because of the effect of Hong Kong law governing the contracts.

 

Throughout the judgement, there is an unexpressed concern regarding forum shopping. The premise of this concern is that, at least according to the judgement, the restraints of trade are void under Hong Kong law (and that, presumably, there is no equivalent protection for confidential information under Hong Kong law). The parties did not present any evidence regarding Hong Kong law on this issue.

 

From that premise, the judge concluded that the company jettisoned a doomed (Hong Kong-governed) contractual claim for a viable (South African-governed) delictual claim.

 

It is regrettable that there was no engagement with characterisation and choice of law. The judge is alive (and concerned about) the link between the employment relationship and confidentiality duties. Under South African choice of law rules, the choice of law rule for delict is the lex loci delicti, but it may be displaced by the law of the country with a manifestly closer, significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. The court should have at least gone through the conflicts process to determine whether Hong Kong law had a manifestly closer relationship, considering that it governed the employment relationship.

 

The judgment is available here: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2025/1252.html

 

There is no better Christmas present than a comprehensive and up-to-date compilation of the previous year’s scholarship in private international law, and when that bibliography is prepared by Professor Symeon C. Symeonides (Alex L. Parks Distinguished Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus), it is truly something special.

As usual, and without fail for the past twenty years, Professor Symeonides has produced an exceptionally thorough and reliable survey of the field.

The 2025 compilation (Private International Law Bibliography 2025: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English) lists no fewer than 115 books and 397 journal articles devoted to private international law (or conflict of laws) and related areas.

 

The Absract reads as follows:

“This is the twentieth annual bibliography of private international law compiled by the undersigned as a service to fellow teachers and students of this subject. It includes 115 books and 397 journal articles that appeared in print in 2025.

The term “private international law” is used here in the broadest and arguably expanded sense. It encompasses not only the three divisions of the law of conflict of laws (adjudicatory jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of sister-state and foreign judgments), but also prescriptive jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, federal-state conflicts, as well as certain aspects of arbitration, the law of foreign relations, and international human rights.

AI Note: This compilation is the product of human labor-mine. I have visually verified all entries, although I have used electronic search engines to locate them. I have not used generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Access to the bibliography is available on Prof. Symeonides’ SSRN page here.

Readers may also wish to consult his insightful essay, Reflections from Fifty Years in the Conflicts Vineyard, in which he offers a concise yet profound and wide-ranging reflection on half a century of scholarship in the field, available here

Many thanks to Professor Symeonides for this invaluable contribution, which continues to be an essential resource for scholars and practitioners alike.

I had promised participants of the BIICL Business and Human Rights Annual Forum Annual Conference that I would be putting up my handwritten notes for my keynote, in electronic format. Here they are. It was a great forum.

Geert.

 

The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2025 was just published. It contains the following articles:

Elena Rodríguez-Pineau, “Cross-border insolvency avoidance actions in the EU: a necessary reflection”

After 25 years, the European Union can boast of having harmonised EU cross-border insolvencies in a Regulation (recasted once). The EU is presently addressing substantive harmonisation of insolvency law (via Directives) within the Union with a focus on restructuring and stakeholders’ interests. Although such legislation should apply without prejudice to the EU Insolvency Regulation, this approach is somewhat difficult to articulate since that Regulation was drafted with a focus on liquidation and maximising creditors’ protection. This tension is particularly acute in relation to transaction avoidance actions as the Regulation sets a double avoidance requirement while the proposed Directive fosters a more pro-avoidance position. This paper suggests several options that the EU legislature may follow to revise the Regulation’s transaction avoidance rule. It is contended that such revision needs to bear in mind how the issue is being addressed outside the EU in order to consider the ad extra regulation of said actions.

 

Benjamin Hayward, “So many thoughts about Tesseract: a private international law perspective”

On 7 August 2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Tesseract International Pty Ltd v Pascale Construction Pty Ltd. In doing so, it held (contrary to existing practitioner consensus) that certain Australian proportionate liability laws apply in Australian domestic commercial arbitration. Existing analyses assess this case from an arbitration perspective. As this article shows, however, the case is really about private international law. This being so, this article critiques the High Court’s reasoning and also Tesseract’s existing commentaries from a private international law perspective. As arbitration is a dispute resolution process grounded in law, these critiques are offered in the service of helping Australian arbitration better secure its trade facilitation purposes.

 

Stefano Dominelli, “Torts in outer space: conflict of laws perspectives”

Human activities in outer space impose a reflection on the structural inadequacy of current connecting factors, such as the lex loci damni, which may not properly operate when all events are localised in areas (rather than a territory) not subject to the sovereignty of a State. By integrating space law principles and interests in conflict of law approaches, the aim of this work is to propose connecting factors which may apply in cases of satellite collisions or for torts in sub-orbital flights. Different constellations are created, each of which requires a specific assessment of the relevant interest which should mould specific solutions.

