Conflictoflaws

The German Law Journal has published a Special Issue featuring the proceedings of the international conference on Informed Consent to Dispute Resolution Agreements, held in Bremen on 20–21 June 2024 (see our earlier announcement here).

Edited by Gralf-Peter Calliess and Nicholas Mouttotos of the University of Bremen, the special issue brings together contributions from leading scholars in private international law, international civil procedure, and international arbitration. Contributors include: Symeon C. Symeonides, Nancy S. Kim, Gralf-Peter Calliess, Frederick Rieländer, Peter McColgan, Laura E. Little, Kermit Roosevelt III, Sören Segger-Piening, John F. Coyle, Hannah L. Buxbaum, Marta Pertegás Sender, Stephen Ware, Stefan F. Thönissen and Nicholas Mouttotos.

The collection addresses a central tension in modern dispute resolution: how to reconcile party autonomy in forum and choice-of-law agreements with the requirement of consent, and how informed should consent be, particularly where such agreements are embedded in standard-form contracts affecting weaker parties such as consumers and employees.

The issue encompasses perspectives from both the United States and the European Union, examining questions of constitutional fairness, access to justice, and the legitimacy of contractual self-determination. Contributions trace the historical development of party autonomy, critique the adequacy of existing consent models, examine their outward abandonment while also exploring comparative regulatory approaches to protecting vulnerable contracting parties.

The special issue is available in the German Law Journal, Volume 26, Special Issue 5, and the editorial can be found here. The German Law Journal is a pioneering (Gold) open-access, peer-reviewed forum for scholarship and commentary on comparative, European, and international law, offering free and unrestricted online access to its publications since 1999.

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here: https://rsw.beck.de/zeitschriften/zeup.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

• Mathias Reimann: The Elusive Goal of Private Law Unification – The Creation, Implementation, and Effect of Uniform Laws in the United States and Potential as a Model for Europe
  Mathias Reimann on The Elusive Goal of Private Law Unification – The Creation, Implementation, and Effect of Uniform Laws in the United States and Potential as a Model for Europe as an examination of how, in the United States, the core of private law is left to the individual states and thus often, and at times highly, diverse. A prominent vehicle for achieving greater uniformity has been the drafting and adoption of uniform and model laws, mainly under the auspices of the National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now more commonly called the Uniform Law Commission (ULC). Since its foundation in 1892, this institution has produced hundreds of such laws and presented them to the state legislatures for enactment. While some have been (almost) universally adopted, most notoriously the Uniform Commercial Code, such success is far more the exception than the rule – the majority of uniform laws have been enacted by, at best, a small minority of states and, thus, failed significantly to enhance legal uniformity. Even where a statute’s text has been widely adopted, it is unclear how much uniformity that has created in terms of actual practical outcomes. On the whole, the uniform law movement has somewhat diminished, but it has not broadly overcome, the diversity of American private law. Its mediocre track record suggests that the uniform law approach would scarcely be a suitable model for the unification of private law in Europe; this is especially true since the conditions for producing, adopting, and uniformly interpreting such laws are much less favorable here than in the United States.
• Stefan Thönissen: Die Kommunikation der obersten Gerichte
  Stefan Thönissen on Die Kommunikation der obersten Gerichte as an exploration of how the relevance of supreme courts’ communication of their decisions is closely connected with the purpose of contributing to legal development and unification. Although this purpose is – to different degrees – common to all supreme courts, the way they communicate through their decisions significantly differs. In recent years, there have been substantial developments. However, these developments have not necessarily led to a convergence.
• Matteo Bruno Fontana: Die verjährungshemmende Wirkung europäischer Kollektivklagen nach Umsetzung der Verbandsrichtlinie
  Matteo Bruno Fontana on Die verjährungshemmende Wirkung europäischer Kollektivklagen nach Umsetzung der Verbandsrichtlinie as an analysis of how the new Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (VDuG) empowers consumer associations to bring representative redress actions (Sec. 14 et seq. VDuG). While the suspension of the limitation period by representative actions brought before a domestic German court is addressed in detail in Sec. 204a (1) German Civil Code (BGB), the suspensory effect of a foreign collective action is only partially governed by Sec. 204a (2) BGB. Against the backdrop of the discussion on the suspensory effect of individual actions brought in a foreign forum, this article lays out why foreign collective redress actions should be deemed to have a suspensory effect on the limitation period under German substantive law.

The volume also features to book reviews related to private international law:

• Alan Brown reviews Jens M. Scherpe/Stephen Gilmore (eds): Family Matters: Essays in Honour of John Eekelaar (Intersentia 2022)
• Tobias Lutzi reviews Eva Jueptner: A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments. Why did the Judgments Project (1992–2001) Fail? (Intersentia 2024)

The Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye and Bilkent University Faculty of Law cordially invite you for the next Migration Talk by Professor Paul James Cardwell (King’s College London) on “Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration”.

In Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines (7/11/2025 ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1665), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands considered the interpretation of a so-called ‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading. Such clauses commonly signpost which rules govern the international carriage of goods by sea. The Court addressed such clause as a choice of law and held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from agreeing on such clause.

Facts

The dispute concerned liability for fire damage that occurred during the discharge of dangerous goods (refrigerated liquid ethylene in containers) transported by sea from the USA to Angola under a bill of lading.

The conditions of the bill of lading provided for jurisdiction of the Dutch courts; this is how the parties Airgas USA (Radnor, Pennsylvania, US) and Universal Africa Lines (Limassol, Cyprus) came to litigate in the Netherlands.

These conditions also included a so-called ‘Paramount clause’. Such clauses have been used in contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea, primarily to designate which uniform substantive law convention on the carriage of goods by sea applies. The clause in this case provided that Dutch law governed the contract and declared that if the goods were carried by sea from or to a port in the United States, the 1936 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States (COGSA) applied. The COGSA is the U.S. implementation of the 1924 Hague Rules.

