Feed aggregator

In May, the Court of Justice will deliver only one decision, on the interpretation of the European Account Preservation Order Regulation. It will also hold a hearing in a case related to the Rome II Regulation. The hearing will take place on Wednesday 13th; it concerns case C-345/25, Gritxa, a request for a preliminary ruling […]

Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)

The first issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2026 has just come off the press and is available online. It contains three articles, nine case notes, and eight book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).

The volume opens with Dr. Sophie Duparc’s (Université Panthéon-Assas) critical look at the interplay between Droit international privé et libertés de circulation : repenser la résolution des conflits de compétences (Private International Law and Freedom of Movement: Rethinking the Resolution of Conflicts of Competence). The expanding influence exerted by European fundamental liberties across all branches of private law indeed raise serious constitutional challenges, which are presented as follows:

Initially observed in company law and with regard to the devolution of patronymics, conflicts between freedom of movement and national rules of private international law now affect more sensitive issues, such as same-sex marriage, homoparental filiation or the change of gender identity. The recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union reveal an ever-increasing supremacy of freedom of movement and the correlative neutralization of divergences of opinion between the Member States. This outcome stems from the Court’s use of an unbalanced proportionality review, primarily designed to protect the European standpoint. In contrast to this approach, it is necessary to underscore the egalitarian nature of the conflict between free movement rights and national rules falling within the competences retained by the Member States. This observation calls for a recalibration of proportionality review: in order to preserve the neutrality of its constitutional function, the Court of Justice ought to take as the starting point of its reasoning the equality of the competing interests, thereby allowing the one carrying the greatest weight in the circumstances of the case to prevail.

In the second article, Antoine d’Ornano (Avocat honoraire, Paris; Attorney at law, New York) focuses on Le juge administratif et les nouvelles énigmes de l’exequatur (Administrative Courts and the New Conundrums of Exequatur). By lifting the public law taboo in a recent landmark decision, the French Conseil d’État brought up important practical concerns regarding the adequacy of the common regime of exequatur for the peculiarities of administrative matters. The judgement’s grey zones are assessed by the author as follows:

The French supreme administrative court has allowed, for the first time, the enforcement of a foreign judgment of an administrative nature. This decision was rendered pursuant to an international convention, which based the characterization of the judgment and subjected its enforcement to the compliance of the public policy of the forum. This case, as it acknowledges that the administrative feature of a foreign judgment does not, in and of itself, prevent its effect in France, raises the questions of the possibility and conditions of its enforcement in the absence of an international convention. The decision would then likely be rendered by the civil courts applying their standard rules on enforcement of foreign judgments. The criteria set by EU regulation Brussels I bis could be applied to assess the administrative nature of all such judgments, whose enforcement should comply with the public policy of the forum including certain domestic principles.

The last piece by Prof. Bettina Rentsch and Alessa Karlinski (Freie Universität Berlin) comments on La révision des conflits de lois en matière de nom en Allemagne – Nouvelle clarté et nouvelles incertitudes (The Reform of German Rules of Conflict of Laws on Personal Names –   New Clarity and New Uncertainties). After contextualising the 2025 reform, the authors peruse the new conflict rules, which introduce truly significant developments but are nonetheless not immune from interpretative shortcomings that could prove of great practical relevance. The article’s abstract reads as follows:

This article discusses the recent reform of the German Conflict Rules on personal names within its legislative context. It addresses practical and legal shortcomings of the previous regime as against its most important innovations, a shift in the objective connecting factor from nationality to habitual residence and extended choice-of-law options. Through these innovations, Germany liberalises the conflict-of-laws regime for names and enhances name bearers’ autonomy. Albeit responding to practical needs in cross-border contexts, the reform also raises questions of interpretation.

The full table of contents is available here.

Previous issues of the Revue Critique (from 2010 to 2025) are available on Cairn.

In the Zimbabwe High Court decision of  Ser and Another v Yong and Another (92 of 2026; HC/SUM 1957/2025) [2026] ZWHHC 137 (8 April 2026), the applicant obtained a freezing (Mareva) injunction from a foreign court in Singapore against assets linked to the respondents and then sought to have that order registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. The respondents resisted enforcement, arguing that the order should not be recognised because it was interlocutory in nature and because a relevant foreign defendant had not been joined to the original proceedings. The dispute therefore arose in the context of an attempt to extend the effect of a foreign asset-preservation order into Zimbabwe against parties and assets within its jurisdiction.

