Feed aggregator

In Case C‑398/24 [Pome], the CJEU yesterday held without AG Opinion.

Under Estonian law, choice of court is only valid in respect of disputes connected with the economic or professional activity of both parties to the agreement in question (in the case at issue, an agreement between two natural persons concerning the transfer of half the share of the equity in a flat, and the coinciding monies owed by the acquiring party to the other; neither of them seemingly professionally engaged in real estate.

The question referred is essentially whether Brussels Ia tolerates

a condition, imposed by the national law of the Member State whose court has been designated by the parties to an agreement as having jurisdiction, according to which an agreement conferring jurisdiction entered into by natural persons is valid only if the dispute at issue is connected with the economic or professional activity of those parties, amounts to a ground for the agreement being ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’, within the meaning of [Article 25 Brussels Ia]

[27] the CJEU with reference to Lastre points out the limited reach of Article 25’s lex fori prorogati rule:

the first sentence of Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 merely lays down a conflict-of-law rule by specifying which national law is applicable as regards the question whether, notwithstanding the fact that all the conditions of validity laid down in that article are satisfied, such an agreement may be null and void on other substantive grounds under that national law

[32] The lex fori prorogati rule only “covers the general grounds for an agreement being null and void that may have an impact on a contractual relationship, namely – in particular – those which vitiate consent, such as error, deceit, violence or fraud, and incapacity to contract”. By contrast [35] the Estonian rule at stake “does not constitute one of the general grounds for [contractual] invalidity”, rather [37] undermines the respect for “the autonomy of the parties..the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements” which are clearly essential to Brussels Ia. Ad nauseam, [39]

to impose a condition under national law, which renders an agreement conferring jurisdiction invalid if the dispute is not connected with the economic or professional activity of the parties to the agreement, would be contrary to those parties’ freedom of choice’ (reference here to Refcomp).

[42] over and above the principle of party autonomy, the Estonian rule also infringes the core objective of legal certainty:

the legal certainty ensured by Regulation No 1215/2012 would be compromised if it were possible, for a national legislature, to lay down additional conditions of validity pertaining to agreements conferring jurisdiction themselves and insisting in particular on the existence of a connection with the type of activity of the parties to the dispute.

The CJEU’s emphatic support for party autonomy also means it did not entertain the referring court’s suggestions on recital 20’s renvoi rule (with Estonian residual private international law, like many Member States, declaring Rome I to be applicable despite its exclusion of choice of court agreements, hence making the lex (voluntatis) contractus applicable to the question of substantive validity of choice of court).

The judgment is yet again solid evidence of the status of party autonomy as a foundational principle under Brussels Ia.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.343 ff.

The latest issue of the International & Comparative Law Quarterly includes two contributions dealing with private international law. The first, by Richard Garnett, is entitled Foreign Judgments and the Relationship between Direct and Indirect Jurisdiction. A key issue in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is jurisdiction, with a distinction drawn between ‘direct’ jurisdictional […]

Jean-Baptiste Racine (University Paris II Panthéon Sorbonne), Fabrice Siiriainen (University of Nice) and Séverine Menétrey (Free University of Brussels) have published the fourth edition of a manual of French international commercial law (Droit du commercial international). The book surveys all aspects of international commercial law: private international law of corporations, of contracts, and of guarantees. […]

As announced earlier on this blog, applications are open to join the Lindemann Fellowship, a programme established in 2024 to support promising academics in the field of private international law. Fellows are accepted for a three-year period, with new Fellows joining each year.  The core of the Fellowship is an annual fully funded meeting of […]

On 19 November 2025, from 2 to 3 pm UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Kirsten Henckel (University of Groningen) on The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law. The webinar will explore how digitalisation has transformed property and inheritance, raising new challenges […]

The Greek publisher Nomiki Bibliothiki has published a book by Haris Meidanis, in English, titled The Private International Law of Commercial Mediation. In a commercial contract that contains a mediation clause, a dispute arises. Mediation starts and the related questions begin: Must the parties sign an agreement with the mediator and under which law? Should […]

The CJEU held last Thursday in C-682/23 E.B. sp. z o.o. v K.P. sp. z o.o. (my usual grumble on anonymisation: there is exactly zero reason to anonymise names in a bog standard B2B litigation fought in open court).

E.B. (the principal) and E. PL. (the service provider) are two companies incorporated under Polish law. They contracted on 24 March and 24 July 2017 two contracts for construction work in Poland. With effect from 4 March 2017, E. PL. subcontracted with E. S.A., a company incorporated under Romanian law. On 10 July 2017, E. S.A., in turn, concluded a subcontract with K.P., yet another company incorporated under Polish law. This contract contains a jurisdiction clause under which ‘any dispute shall be resolved by the court within whose jurisdiction the contracting party has its registered office’. The clause does not specify the exact scope of the term ‘contracting party’. This is the clause at the centre of the case.

The four contracts referred to above all have Polish law as lex contractus by way of lex voluntatis.