Dispute

As the regimes of liability diverge across the conventions containing uniform law, and across national laws, this dispute revolved around the choice of law. The cassation claim advanced various arguments against the application of COGSA (and in favour of the mandatory application of Dutch law which implied a different limitation of liability).

The main arguments were that COGSA is not a ‘law of a country’ that may be chosen within the meaning of the Rome I Regulation, that even if the GOGSA applied, its application should not set aside those provisions of Dutch law that may not be modified by contract, and that the lower courts applied the COGSA incorrectly (requiring the Court to review this application, arguing that the COGSA’s content was identical to the Hague-Visby Rules and to Dutch law).

Decision

In its decision, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred to article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation. First, it held that, according to this provision, the parties are free to choose the law governing their contract. They may choose either the law applicable to the entire contract or the law applicable to a specific part of the contract. This part of the contract is then governed by the chosen rules of law, which replace national law in its entirety, including those rules of national private law which cannot be modified by contract (at [3.1.2]).

Second, the Court held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from designating a part of a national legal system — and not that system in its entirety — as the applicable law. In this case, the parties had the right to choose COGSA as applicable law, while for matters not regulated in the COGSA the parties should fall back on Dutch law (at [3.1.3]).

Finally, the Court reminded that the question of whether lower courts correctly applied foreign law cannot, in principle, lead to a claim in cassation under Dutch civil procedure laws. Only if the lower courts had compared the rules of the legal systems potentially applicable and held that the outcome was identical to Dutch law could an exception be made; this was not the case in this dispute (at [3.2.1] e.v.).

Comment

The decision in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines sheds light on the exact effects, in Dutch courts, of a contract clause widely used in contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea. This enhances legal certainty. At the same time, one inevitably runs into various questions cognate to this decision. For example, should the Court’s considerations on partial choice of law be understood as confined to ‘Paramount clauses,’ or do they have broader implications? In this regard, does it matter that rules such as COGSA implement an international treaty (the Hague Rules)? Or is the ‘partial’ character of the choice of law related only to carriage to or from U.S. ports? These and undoubtedly other questions are themes for further reflection.

For inspiration: the clause that gave rise to the dispute in this case as quoted by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands at [2.1] is this:

‘The law of The Netherlands, in which the Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated, shall apply. Nevertheless if the law of any other country would be compulsorily applicable, the Hague-Visby Rules as laid down in the Treaty of Brussels of 25th August 1924 and amended in the Protocol of Brussels of 23rd February 1968 shall apply, save where the Hamburg Rules of the UN Convention of the Carriage of Goods by Sea of 1978 would apply compulsorily, in which case the Hamburg Rules shall apply. If any stipulation, exception and condition of these conditions would be found inconsistent with The Hague-Visby Rules or Hamburg Rules, or any compulsory law, only such stipulation, exception and condition or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be invalid. In case of carriage by sea from or to a port of the USA, this Bill of Lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States, approved 16th April 1936, which shall be deemed to be incorporated herein, and nothing herein contained shall be deemed a surrender by the carrier of any of its rights or immunities or an increase of any of its responsibilities or liabilities under said Act. The provisions stated in said Act shall, except as maybe otherwise specifically provided herein, govern before the goods are loaded on and after they are discharged from the ship and throughout the entire time the goods are in custody of the carrier. The carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever for any delay, non-delivery or mis-delivery, or loss of or damage to the goods occurring while the goods are not in the actual custody of the carrier.’

What does it mean to respect family life in modern Europe? With families increasingly diverse and cross-border by nature, the concept of family law is undergoing profound legal, cultural, and institutional changes. A newly published academic volume — El Derecho de Familia a la Luz del Derecho Fundamental Europeo al Respeto a la Vida Familiar — offers a rich and timely exploration of this transformation.

Edited by María Victoria Cuartero Rubio and José Manuel Velasco Retamosa, this book brings together leading voices in European family law, private international law, and human rights to examine how the fundamental right to respect for family life (Article 8 ECHR, Article 7 EU Charter) is reshaping family law across jurisdictions.

This collective volume is notable for its interdisciplinary scope and comparative approach. Contributors address legal challenges that sit at the intersection of: Family Law (marriage, parenthood, equality, succession); Private International Law (cross-border family relations, recognition of status); Fundamental Rights Law (interpretation of Article 8 ECHR); European Union Law (Brussels II ter Regulation, work-life balance directive); Family Policy & Socio-Legal Perspectives (gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, surrogacy).

The book features contributions from a distinguished panel of legal scholars and practitioners, including: Rafael Arenas García (UAB); Katarina Trimmings (University of Aberdeen); Margherita Salvadori (University of Turin); Amélie Benoistel (Paris); Afonso Patrão (University of Coimbra), alongside a wide range of Spanish and international legal academics.

The volume is divided into four thematic parts, each exploring a key area of contemporary family law from a fundamental rights perspective:

1. Evolving Family Models (How are legal systems adapting to non-traditional families, cohabitation, reconstituted households, and gender dynamics within family law?)

2. Equality, Non-Discrimination & Diversity (Topics include discrimination in inheritance, recognition of same-sex parenthood, and the intersection of sexual/gender identity and private life under the ECHR)

3. Identity, Parenthood & Cross-Border Legal Status (Chapters address the legal recognition of parentage, surrogacy, nationality, and the right to personal identity — all within the context of European mobility)

4. European and International Cooperation (Focus on Brussels II ter, forum non conveniens, judicial cooperation, and the cross-border recognition of family rights in an EU context).

While the majority of the chapters are written in Spanish, the volume also includes important contributions in English and French, reflecting the book’s comparative and international character. For example, Katarina Trimmings contributes a chapter in English on Article 8 ECHR and children’s identity rights; Margherita Salvadori writes in English on the Italian ban on surrogacy and its cross-border effects; Amélie Benoistel contributes a chapter in French on reserved heirship and the ECHR.