In the words of Wamambo J, “In the present case, the judgment of the 19th of December 2025 is a product of detailed submissions by the parties on the merits of the injunction and is final and definitive in as far as that subject matter relates to the parties herein, who were the protagonists in the Singapore High Court. Whilst the order of 21 July was a temporary injunction, which was the subject of either confirmation or discharge, it has since been confirmed by the judgment of 19 December 2025, and has thus become what is commonly known as a final injunction as it no longer has any return date and is no longer in jeopardy of cancellation at the instance of the respondents as it was prior to 19 December 2025.” In the final analysis, the High Court held that a confirmed Mareva (freezing) injunction issued by a foreign court can be registered and enforced in Zimbabwe, even where a foreign defendant was not joined to the proceedings, provided the order has attained sufficient finality and certainty. The Court rejected technical objections based on non-joinder and instead adopted a functional approach, treating the confirmed injunction as capable of recognition because it created binding and enforceable obligations rather than merely provisional relief. In doing so, the Court signalled a more flexible approach to the finality requirement, distinguishing earlier strict authority that excluded interim orders, and emphasised that the decisive question is whether the foreign order is sufficiently final in effect and enforceable in the issuing jurisdiction, rather than its formal label as “interim.

On 23 April 2026, the EU amended Regulation (EU) 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures against Russia (the ‘Sanctions Regulation’) and established an anti suit injunction for European entities being sued in Russia in violation of jurisdiction clauses. Nine months ago, the EU had already amended the same Sanctions Regulation to establish a variety of remedies allowing […]

Justifie sa décision la chambre de l’instruction qui rejette le motif de non-exécution obligatoire d’un mandat d’arrêt européen dès lors que les faits pour lesquels l’intéressé a été condamné en France et ceux visés par le mandat sont similaires, de même nature, mais ne peuvent être considérés comme identiques, faute de lien indissociable par leur objet, dans le temps et dans l’espace.

en lire plus

On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg) will speak, in German, about the topic

“Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht”

In Deutschland dürfte zum juristischen Allgemeinwissen zählen, dass anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare in den USA (und manchen anderen Rechtsordnungen) zulässig und vielfach sogar üblich sind, in Deutschland hingegen früher generell als unzulässig galten und auch heute noch deutlichen rechtlichen Grenzen unterliegen. Im IPR wird meist angenommen, dass sich diese Grenzen auch international zwingend durchsetzen, soweit es um deutsche Anwälte geht. Die schon früher relevante Frage nach Differenzierungen im Einzelnen hat durch die spürbaren Lockerungen der maßgebenden sachrechtlichen Regeln in jüngerer Zeit nochmals an Bedeutung gewonnen.

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.

The latest issue of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 75, Issue 1) features two article of relevance to private international law. Min Kyung Kim and Jonathan Harris, Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy, 129-155 This article examines the tension between arbitration and insolvency in common law jurisdictions. Focusing on the divergence created […]

Le 26 mars 2026, le Parlement européen adoptait la première directive anticorruption à 521 voix pour, 21 contre et 42 abstentions. Présentée comme ambitieuse mais critiquée pour ses limites, elle a été adoptée définitivement le 21 avril 2026 par le Conseil. 

en lire plus

You are invited to the next Migration Talk organized by the Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the European Union and in Türkiye.

Speakers: Dr. Hamed Abdollahpour Ranjbar (Istinye University), Khaled Elazab, MA (Clark University), Yomna Nassar, MA (Koç University), Farah Amayreh (Koç University), Dr. Ibrahim Yigit (Florida State University), Prof. Dr. Janet Molzan Turan (Koç University), and Prof. Dr. Bülent Turan (Koç University)

Title:Stigma in the Lives of Refugees Living in Turkey

Date and Time: Monday, May 4, 2026 – 12:30 PM – 1:20 PM (Turkish Time)
Event Location: via Zoom (The Zoom link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr)

The event will be held in English.