K.P. then allegedly misperformed under the subcontract leading to E.S.A having a €3 million plus claim against K.P. This claim was assigned by agreement of 16 December 2021, concluded between E. S.A. and E.B. and with the participation of E. PL. E.B. took that claim in what it said is both contractual liability and liability in tort, to the Romanian court which it said had jurisdiction in its capacity as the court within whose jurisdiction E. S.A. had its registered office.

K.P. argued lack of jurisdiction for the Romanian court, suggesting a tortious claim did not engage the choice of court and per A7(2) Ia should be heard in Poland as locus delicti commissi. As for contractual liability, K.P. argued that E.B. could not, as a third party to the subcontract in question, rely on the jurisdiction clause at issue.

To question before the CJEU is whether the assignee of a claim arising from a contract, has the right to enforce the jurisdiction clause in that contract against the original party to the contract, if the assignment contract has, in accordance with the national law applicable to the substance of the dispute, transferred the claim and its ancillary rights, but NOT the obligations arising from the contract.

The CJEU up to [40], referring to previous case law (including Maersk, of course), firstly postulates a ius commune rule (supported by the principles of predictability, certainty and good administration of justice of Brussels Ia) that in any case there is enforceability under Article 25 if rights AND obligations have been assigned.

It then [41] ff concludes that it is however also compatible with A25 BIa if a national regulation such as, in this case, Polish private law, as applied by Polish case law, includes enforceability by the assignee of the jurisdiction agreement against the original contracting party, even if the assignment transfers rights only and not obligations, and even if the other, originally contracting party did not consent to the assignment in general or to the assignment of the choice of forum in particular. Except if the original contracting parties expressly agreed that such assignment could not result in the enforceability of the choice of court clause.

The judgment reemphasises the incomplete assignment picture under EU private international law which I also flagged for a planned talk at the Asser institute last week.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.373 ff.

The ASADIP conference is an annual highlight of the discipline. The reports from the 2025 conference in Rio de Janeiro are now available, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, here

And the location and date for the 2026 have been set for San Salvador, El Salvador, 20-23 October. See you there.

 

On 17 October 2025, the EBS Law School in Oestrich-Winkel, Germany, hosted a conference Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law. The conference was organised by Professors Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School) as part of the Law Schools Global League Sustainable Global Value Chains Project (see also here).

The conference brought together a number of scholars specialised in private international law, company law, and contract law to discuss the role of private law and private international law in social, economic, and environmental sustainability within global value chains.

Keynote

Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) delivered the keynote lecture entitled “European Law for Global Value Chains – Human Rights Advancement or European Imperialism?” Professor Michaels addressed this question from a historical perspective. He related the historical roots of existing sourcing practices to contemporary supply chains, drawing on a wealth of theoretical insights. He further reflected on the conceptualisations that remain necessary for the legal discipline to contribute to addressing economic inequalities in contemporary global sourcing practices facilitated by interconnected chains of contracts.

After the keynote, several scholars provided insights into their current research, which resonated with various aspects of the keynote lecture.

Other contributions

Ren Yatsunami (Kyushu University, Japan) addressed the ‘Governance Gaps on Global Value Chains from the Perspective of Private International Law’. Professor Yatsunami sketched, inter alia, a situation in which an act taking place in Japan triggered the application of French law on the duty of vigilance. He discussed this situation from the perspective of Japanese courts and Japanese private international law, including the question of overriding mandatory rules, to illustrate the intricacies of applying the sets of rules involved.

Carlos Vázquez (Georgetown University, Washington D.C., United States) elaborated on the ‘Choice of Law in Transnational Business and Human Rights Litigation’. Professor Vázquez discussed the conflict-of-law approaches in both the United States and the European Union, distinguishing between two ways of framing litigation — as a breach of international law and as a breach of national law, primarily tort law — and examined the peculiarities of each. Relying on historical and theoretical insights into both ways of framing litigation, the contribution offered a reflection on possible ways forward.

The discussion then turned to contract law, namely the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Felix M. Wilke (EBS Law School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany) titled his contribution ‘’Tainted by Harm but Fit for Sale? Human Rights and the Concept of Non-Conformity under the CISG’. Professor Wilke focused on the connection between supply chain regulation and the CISG’s provisions on the quality and conformity of goods and remedies.

Thereafter, Sara Sánchez (IE University, Madrid, Spain) connected the contract law framework with procedural law and EU law. In her contribution ‘Access To Justice in CS3D-Related Claims’, Professor Sánchez discussed the absence of jurisdictional rules in the regulation of due diligence in supply chains (see also posts by Michaels & Sommerfeld here and by Silva de Freitas & Kramer here). Professor Sánchez proposed an EU law-based solution to address this gap.

Irene-Marie Esser (University of Glasgow, Scotland UK) and Christopher Riley (University of Durham) then turned to ‘The Interplay between Reporting Requirements and Group Liability for Supply Chain Misconduct – Transnational Business Corporations’. They addressed the existing case law, normative considerations, and avenues for the further development of company law aspects of liability related to acts and omissions involving groups of companies in supply chains.