 

Thu Thuy Nguyen, “Governance of low-skilled labour migration: rethinking the potential of private international law for the promotion of decent work for migrant workers”

The proliferation of temporary labour migration programmes has enabled low-skilled workers from developing countries to seek employment in industrialised countries. However, due to inadequate regulatory frameworks at the national and international levels, these programmes fail to ensure decent work for the low-skilled migrant workers. By utilising the low-skilled labour migration between Vietnam and Japan as a case study, this article highlights the failure of the current regulatory framework in adequately governing the intermediaries and employers throughout the migration process. This article also presents the private international law challenges faced by migrant workers when initiating transnational civil litigation against abusive intermediaries and employers before Vietnamese or Japanese courts. To combat the exploitative practices of the migration industry and promote decent work, besides reforming ex-ante regulations, this article argues that the international community should reconsider the potential of private international law. This paper advocates that private international law could be better crafted to enable different stakeholders to engage in social dialogue about, and to seek the realisation of, the value of decent work. Based on this argument, this paper proposes solutions to remedy Vietnamese and Japanese private international law rules to facilitate the realisation of the value of decent work for low-skilled migrant workers under temporary migration programmes.

 

Aygun Mammadzada, “Beyond the model law: the case for a Commonwealth-wide adoption of the Hague Judgments Convention”

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (Judgments Convention) marks a pivotal development in private international law, offering a uniform framework for cross-border enforcement that enhances predictability and reduces legal fragmentation. By promoting legal certainty, it supports international trade and commercial relations and aligns with the broader push for greater judicial cooperation in the interconnected world. This article argues that it is in the clear interests of Commonwealth states to ratify the Convention. The Convention offers an avenue to strengthen the “Commonwealth advantage” by leveraging shared legal traditions and institutional ties to facilitate cooperation which the Commonwealth Model Law is unlikely to do on its own. Set against the backdrop of Brexit and the UK’s search for new legal alignments, the article further proposes that the UK’s ratification of the Convention can serve as a source of proactive inspiration for other Commonwealth states. As the key influencer and first Commonwealth state to ratify the Convention (apart from Malta and Cyprus, which acceded through their EU membership), the UK is uniquely positioned to promote wider adoption and reinforce both legal integration and commercial certainty. Such cooperative efforts can further consolidate the Commonwealth’s role in shaping the evolution of global private international law.

 

Bianca Scraback, “The international element requirement for consumer contract jurisdiction in the Brussels Ia Regulation”

Whether or not local jurisdiction in consumer contract cases is regulated in the EU by the Brussels Ia Regulation or domestic rules on jurisdiction hinges on the existence of a relevant international element. Even determining the relevance of international elements using a rules-based approach and despite two decisions of the CJEU, the paper argues that the requirement leads to unpredictability that is not warranted in light of the interests involved. It therefore proposes a legislative change limiting the determination of local jurisdiction to consumer contract cases where the parties are not both domiciled in the same Member State. If there are more than two parties involved, the paper proposes to include a rule modelled after Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation.

 

Bálint Kovács, “Europeanisation of private international law: Balancing national traditions and EU rules”

The reviewed monograph provides a thorough examination of Hungarian private international law, set against the backdrop of EU private international law developments, and their application by the Hungarian judiciary. The book begins with a historical overview of Hungarian private international law, culminating in the 2017 recodification under the Act on Private International Law (APIL). It systematically explores sources of private international law, including national legislation, EU regulations, and international treaties. Key issues such as choice-of-law principles, jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments, and international civil procedure are dissected with comprehensive reference to Hungarian jurisprudence. The book also contains the English translation of the Hungarian APIL, as well as a complete list of bilateral and multilateral international agreements that include private international law provisions to which Hungary is a party. Its clarity, analytical depth, and practical insights make it a significant contribution, and an invaluable resource for both scholars and practitioners.

On 16 December 2025, the European Parliament approved at first reading the proposal for a directive amending, among other legislative measures, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD). The proposal now awaits approval by the Council of the European Union. As reported on this blog, the amending directive, part of the Omnibus Simplification […]

Par arrêt du 2 décembre 2025, la chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation précise les conditions dans lesquelles l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen peut être refusée par la chambre de l’instruction en cas de poursuites exercées pour les mêmes faits en France, ainsi qu’en cas d’atteinte alléguée à la vie privée et familiale de la personne recherchée.

en lire plus

On 2 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union rendered its judgment in case C-34/24, Apple Store Nederland. The case was already commented on this blog by Jorg Sladic this morning as well as by Burkhard Hess a few weeks ago, and by Geert van Calster on his blog. Both Burkhard and […]

FIGC et CONI
Concurrence
L’avocat général Spielmann estime que le droit de l’Union s’oppose à une réglementation qui ne permet pas aux juridictions nationales d’annuler des sanctions sportives illégales

Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab Afdeling Schackenborgvænge
Principes du droit communautaire
Interdiction de discrimination : la Cour de justice précise, en rapport avec la loi danoise en matière de logement public, les situations pouvant constituer une discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique

Sidi Bouzid
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Protection internationale : le refus par le demandeur de son transfert dans un autre centre d’hébergement ne peut pas justifier le retrait du bénéfice de l’ensemble des conditions matérielles d’accueil

Amazon EU (Tarifs minimaux de livraison de livres)
Libre circulation des personnes
L’imposition, par une mesure nationale, de tarifs minimaux pour la livraison à domicile de livres doit être analysée à la lumière des règles en matière de libre circulation des marchandises

Storstockholms Lokaltrafik
Principes du droit communautaire
RGPD : en cas d’utilisation d’une caméra-piéton lors du contrôle de billets, certaines informations doivent être fournies immédiatement au passager concerné

SACD e.a.
La recevabilité d’une action en contrefaçon du droit d’auteur d’une œuvre collective doit garantir le respect du droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective, en ne rendant pas la procédure prévue inutilement complexe ou coûteuse