Abstract
The research is conducted with Syrian and Afghan refugees living in Istanbul, Turkiye to explore and examine effects of stigma and microaggressions in these populations.
It is based on 8 focus groups separately for men and women, four groups with Syrian refugees and four with Afghan refugees, with 4-10 participants in each group. Participants shared that stigma and microaggressions were central forces shaping every dimension of their daily life, well-being, and future plans. The intensity and ubiquity of these experiences appeared to exceed what is commonly documented in other stigmatized populations, owing in part to the visibility and politicization of refugee identity in the current sociopolitical climate in Türkiye, which allows and condones stigma and microaggressions against these populations. Refugees described that they and their children experienced mental and physical health problems not only due to trauma and difficulties faced before and during migration, but also due to post-displacement stigma and microaggressions that they experienced on a daily basis. Refugees employed a range of coping strategies to deal with these challenges, avoidance of interactions with Turks, forms of identity concealment (e.g., not revealing nationality, changing names, or not speaking their native language in public), avoidance of confrontation, and in some cases educating their neighbors to confront and correct stereotypes.

In the quantitative phase of the research, the research group developed the Refugee Stigma Scale (RSS) informed by the literature and qualitative and quantitative data. The scale includes four theoretical dimensions of stigma: perceived community stigma, experienced stigma, anticipated stigma, and internalized stigma. In a sample of 404 Syrian and 447 Afghan refugees in Türkiye, confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized four-factor structure of the RSS. Results also supported convergent validity of the four subscales showing correlations with validated measures of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), somatic symptoms, post-migration difficulties, and contact experiences.

The research group also developed a subscale assessing microaggressions (subtle/ambiguous discriminatory remarks or behaviors). Convergent validity of the Microaggression Scale for Refugees (MSR) was supported by high correlations between microaggressions and experienced stigma, somatic symptoms, post-migration difficulties, and contact experiences with the host country. Importantly, both experienced stigma and microaggressions contributed independently to explaining variance in psychological and somatic symptoms.

It is also explored the concept of identity denial in the context of refugee stigma using the new scales. Even after many years of immigrating, immigrants can have their new cultural identity (in this case, their Turkish identity) denied or unacknowledged. Based on a survey of 156 young Syrian adults living in Türkiye for many years, the research found that Turkish identity denial was associated with higher depressive symptoms and lower psychological well-being, mediated by perceived and anticipated stigma. Furthermore, a challenged sense of belonging was an independent parallel mediating mechanism by which identity denial was associated with psychological well-being and depressive symptoms.

As report earlier on this blog, the third bi-annual conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 18 to 20 June 2026. Under the title “Shaping the Future of Private International Law in Europe – Putting Together the Pieces & Filling Gaps”, the conference will address structural developments, unresolved issues, and emerging challenges in European private international law.  The program is available on the conference’s website.

Registration will close in two weeks, on 17 May 2026. You are welcome to register using this link.

EAPIL is looking forward to seeing you in Geneva!

The third bi-annual conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 18-20 June 2026. The conference will present current developments in Private International Law. Presentations will then focus on a proposal to consolidate the current European Private International Law regulations in one single instrument (EuPIL Act), on […]

In an increasingly multipolar world, national and regional actors are reasserting regulatory control over cross-border economic activities. States such as the United States and China, as well as the European Union, are increasingly relying on unilateral measures with extraterritorial reach – particularly in areas such as sanctions, digital regulation, supply chains, competition law, and data protection. At the same time, the multilateral order appears to be under strain: international organizations are being sidelined, agreements are terminated or ignored, and established norms are openly challenged.

To explore the implications of these developments for international (economic) law and the future of global economic cooperation, the German Society of International Law (DGIR) will host a conference in Munich on 11–12 June 2026. Focusing on “Law without Borders? Extraterritorial Regulation and Unilateral Action” the event promises to provide a timely and critical forum for discussing the evolving role of extraterritorial regulation and unilateralism in shaping the international legal order.

Programme

Thursday, 11 June 2026 – National (Regional) Law and Global Markets
The first day will focus on national (regional) law and the regulation of global markets. It will feature presentations by Moritz Renner (Mannheim)  and Romy Klimke (BSP Business and Law School Berlin) followed by a commentary by Andreas Ziegler (Lausanne).

In the evening, Frank Hoffmeister (Brussels) will deliver a practitioner keynote on “The European Union as an Actor in International Economic Law,” followed by a reception.