Simone Lamont-Black (University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK) and Catherine Pédamon (University of Westminster, UK) took a broad look at the agricultural business and food supplies. Departing from the premise that contractual clauses are not sufficient to provide food security and sustainability in global food supply chains, these scholars elaborated on other possible solutions.

The last panel drew conclusions and discussed emerging themes for further research. The discussants were Nevena Jevremovic (University of Aberdeen, UK), Matthias Goldmann (EBS Law School), Klaas Hendrik Eller (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University, the Netherlands).

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (CEST). Professor Caroline Sophie Rapatz (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Play Among the Laws?”

With the increasing privatisation and economisation of space activities, the need for private space law becomes urgent: Responsible exploration and exploitation necessitates suitable and reliable rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in Outer Space as well as substantive private law adapted specifically to space scenarios. The presentation will explore the options for developing a comprehensive body of such private (international) law rules within the framework established by the existing public international law treaties on space law. It will outline possible approaches to such an undertaking, using property law questions as the main example.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

A call for chapters has been issued for the upcoming edited volume Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, to be published by Springer Nature under the editorship of Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen). The volume explores how digitalisation affects courts and dispute resolution, seeking to balance efficiency and fairness, from remote hearings […]

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité fait une petite pause la semaine du 27 octobre.

en lire plus

On 21 October 2025, the European Commission adopted its 2026 work programme, titled Europe’s Independence Moment. It outlines how the EU plans to respond to current and emerging challenges, from security threats and geopolitical tensions to economic vulnerabilities and the accelerating climate crisis, building on the priorities set out in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines 2024-2029 […]

La chambre criminelle s’est prononcée pour la première fois sur la question de savoir si les saisies pénales ordonnées dans une procédure diligentée par le parquet européen devaient répondre à des conditions spécifiques issues du règlement européen du 12 octobre 2017.

en lire plus

La divergence entre jurisprudences internes constitue un élément attentivement scruté par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme qui fait des garanties procédurales offertes par le droit national un point central de l’effectivité des droits fondamentaux. Dans ce cadre, le rôle d’harmonisation dévolu à la Cour suprême nationale est déterminant, comme le confirme un récent arrêt.

en lire plus

Imagens Médicas Integradas
Concurrence
Selon l’avocate générale Medina, le respect au droit à la protection des données à caractère personnel n’exige pas l’autorisation préalable d’une autorité judiciaire dans des enquêtes sur la concurrence

Tuleka
Voyages à forfait : en cas d’exécution incorrecte du contrat, le voyageur peut être intégralement remboursé, même si certains services lui ont été fournis

This post was contributed by Gilles Cuniberti, Brooke Marshall and Louise Ellen Teitz. They are the authors (with the late Peter Mankowski) of a commentary on the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements forthcoming with Edward Elgar. On 9 October 2025, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-540/24, Cabris Investment already discussed […]

In 2025, the European Civil Justice Centre (ECJC) was established at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam. This Centre was set up to facilitate the collaboration of scholars and other stakeholders across Europe and beyond in conducting research and related activities with a view to promoting access to justice. The Centre consolidates extensive work spearheaded by Erasmus School of Law civil justice scholars over the past fifteen years (see www.euciviljustice.eu), benefits in particular from support by the KU Leuven, and builds on collaborations with academics, practitioners and policy-makers around the globe.

The European Civil Justice Centre will hold its inaugural event, The Future of Civil Justice in Europe: Enhancing Access and Innovation, on 27 November 2025. More information and the program is available here. To register for in-person attendance click here, and for online participation here. Introductory speeches will be given by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus School of Law), Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) and Anna Nylund (Bergen University). A thought-provoking keynote speech will be given by Alan Uzelac (Zagreb University) on the state of civil justice in Europe, focusing on empirical insights, access to justice, and the need for innovation across systems. This will be followed by a panel presenting Academic perspectives ‘Rethinking Civil Justice: Comparative, Empirical, and Technological Dimensions’ and a panel on Policy, Practice & Innovation ‘Delivering Justice: Challenges and Opportunities in Practice’.

The European Civil Justice Centre promotes research, policy-making and related training activities in support of the further development of European civil justice, with the aim of strengthening tailor-made access to justice for businesses and citizens. Key areas of interest include, but are not limited to, research activities on (1) collective actions and public interest litigation, promoting legal mobilization with the aim to enforce rights for the public good and/or (disadvantaged) groups; (2) legal aid and assistance, and third-party litigation funding; (3) digitalisation of civil justice, including AI; (4) ADR and ODR; and (5) anti-SLAPPS (strategic litigation against public participation). The Centre is dedicated to capacity-building for joint research projects, including and policy-oriented research, strengthening societal outreach and impact, and creating opportunities for early career researchers. More information on opportunities to become a fellow and further activities will become available soon.

 

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a rendu, la même semaine, deux arrêts issus de litiges d’urbanisme. Deux décisions, techniques en apparence, mais qui rappellent que l’espace bâti n’est jamais neutre : il touche à la propriété, à la vie privée. Dans les deux cas, la Cour a constaté une violation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme confirmant que l’urbanisme peut aussi être un terrain des droits fondamentaux. 

en lire plus