This volume is more than a scholarly collection — it’s a map of the evolving European legal landscape on family life. Its strength lies in combining legal theory with practical analysis, using the right to family life as a unifying framework across jurisdictions.

For those working i.a. on cross-border custody or parental rights cases, legal recognition of same-sex or surrogate families, harmonisation of family law within the EU, or human rights protections in private family disputes, the book provides important insights.

Full text available here:
https://ruidera.uclm.es/server/api/core/bitstreams/7cd3dc93-51aa-4c8f-9df1-142fdd00ede3/content

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

The third issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2025 has been released last month. It gathers four articles, six case notes and seven 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 issue opens with Prof. Thibaut Fleury Graff’s (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas) and Dr. Inès Giauffret’s (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) survey of Le droit des étrangers et ses temporalités. Retours choisis sur la jurisprudence 2024 en matière de migrations (Immigration law and its temporalities. Selected reviews of 2024 case law on migration). A valuable addition to the dossier that the Revue critique recently devoted to the reform of French immigration law, its abstract reads as follows:

The adoption of the Law of 26 January 2024 “on controlling immigration and improving integration” marked the beginning of 2024 in the field of migration. Supplemented by its implementing decrees, the law has already given rise to initial litigation, discussed in this paper, alongside the more traditional case law interpreting the rules governing the rights and status of foreigners in France, as well as the conditions of their detention. These rulings reflect the current period, caught between legislative facilitation of detention and removal on the one hand, and judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of non-nationals on the other.

In the second article, Prof. Étienne Farnoux (Université de Strasbourg) elucidates the subtle connections between Les droits fondamentaux, l’exception d’ordre public et la prohibition de la révision au fond dans le système de Bruxelles I (Fundamental rights, public policy exception and the prohibition of review on the merits in the Brussels I system) from the Real Madrid case. At the crossroads of private international law and European integration, the contribution answers fundamental questions raised by this now notorious judicial saga. Its abstract reads as follows:

The case, which arose when recognition was sought in France of a Spanish court’s ruling against a French newspaper ordering it to pay heavy damages, highlights the conflict between the European objective of mutual trust and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of the press. In a decision dated October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice (on a preliminary reference by the Cour de cassation) outlined the general methodology for controlling the proportionality of a financial penalty imposed abroad, on the basis of international public policy, a mechanism strongly influenced by European law. This control, which was subsequently implemented by the Court de cassation in a ruling dated May 28, 2025, is severely limited by the European principle of prohibition of the review on the merits.

In the third article, Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) points out Les non-dits du droit européen du numérique en matière de droit international privé : l’exemple du règlement sur les services numériques (DSA) (The unspoken private international law aspects of European digital law: the example of the Digital Services Act (DSA)). In light of cyberspace’s peculiarity, the study paves the way for a clearly articulated policy of private international law in the digital sphere. Its abstract reads as follows:

The Digital Services Act (DSA) addresses issues of private international law in a very limited way. It mainly defines its territorial scope using a unilateral rule : it applies to any intermediary service provider that targets users in the European Union, regardless of its place of establishment. It is largely silent on other aspects of the private international law, such as determining the law applicable to illegal content or to actions for injunctions and damages. In terms of jurisdiction, it refers to the Brussels I bis Regulation, whose provisions are poorly adapted to the specificities of the digital world. The preference that the DSA seems to give to public enforcement rather than private enforcement cannot justify its silence on most questions of PIL, which are essential if we are to ensure effective protection of rights in the digital environment, which is almost always cross-border.

The doctrinal part wraps up with Dr. Marcel Zernikow (Université d’Orléans) study of Le renouvellement des méthodes de la coopération judiciaire au service du droit au procès équitable : l’instrument du certificat et la numérisation (Renewing judicial cooperation methods to uphold the right to a fair trial: the instrument of the certificate and digitalisation). The growing importance of international cooperation in cross-border proceedings indeed requires a modernized approach, which the author proposes to pursue as follows:

Judicial cooperation is an object of study in private international law that is justified by the need to make the State’s jurisdictional activity effective in a foreign territory. Since it describes the connection between State or judicial authorities of two different States, it is governed by their respective territorial procedural laws. This field is nevertheless undergoing a renewal of its methods, which will be studied through the prism of the introduction of a new instrument: the certificate. The latter is gradually being used to accompany public documents or judicial decisions or for evidentiary purposes. How has this development become the basis for digitalization, which relies on the interconnection of legal systems and individuals via the internet? The renewal of methods is universal insofar as it is based on the guarantee of the right to a fair trial in international civil proceedings.

The full table of contents is available here.

Previous issues of the Revue critique (from 2010 to 2024) are available on Cairn.

The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been released. It contains the contributions to the symposium in honor of Jürgen Basedow that was held in Hamburg in November 2024. The table of contents is available here. All content is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 and more articles are available Online First.

Eva-Maria Kieninger, Konrad Duden and Ralf Michaels, Preface to the Symposium Issue, pp. 409–410, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0046

Hannah L. Buxbaum, The New Unilateralism in EU Cross-Border Regulation: Objectives, Methods, Institution, oo. 411–431, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0043

For years, Europe was a site of resistance to regulatory unilateralism, particularly as practiced by the United States. Today, though, there are signs of a robust unilateralism at work in EU regulatory practices. To some extent it simply mirrors practices adopted in the United States and elsewhere: Like other lawmakers, the EU has begun to act unilaterally where necessary to achieve effective regulation of its own markets and to protect local interests. In other respects, though, the new unilateralism in the EU presents quite differently. First, the EU increasingly uses its own legislation not to advance purely local regulatory interests, but rather to achieve international or global goals – classically a more multilateral objective. Second, under EU law individual regulations in particular substantive areas are embedded in a larger framework of norms and values that claim universal appeal. In both of these regards, the EU version of unilateralism appears more benign than purely »self-interested« unilateralism. It nevertheless raises important questions about the way that local laws and institutions are used to project regulatory power in the international arena. The goal of this article is to explore these questions. It begins by describing the characteristics of this new unilateralism, in terms of both its doctrinal foundations and its regulatory objectives. It then focuses on one particular mechanism: the adequacy regime established under EU data protection law.

Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Einheitsrecht – prinzipiell oder sektoral? [Uniform Law – a Principle- or Sector-based Approach?], pp. 432–450, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0040

The purpose of this article is to shed some light on the possible future of uniform law. Notwithstanding the possible hinderances and difficulties faced by unification activities, especially a possible lack of interest in such activities, the article considers the question of which actors are and will be involved in legal unification and what types of uniform law can be expected. The growing involvement of private actors (the so-called commercial approach) and the concentration on different kinds of soft law promise an increasing degree of sectoral projects featuring a functional approach. However, it is essential to continue work on general principles that have applicability in specific areas of law; such principles are needed as interpretative aids and serve an important gap-filling function. Jürgen Basedow recommended keeping general principles in mind already at the stage of formulating a sectoral project. Thus, it can be expected that both the concept of principles and a sectoral approach will play an important role also in the future.

Christian Kohler, Zur Außenprivatrechtspolitik der Europäischen Union, [On the External Policy of the European Union in the Field of Private Law], pp 451–482, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0041

The policy of the European Union in the field of private law is primarily aimed at shaping the internal market, but it also affects relations with non-EU states in a variety of ways as regards both regulatory private law and the conflict of laws. The EU’s underlying »external private law policy« is pursued in two ways. First, legal instruments include unilateral scope rules which bring persons or events in third states within the scope of the measure and which should promote the regulatory objectives at issue. Second, agreements on private law matters are concluded by or on behalf of the EU with third states. However, institutional weaknesses and the Union’s notorious lack of competence make it difficult to develop a coherent external private law policy. In the field of conflict of laws, the conclusion of multilateral agreements makes the unilateral extension of EU rules to situations involving third states not redundant. There is no discernible political will to extend the Union’s powers in the field of private law and thereby change the conditions under which the EU’s external private law policy is currently formed.

Matteo Fornasier, Modelle europäischer Privatrechtsharmonisierung. Die prozedurale Harmonisierung als neue Form der Rechtsvereinheitlichung in der EU? [Harmonization of Private Law in Europe. Procedural Harmonization as a New Path Towards the Approximation of National Laws in the EU?], pp. 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0042

The article offers an overview on the variety of regulatory approaches towards the harmonization of private law in Europe, covering both negative and positive harmonization, including full, minimum, and optional harmonization. Particular attention is devoted to what appears to be a new model of harmonization, which is referred to in this article as procedural harmonization. Procedural harmonization occurs where the EU legislature or, in some cases, the EU Court of Justice confines itself to setting common European procedural standards for the protection of certain individual rights, without harmonizing the substance of those rights. The article draws on a number of examples from EU employment law, which is an important element of the system of EU private law, though it is often marginalized in European private law discourse.

Herbert Kronke, Weil Wissenschaft Wissen schafft: Zu Jürgen Basedows »Uniform Law« [Because Scholarship Generates Knowledge: On Jürgen Basedow’s »Uniform Law«], pp 506–521, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0045

The article highlights the innovative nature of Basedow’s third major monograph relative to other »modern classics« on uniform law, noting in particular its combination of (almost) encyclopaedic coverage, systematic structure, and critical analysis, incorporating well-known central topics along with commentary on numerous uniform legal instruments. In addition, there are new and surprising elements awaiting comparative commercial law scholars, such as the topic of »negative harmonization«. The author of the article also discusses hypotheses, arguments, and conclusions in regards to perpetual themes of transnational law, such as the choice between a classic international treaty or the now frequent alternative of a soft law instrument, the dynamic of mutual influence between uniform law and non-uniform national law, and the relationship of uniform law and private international law. Finally, the article looks at institutional, cultural, and economic framework conditions and – politically determined – obstacles to the development of modern uniform law, as felt by the institutions, as well as experts involved in their work.

The issue also contains several reviews of literature in the fields of comparative private and private international law and on related topics (pp. 522–610).

The Bahrain International Commercial Court (BICC) was launched on 5 November 2025. It joins the long established Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts and Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre in the Middle East as a specialist court devoted to resolving international commercial disputes and operating under special procedural rules.

The BICC was developed in partnership with the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). It shares many key features with the SICC such as a multinational bench, foreign counsel representation and use of the English language in proceedings. Of particular note is the appeal mechanism for BICC judgments; as discussed previously here, appeals from the BICC will be heard by the International Committee of the SICC.

It is common to see some variation of the phrase “without regard to conflict of laws principles” appear at the end of a choice-of-law clause. Here are some examples:

“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China, without regard to its principles concerning conflicts of laws.”

“This Agreement and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.”

“This Note is being delivered in and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.”

Although this phrase is common, its purpose and origin are poorly understood. In 2020, I published an article, A Short History of the Choice of Law Clause, that attempted to demystify these issues.

The original purpose of this language, as best I can tell, was to signal disapproval of decisions such as Duskin v. Pennsylvania-Central Airlines Corporation, a 1948 case in which a U.S. court interpreted a clause choosing Pennsylvania law to select the whole law of Pennsylvania (including its conflicts rules). The court then applied Pennsylvania conflicts rules to conclude that the agreement was, in fact, governed by the law of Alabama. Needless to say, it seems highly unlikely that this is what the parties intended.