Friday, 12 June 2026 – Economic Sanctions and International Conflicts
The second day will deal with economic sanctions and international conflicts. Presentations will be delivered Till Patrik Holterhus (Saarbrücken) and Markus Lieberknecht (Osnabrück) followed with a commentary by Tanja Domej (Zurich).

Venue and Registration

The conference will take place at the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation in Munich (Südliches Schlossrondell 23, 80638 Munich). If you wish to join please register before 31 May via this linke: https://eveeno.com/dgir-kurztagung-2026.

The conference is organized by Christian Walter (LMU Munich), Markus Krajewski (FAU Erlangen) and Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin). For further questions please contact the organizing team at dgir-kurztagung-2026@jura.uni-muenchen.de.

The Frankfurt Law Review is currently looking for submissions for a special edition dedicated to the topic of Digital Transformation.

Submissions can be drafted specifically for the review but may also be based on seminar papers or other academic assignments; they are accepted until 31 May 2026.

The full call for papers can be found here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 30 March to 1 April, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its fifth meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG continued to make progress in its study of the jurisdiction and applicable law issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs, including the desirability and feasibility of a possible future instrument on these issues, with particular attention to their use in payments with a cross-border or international element. More information is available here.

From 15 to 17 April 2026, the High-Level Conference on the Universalisation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hague Conference on Private International Law was held in Dakar (Senegal). The conference convened ministers and senior officials from French-speaking States in Africa for a high-level discussion on the benefits and practicalities of strengthened engagement with the PCA and the HCCH. More information is available here.

On 8 and 22 April 2026, the first and second meetings of the Working Group on the operation of Article 33 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention were held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group worked on the development of a Model Form for requests under Article 33. More information is available here and here.

 

Upcoming events

The 14th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme will take place on 12 and 13 May 2026 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The Forum will provide a unique international platform for governments, organisations, and the private sector to learn more about the benefits of the e-APP, to promote its effective implementation, and to discuss the latest developments in relation to the e-APP worldwide. Interested persons should register via this form no later than Friday 1 May 2026, 5.00 p.m. (CEST). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

On 16–17 April 2026, the elegant setting of Villa Ruspoli in Florence hosted the First National Congress of ASGiC – the Society for the Study of Consensual Justice, titled Giustizia e cooperazione: il valore del consenso (Justice and Cooperation: The Value of Consent). Marked by a large and engaged participation, the event offered a valuable opportunity for both the Society’s members and a wider community of scholars and practitioners to reflect on the role of consent in contemporary conceptions of justice.

The Congress opened with introductory remarks by the Society’s President, Silvana Dalla Bontà, who set out the themes and objectives guiding the initiative. Against this backdrop, the keynote lectures delivered by Tommaso Greco, Andrea Simoncini, and Filippo Danovi developed a first, coherent reflection on consensual justice, identifying a variety of core concepts – trust, consent, justice, solidarity, Constitution, language, and dialogue – that are likely to orient the Society’s future research and activities.

This conceptual framework found further expression in the conferral of honorary membership upon Francesco Paolo Luiso, Marta Cartabia, Adolfo Ceretti, and Luciana Breggia. The laudationes underscored how, from different perspectives – civil procedure, constitutional adjudication, criminology, and judicial practice – their work has contributed to shaping approaches to justice grounded in participation, dialogue, and shared responsibility.

The discussion then broadened through the interdisciplinary roundtable moderated by Pierluigi Consorti. Contributions from Maurizio Biggeri, Marco Cadinu, Marianella Sclavi, Valeria Cantoni Mamiani, Stefano Rozzi, and Luca Toschi moved beyond strict legal analysis, engaging with insights from the social sciences and communication studies to explore more deeply the relationship between interpersonal dynamics and consent.

In her concluding remarks, Vice-President Paola Lucarelli drew together the main threads of the Congress, emphasising the importance of maintaining a close connection between theoretical reflection and practical application. The General Assembly that followed endorsed the Society’s programmatic lines, consolidating the directions that had emerged over the course of the two days.

Looking ahead, ASGiC announced its next steps: a Colloquium to be held in 2027 at the University of Trento and the Second National Congress in 2028 in Taormina, to be organised by founding members Marco Gradi and Antonio Cappuccio of the University of Messina.

In this perspective, the Florence Congress may be construed as the starting point of a broader and ongoing reflection on consensual justice – one that seeks to connect doctrinal inquiry with practice, and to contribute to current debates on more participatory and dialogical models of dispute resolution.