When the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws was published, it criticized the holding in Duskin. The drafters of the Restatement took the position that choice-of-law clauses should not be interpreted to select the conflicts rules of the chosen jurisdiction. The prominence assigned to the topic in the section of the new Restatement dealing with choice-of-law clauses (Section 187(3)) prompted contract drafters across the United States to think seriously about the issue for the first time. So far as I can determine, the language quoted above did not appear in a single U.S. choice-of-law clause drafted before the late 1960s. In the years that followed the publication of the Restatement (Second) in 1971, the number of contracts containing this language exploded.

The irony is that the holding in Duskin was widely ignored by U.S. courts. In the decades since that case was decided, these courts have consistently interpreted choice-of-law clauses to exclude the conflicts rules of the chosen jurisdiction even when they omit the phrase “without regard to principles of conflict of laws.” Nevertheless, this language continues to be written into thousands upon thousands of choice-of-law clauses each year.

By Catherine Shen, Asian Business Law Institute

In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Court) recognized and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 under file number HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Court of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Court (Suzhou Judgment) was announced in September 2025 by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as among the fifth batch of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) model cases.

Background

The applicant, Company Golden Barley International Pte Ltd (legal representative Wu), requested the Suzhou Court to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment, including the obligations imposed on the respondent Xiao to make payment.

The applicant claimed, among others, that Xiao, a director of Company Ba, colluded with other defendants of the case and procured Company Golden Barley into signing contracts with Company Ba and another company and making prepayment, without delivering to Company Golden Barley the goods agreed under those contracts. The Singapore Judgement, among others, ordered Xiao to pay over $6.6 million plus interest to Company Golden Barley. The applicant based its application on China’s Civil Procedure Law, the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to Interest Accrued on Debt during the Period of Delayed Performance during Enforcement and the Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (MOG).

The respondent Xiao, on her part, made several counterclaims. Among others, she contended that service of the Singapore documents was defective as service was forwarded by the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC rather than the Ministry of Justice which is the competent authority designated by China to transmit foreign judicial documents under the 1965 HCCH Service Convention, and that the documents served on her were copies in the English language. Xiao also pointed out that the MOG is non-binding and that the treaty between China and Singapore on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters does not cover judgments recognition and enforcement. Further, the respondent argued that the Singapore Judgment was not final and binding because it was pending appeal among some other defendants, making it ineligible for recognition and enforcement.

Decision

The Suzhou Court noted that courts in China and Singapore have recognized and enforced each other’s civil and commercial judgments since the MOG was signed in August 2018. Reciprocity therefore exists between the two jurisdictions which is required under Chinese law for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in the absence of any international treaty on judgments recognition and enforcement signed by or acceded to by the jurisdictions concerned.

The Suzhou Court also found that service of the Singapore documents on Xiao was not defective. The Chinese embassy in Singapore had entrusted the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC to assist with service for case HC/S194/2022 in July 2022. One month later, the Zhangjiagang People’s Court in Jiangsu Province (Zhangjiagang Court) served those documents on Xiao who acknowledged receipt. Xiao then declined to take delivery of the originals of those documents when contacted again by the Zhangjiagang Court after the originals were subsequently forwarded by the Chinese embassy in Singapore.

Further, the Suzhou Court found that the Singapore Judgment is final and binding. Specifically, the Suzhou Court had requested the SPC to submit a Request for Assistance in Ascertaining Relevant Laws of Singapore to the Supreme Court of Singapore. In its reply issued in December 2024, the Supreme Court of Singapore explained the scope of application of Singapore’s Rules of Court and the provisions therein on default judgments, which helped the Suzhou Court reach its conclusion.

The Suzhou Court accordingly recognized and enforced the Singapore Judgment.

Commentary

With this decision, the Suzhou Court continues the favorable momentum of the courts of China and Singapore recognizing each other’s civil and commercial judgments and affirms the importance and practical application of the MOG despite its non-binding nature.

Further, according to the SPC, this is the first time that a Chinese court has activated the procedure for seeking assistance from a Singapore court to provide clarifications on relevant Singapore law. Article 19 of the MOG says Singapore courts may seek assistance from the SPC to obtain certification that the Chinese judgment for which enforcement is sought is final and conclusive. This “right” is not provided in the MOG for Chinese courts. According to the SPC, the Suzhou Court sought assistance from the Supreme Court of Singapore based on a separate instrument titled the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Information on Foreign Law (MOU). This MOU provides a route for referrals between the courts of the two jurisdictions to seek information or clarifications on each other’s relevant laws. Under the MOU, if it is necessary for courts in China or Singapore to apply the law of the other jurisdiction in adjudicating international civil and commercial cases, a request may be made to the relevant court in the other jurisdiction to provide information and opinions on its domestic law and judicial practice in civil and commercial matters, or matters relating thereto. The Supreme Court of Singapore and the SPC are the courts designated for transmitting, and for receiving and responding to, such requests in Singapore and China, respectively. Any request should be responded to as soon as possible, with notice to be given to the requesting court if the receiving court is unable to furnish a reply within 60 days. Further requests can also be made for more clarifications.

In Singapore domestic law, Order 29A of the Rules of Court 2021 empowers the Supreme Court of Singapore, on the application of a party or its own motion, to transmit to a specified court in a specific foreign country a request for an opinion on any question relating to the law of that foreign country or to the application of such law in proceedings before it. So far, China and the SPC are the only specified foreign country and specified court under Order 29A. Essentially, Order 29A has formalized the procedures under the MOU for Singapore.

This is different from Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2021 which currently lists New South Wales in Australia, Dubai of the United Arab Emirates and Bermuda as “specified foreign countries” and their relevant courts as “specified courts”. Under Order 29, where in any proceedings before the Supreme Court of Singapore there arises any question relating to the law of any of those specified foreign countries or to the application of such law, the Supreme Court of Singapore may, on a party’s application or its own motion, order that proceedings be commenced in a specified court in that specified foreign country seeking a determination of such question. The Supreme Court of Singapore has in place memoranda of understanding on references of questions of law with the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Supreme Court of Bermuda and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. These memoranda of understanding all “direct” parties to take steps to have the contested issue of law determined by the foreign court.