Multinationals and Human Rights in Asia

Edited by Jason Ho Ching Cheung and Kazuaki Nishioka

 

This book investigates the availability in Asian jurisdictions of civil remedies against multinational businesses for human rights abuses.

 

It assesses whether the norms of the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have taken root in Asia by first considering the international state of play. It then presents case studies of corporate governance and human rights in Asia, before examining emerging issues, and considering how Asia has dealt and can deal with corporate responsibility in connection with those matters. By way of conclusion, the book offers an action plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles in Asia.

 

Jason Ho Ching Cheung is a Hong Kong barrister and New York attorney practicing from Albert Luk’s Chambers, Hong Kong and Yodoyabashi & Yamagami LPC, Japan. He is also a part-time lecturer at the Graduate School of Law and the Institute for the Liberal Arts at Doshisha University, Japan.

Kazuaki Nishioka is a specially appointed Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law of Kobe University, Japan.

 

Apr 2026   |   9781509980406   |   328pp   |   Hbk   |    RRP: £100

Discount Price: £80

Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk  – use the code GLR BD8 to get 20% off!

Sign up to our email list to receive updates about our new titles.

 

On 18 March 2026, the European Commission presented the proposal for a Regulation on the 28th regime corporate legal framework – ‘EU inc.’. The initiative introduces a new, optional European limited liability company, conceived as a “28th regime”. Rather than approximating national laws, the proposal establishes a self-standing and directly applicable corporate framework, coexisting with […]

Face à de simples soupçons, l’autorité nationale compétente ne peut collecter les données biométriques qu’en cas de « nécessité absolue ». Dès lors, la finalité justifiant cette opération de traitement doit être définie par le droit national et vérifiée individuellement par l’autorité compétente, par le biais d’une motivation que l’article 55-1 du code de procédure pénale n’exige pas à ce jour. Les poursuites liées au refus par le suspect de se soumettre à la mesure demeurent néanmoins admises si cette condition de « nécessité absolue » est respectée et la sanction proportionnée.

en lire plus

As already announced, there will be an international conference “International Filiation Law in the EU” dealing with questions of filiation law resulting from the EU Parenthood Proposal.

Everybody interested in legal questions of cross-border filiation is welcome. Participation is free, but registration will be required (details follow soon). Any inquiries can be directed to sekretariat.goessl@jura.uni-bonn.de.

 

The programme reads:

Day 1: 24.09.2026

13:00

Martin Böse, Dean of the Law Faculty, University of Bonn: Welcome Address
Susanne Gössl, University of Bonn: Introduction
Ilaria Pretelli, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The EU Commission’s Parenthood Proposal (Overview)

14:15

Ulrike Kjestina Janzen, German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection: The Commission’s Parenthood Proposal – Considerations and Policy Interests and Expectations from a Member State’s Perspective
Alina Tryfonidou, University of Cyprus: Filiation and EU Primary Law: The Portability of the Parent-Child Status in CJEU Case-law

15:00

Velina Todorova,  University of Plovdiv & Ilaria Pretelli, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The Human Rights Frame in International Filiation Law (1): The Rights of the Child, esp. the Right to Know One’s Origins
Rachele Zamperini, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The Human Rights Frame in International Filiation Law (2): LGBTIAQ* Rights and Women’s Rights

16:45

Patrick Wautelet, University of Liège: Many Faces of Birth Certificates in International Filiation Law
Nicolas Nord, ICCS: Filiation Certificate and a Central Registry in the EU

Day 2: 25.09.2026

09:30

Laima Vaige, University of Uppsala: Scope of the EU Parenthood Proposal and Relationship to Other International and EU Instruments
Cristina González Beilfuss, University of Barcelona: Which Rules of Jurisdiction for International Filiation?

11:15

Martina Melcher, University of Graz: How Should the Law Governing International Filiation be Determined?
Susanne Gössl, University of Bonn: Recognition of Court Decisions and the Public Policy Exception in International Filiation Law

12:30

Final Remarks and Conclusions

Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Graduate School of Law) and Adrian Rycerski (SWPS University in Poznan) have issued a call for abstracts in view of the international scientific conference titled Modern Problems of Private International Law. The conference will take place online on 19 November 2026. The focus will be on modern problems of private international law, with […]