This may explain why Order 29 is titled referrals on issues of law while Order 29A is titled requests for opinions on questions of foreign law. It should be noted that equivalent provisions are in place for referrals involving the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) (SICC Rules, Order 15 and Order 15A).

Finally, it may also be interesting to explain SPC’s lists of model cases. As a civil law jurisdiction, China does not practice Stare Decisis. Nor does it formally recognize the binding effects of precedents. However, the SPC does publish different lists of judgments which it deems of guiding value from time to time. Those judgments can be “guiding cases” which, loosely speaking, are of the highest “precedent value” and are subject to the most stringent selection criteria. They can be “model cases” which are of significant importance but are subject to less stringent selection criteria. They may also be “gazetted cases” which are judgments published on the official SPC newsletter for wider reference (but not guidance). Model cases may also be released for specific subject matter areas, such as intellectual property, financial fraud, etc. The Suzhou Judgment here is among the BRI model cases which mostly concern commercial disputes involving jurisdictions along the route of China’s BRI program.

This write-up is adaptation of an earlier post by the Asian Business Law Institute which can be found here.

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.

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.

The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Kirsten Henckel (Groningen University) titled ‘The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law’:

Over the past two decades, our daily lives have become ever more digital. This digitization has fundamentally reshaped the nature of property and inheritance. Digital assets ranging from social media accounts, emails and cloud-based archives to cryptocurrencies, NFTs and digital subscriptions now form an integral part of modern estates. These assets frequently lack clear legal classification and existing laws, largely designed for tangible property, struggle to accommodate their unique characteristics.

This webinar examines the emerging field of digital succession through the lens of private international law, highlighting issues that arise when digital estates span multiple jurisdictions. Key issues include determining jurisdiction and applicable law as well as enforcing rights across borders.

Additional information and the link to register can be found here.

The third issue of 2025 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) will be released shortly. It features:

Cristina Campiglio, Professor at the University of Pavia, Cittadinanza iure sanguinis e nazionalità: riflessioni internazionalprivatistiche [Citizenship by Birthright and Nationality: Private International Law Reflections; in Italian]

The recent amendment to the citizenship law, which restricts transmission by descent to two generations, offers an opportunity to revisit the concept of ius sanguinis from that specific legal perspective outlined in the nineteenth century by Mancini. Mancini linked citizenship (a public law institution) to nationality (a guiding principle of private international law). This connection remains evident today in cases where Italian citizenship is passed down to descendants born abroad. Filiation status must be evaluated according to conflict-of-laws rules (Arts 33 and 35 of Law 31 May 1995 No 218), which refer to the child’s own national law (creating a circular situation) or, if more favourable, to the parent’s national law. The public policy exception (Art 16), particularly in cases of medically assisted procreation, can lead to the denial of filiation recognition, potentially resulting in statelessness. The new citizenship rules’ generational limit ultimately prompts reflection on whether Law No 218 of 1995, rooted in the nineteenth-century principle of nationality, should also be reconsidered.

Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, La circolazione di «accordi» in materia di responsabilità genitoriale nel regolamento Bruxelles II-ter: una disciplina destinata ad uno scarso rilievo pratico [The Circulation of ‘‘Agreements’’ on Parental Responsibility in the Brussels IIb Regulation: A Legal Framework of Marginal Practical Significance; in Italian]

Among the most interesting developments in European family law in recent years is the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, also known as Brussels II-ter, introduced specific rules for the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements relating to legal separation and divorce, as well as parental responsibility. While numerous contributions have focused on the circulation of agreements relating to separation or divorce, less attention has been paid to agreements relating to parental responsibility. This contribution, through a detailed analysis of the provisions relating to parental responsibility agreements contained in both the aforementioned Regulation and the internal laws of individual Member States, highlights how, at present, this innovative regulatory framework is likely to have little impact. With the sole exception of what occurs in the French legal system, in fact, the category of “agreements” contemplated by the Brussels II-ter Regulation is currently devoid of its own content, being compressed between the private act which embodies the exchange of wills between the parties but which is irrelevant at the international level, and an increasingly broad notion of “decision”, modeled on a control carried out by any public authority, including an administrative one, which is classified as “on the merits” but which can be limited to compliance with the conditions established by law without implying any real appreciation of the content of the agreement.

Gaetano Vitellino, Researcher at the University Cattaneo LIUC of Castellanza, Misure cautelari e rapporti con Stati terzi in materia civile e commerciale [Provisional Measures and Relations with Third States in Civil and Commercial Matters; in Italian]

This paper examines the issues that arise when provisional or protective relief is granted in cases involving non-EU States. This topic has received limited attention in legal scholarship. The analysis presents three main arguments. First, interim relief may be granted not only by courts with jurisdiction over the merits but also by other courts. In this case, the restrictive conditions set out in Art 35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, should not apply when no EU courts can hear and decide the dispute. Second, recognition and enforcement of provisional measures ordered by non-EU courts are subject to differing domestic rules across Member States. The analysis shows that in most countries – both within and outside the EU – foreign interim measures are generally not capable of being recognised, mainly due to their provisional nature. Third, the paper explores two key aspects of the free circulation of provisional measures within the EU. Firstly, contrary to the suggestions made by the European Commission in its recent report on the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation, it argues that provisional measures granted by EU courts with jurisdiction over the merits under national law should also freely move. Secondly, in line with the rationale behind Art 35, interim measures issued by courts without jurisdiction over the merits should not be prevented from circulating when no EU court can hear and decide the dispute.

Bartosz Wolodkiewicz, Associate Professor at the University of Warsaw, Erosion of the Lex Fori Processualis Principle: A Comparative Study [in English]

The lex fori processualis principle is one of the fundamental concepts of private international law. It asserts that in civil proceedings, unlike in the sphere of private law relations, it is not necessary to indicate the applicable law, since courts apply their own procedural law. Accepted since the 13th century, this principle became almost a dogma in the 19th century. However, in recent decades, the lex fori processualis principle has been criticised in academic discourse. Additionally, national legal systems have introduced procedural conflict-of-law rules that explicitly permit the application of foreign procedural law. This paradigm shift, and the resulting erosion of the dominant approach to (in)application foreign procedural law, is the focus of this study. The paper explores the contemporary relevance and legitimacy of this principle, as well as the exceptions to its application, in four legal systems: English, French, German, and Polish law. Based on these findings, three levels of erosion of the lex fori processualis principle are identified and discussed.

Paolo Vinciguerra, Master of Laws, Anti-Suit Injunctions, ECHR and the Public Policy Defence [in English]

This article examines a specific injunctive remedy: the anti-suit injunction. This is a discretionary judicial order directed at a private party, intended either to prohibit the initiation of proceedings in another forum or to compel the party to cease any proceedings already commenced in that forum under the threat of financial or personal sanctions. After outlining the key judicial developments that have established the incompatibility of anti-suit injunctions with the European legal order, the analysis shifts to the impact of Brexit and the conflict with Russia on the issuance of such injunctions by courts. Within this framework, the article primarily focuses on the possibility of identifying a new legal basis for restricting the circulation of anti-suit injunctions under the general clause of international public policy.

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Edoardo Benvenuti, Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Milan: Xandra KRAMER and Laura CARBALLO PIÑEIRO (eds.), Research Methods in Private International Law. A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching, Cheltenham-Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, p. v-396.

Dr. Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen), the editor of an upcoming edited volume called ‘Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands’, has kindly shared this Call for Chapters with us. The volume will be published by Springer.

Call for Chapters

We are preparing an edited volume that examines how digitalisation impacts courts and dispute resolution, striking a balance between efficiency and fairness (e.g., remote trials and body language cues). We welcome topics within Private International Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Administrative Procedure.

Dutch and German perspectives are central; European angles are also welcome if they discuss how national law is impacted.

Final chapters will have to be submitted by 30 June 2026, after which a peer review will take place. The edited volume will be published by Springer Nature in the first half of 2027.

What we invite

A chapter-length contribution (original, unpublished) on any facet of the digitalisation of justice – conceptual, doctrinal, empirical, comparative, or policy-oriented. The book publication will be preceded by the symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice’: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, taking place on 29 May 2026 in Groningen, the Netherlands.

This symposium provides a platform for renowned scholars to present their research into the digitalisation of justice. It therefore does not focus on specific topics, but leaves it up to the speakers to identify important aspects.

Attendance at the symposium is welcome but not required; this invitation is independent of conference presentations.

Length & style

8,000–10,000 words (including footnotes). A style sheet will be provided upon acceptance.

Proposal and deadline

You can find the full Call for Chapters here.

Please email (with the subject line ‘Call for Chapters’) a single PDF containing:

• Working title and a 250-400 word chapter synopsis
• Short bio (?100 words) and affiliation
• Any potential rights/permissions issues (if applicable)

to Dr. Benedikt Schmitz at digitalisation@weakerparties.eu no later than 9 November 2025. Decisions will be communicated by 16 November 2025.

Dr. Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen), the organiser of the upcoming symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands’, has kindly shared this Call for Abstracts for emerging scholars with us.

Call for Abstracts

We invite emerging scholars (PhD candidates or 1-year post-PhD) to submit abstracts for the symposium ‘Digitalisation of Justice’: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, taking place on 29 May 2026 in Groningen, the Netherlands. Click here for more information.

Six abstracts will be selected and their authors invited to create posters for the symposium, which will be displayed all day. As part of the main programme, the authors will get a chance to present their work in elevator pitches and answer questions about the content.

Authors who submit a full paper before the conference may be considered for the edited book, which Springer Nature will publish. A separate Call for Chapters has been published here.

Subject Matter and Eligibility

Law is rapidly changing with technology. This symposium examines how digitalisation impacts courts and dispute resolution, striking a balance between efficiency and fairness (e.g., remote trials and body language cues). We welcome topics within Private International Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Administrative Procedure.

Dutch and German perspectives are central; European angles are also welcome if they discuss how national law is impacted.

Submission Instructions

Abstracts should reflect original research that will not yet have been published nor entered peer-review. To submit, scholars should send by email:

• in the subject line: ‘Call for Abstracts’,
• a 250-word abstract,
• the author’s name, title of the paper, institutional affiliation, and contact information,
• the author’s CV, and
• optional a travel scholarship request (max. 150 words)

to Dr. Benedikt Schmitz at digitalisation@weakerparties.eu no later than 9 November 2025.

Notification

Authors will be notified of their acceptance no later than 21 November 2025.

Participation is free. All participants should print their own posters and bring them along to the conference in A1 size, preferably in portrait format. Participants are responsible for securing their own funding for travel and accommodation, but two partial travel scholarships will be awarded on need and merit.

By Salih Okur, University of Augsburg

On 9 October 2025, the CJEU, in Case C-540/24 (Cabris Investment), had to decide whether Art. 25 Brussels Ia applies to “an agreement conferring jurisdiction in which the contracting parties, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and therefore (now) in a third State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, falls within the scope of that provision, even if the underlying contract has no further connection with that Member State chosen as the place of jurisdiction.“

Unsurprisingly, the Court held that it does.

Facts

The case concerned a consultancy contract entered into by Cabris Investments and Revetas Capital Advisors in May 2020, both established in the United Kingdom, accompanied by a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Handelsgericht Wien in Austria. In June 2023 Cabris Investments brought proceedings against Revetas Capital Advisors before the Handelsgericht Wien seeking payment of EUR 360,000 in order to fulfil a contractual obligation relating to the role of Chief Financial Officer.

A similar case had already been referred to the CJEU in Case C-566/22 (Inkreal). The only (relevant) difference to the case at hand is the fact that the parties in Inkreal had both been established in the European Union when proceedings were brought against the defendant, which (due to the United Kingdom having left the European Union) was not the case here.

This seemingly significant difference to the case in Inkreal prompted Revetas Capital Advisors to challenge the international jurisdiction of the Vienna court, arguing that,

(Para. 25) “since the [Brussels Ia Regulation] has not been applicable in respect of legal relationships involving the [United Kingdom] since the end of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement of 31 December 2020”

the jurisdiction clause should not be subject to Art. 25 Brussels Ia as the action had been brought only after the end of said transition period in June 2023.

The Court’s decision

As a preliminary point, the Court clarifies that

(Para. 31) “it must be borne in mind that since a jurisdiction clause is, by its very nature, a choice of jurisdiction which has no legal effect for so long as no judicial proceedings have been commenced and which takes effect only on the date on which the judicial action is set in motion, such a clause must be assessed as at the date on which the legal proceedings are brought.“

At first glance, this clarification seems important, given that the contract had been entered into in May 2020, but the action was only brought before the Handelsgericht Wien in June 2023 after the transition period between the United Kingdom and the European Union had ended on 31 December 2020.

Actually, though, these facts would only be relevant if the action were brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, which is not the case here. If Art. 25 Brussel Ia’s requirements are met, the Austrian courts must subject the jurisdiction clause to Art. 25 Ia Brussel Ia, regardless of whether or not the Brussel Ia Regulation is still applicable in the United Kingdom.

With regard to the international scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation, the question of whether the United Kingdom is a Member State or a third State is irrelevant, as the CJEU has of course already famously clarified, in Case C-281/02 (Owusu), that the required international element need not necessarily derive from the involvement of more than one  Member State.

The Court then establishes the following:

(Para. 32) “Therefore, in order to answer the question referred, it is necessary to determine whether a dispute between two parties to a contract who are domiciled in the same third State, such as the United Kingdom since 1 February 2020, and have designated a court of a Member State to hear and determine that dispute, falls within the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation] and Article 25(1) thereof.”

As to the provision’s applicability (which the Court only considers at later point, hence the confusing paragraph numbers), the Court holds:

(Para. 40) “Third, according to the case-law of the Court, in order for the situation at issue to come within the scope of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it must have an international element. That international element may result both from the location of the defendant’s domicile in the territory of a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised and from other factors linked, in particular, to the substance of the dispute, which may be situated even in a third State.”

This is in line with the Court’s decision in Owusu, as laid out above.

(Para. 41) “Furthermore, the Court has already clarified that a situation in which the parties to a contract, who are established in the same Member State, agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract, has an international element, even if that contract has no further connection to the other Member State. In such a situation, the existence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State other than that in which the parties are established in itself demonstrates the international nature of the situation at issue.”

Strictly speaking, this is irrelevant, as neither Cabris Investments nor Revetas Capital Advisors are domiciled in Austria. Just like in its earlier decision in Inkreal, to which the Court refers, this fact alone establishes the required international element.

With the applicability of the Brussels Ia Regulation established, the scope of Art. 25 Brussels Ia needs to be examined:

(Para. 35) “It is clear from the very wording of that provision [“regardless of their domicile”] that the rule which it lays down applies regardless of the domicile of the parties. More particularly, the application of that rule shall not be subject to any condition relating to the domicile of the parties, or of one of them, in the territory of a Member State.”

(Para. 36)“In the second place, as regards the context of Article 25(1) of the [Brussels Ia Regulation], it is important, first, to point out that that provision differs from the one which preceded it, namely Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which, for its part, required, for the application of the rule of jurisdiction based on an agreement conferring jurisdiction, that at least one of the parties to that agreement be domiciled in a Member State.”

This is also confirmed by Art. 6(1) Brussels Ia (see para. 39).

These arguments (and some ancillary considerations) lead the Court to the answer that

(Para. 49) “Article 25(1) [Brussels Ia Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers a situation in which two parties to a contract domiciled in the United Kingdom agree, by an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded during the transition period, on the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract, even where that court was seised of a dispute between those parties after the end of that period.”

Commentary

Overall, the Court’s decision is hardly surprising. In fact, the decisions in Owusu and Inkreal could well have allowed the Handelsgericht Wien to consider its question acte eclairé and assume its international jurisdiction on the basis of the unambiguous wording of Art. 25(1) Brussels Ia.

What is surprising, though, is that the Court did not address the relationship between Art. 25(1) Brussels Ia and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (HCCCA) at all. According to Art. 71(1) Brussels Ia, the latter takes precedent where it is applicable. For this, at least one of the parties must be a resident of a Contracting State of the Hague Convention that is not a Member State of the European Union, Art. 26(6) lit. a) HCCCA. This seems debatable given that the jurisdiction clause in question was entered into during the transition period. However, even if the Hague Convention were applicable, its application would be precluded as the case does not fall within its international scope of application (Art. 1(1) HCCCA). As set out in Art. 1(2) HCCCA, contrary to the Brussels Ia Regulation’s international scope as established in Inkreal, a case is considered international under the Hague Convention unless the parties are resident in the same Contracting State and the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute, regardless of the location of the chosen court, are connected only with that State.

Accordingly, the Court’s decision is consistent with its previous rulings on international jurisdiction clauses and does not conflict with other international instruments on the subject. To put it in the words of Geert Van Calster: “A very open door kicked open by the CJEU”.

With the 10th Journal of Private International Law Conference successfully concluded, preparations for the next, 11th Journal of Private International Law Conference in Zurich are already underway.

Please save the date: 1–3 April 2027.

The conference organizers Tanja Domej (University of Zurich) and Christiane von Bary (University of Zurich), and the editors of the Journal, Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), are looking forward to welcoming you in Switzerland!