Feed aggregator

By Alexia Kaztaridou (Linklaters)

On 25 September 2025, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved the text of the political agreement on the Alternative Disputes Resolution for Consumer Disputes Directive. This Directive establishes a framework for resolving through ADR procedures contractual domestic and cross-border consumer disputes arising from the sale of goods or provision of services between consumers and traders within an EU context. The amendments to the prior Directive aim to modernise the existing framework in light of new consumer trends, such as the growth of e-commerce, and bring significant changes across several areas, enhancing the protection for consumers and clarifying obligations for traders and ADR entities. The Directive maintains its minimum harmonisation approach, allowing Member States to provide for stronger consumer protection.

Key changes introduced

Enhanced obligations for traders

• Geographical scope: The Directive’s scope is extended to traders established in third countries who are willing to participate in an ADR procedure and direct their activities towards consumers in one or more Member States, within the meaning of the  Rome I Regulation and the Brussels I bis Regulation (recast). To determine if a trader’s activities are directed to a Member State, factors such as the language or currency used, the ability to order products, or the availability of an application in a national app store may be considered. Member States can also set conditions for the participation of these traders in ADR procedures, such as requiring the trader’s consent for the dispute to be resolved based on the law of the Member State where the consumer resides.
• Duty to reply: Traders established in the Union will have a duty to reply within, in principle, 20 working days when contacted by an ADR entity, stating whether they will participate in a procedure. This is not required where participation is mandatory by law, to fulfil a contractual obligation or when the ADR entity is entitled to reach an outcome even if the trader did not participate in the procedure. This period may be extended to a maximum of 30 working days for complex disputes, provided the consumer is informed of the extension. If a trader fails to reply within the prescribed deadline, the ADR entity may consider the non-reply as a refusal of the trader to participate and should inform the consumer accordingly.
• Information and transparency: To improve consumer awareness, traders must provide clear information about ADR, including on their websites.

Expanded material scope

• Pre-contractual and post-contractual phases: The Directive’s material scope is extended to cover disputes arising from obligations in the pre-contractual and post-contractual phases. Examples include disputes related to misleading advertising, a failure to provide compulsory pre-contractual information required by the Consumer Rights Directive, or issues concerning the use of consumer-provided digital content after a contract has terminated.
• Contracts paid for with personal data: The scope now includes contracts for the supply of digital content or services where the consumer provides or undertakes to provide personal data instead of making a payment.
• Member State discretion: Member States are authorised to make trader participation in ADR procedures mandatory in sectors they deem fit, such as transport and tourism. They can also extend ADR procedures to other types of disputes under Union and national law, for instance in relation to competition law.

New requirements for ADR entities

• Accessibility and fairness: ADR procedures must be made accessible to all, including vulnerable consumers, through ‘easily accessible and inclusive tools’. If a procedure uses automated means, both parties have the right to have the process reviewed by a natural person. Furthermore, ADR entities should not refuse to deal with a dispute where a trader has established disproportionate rules for their own internal complaint handling systems that must be completed before the case can be referred to the ADR entity.
• Bundling of cases: To promote efficiency, Member States are to allow ADR entities to bundle similar cases into a single procedure where it may lead to a faster or more coherent resolution. Member States may require explicit consumer consent for this.
• Training and transparency: ADR entities must ensure that the natural persons in charge of dispute resolution have the necessary expertise, including a general understanding of private international law. They must also inform consumers in advance if non-high-risk automated means are used in the decision-making process.
• Publication of reports: ADR entities are required to publish activity reports to enhance transparency at least every two years. Therein, ADR entities must include information about traders who systematically refuse to comply with the outcomes of ADR procedures.

Promoting participation to the procedures

In principle, the Directive provides that the ADR procedures should be free of charge for consumers. In the event that costs are applied, those costs should not exceed a nominal fee. Member States should encourage ADR entities to reimburse consumers the nominal fee paid where and to the extent that their complaint is justified.

In that context, the Directive requires Member States to implement measures that promote participation in ADR procedures from both traders and consumers. These measures can be either financial or non-financial in nature.

A new role for ADR contact points

Following the discontinuation of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, the tasks previously handled by ODR contact points will be taken over by newly established ADR contact points. These contact points will be, inter alia, responsible for:

• Providing assistance and guidance to consumers and traders on accessing the competent ADR entity, particularly in cross-border disputes.
• Explaining the procedural rules of relevant ADR entities.

The ADR contact point is to be determined by the consumer’s place of residence. Member States can choose to extend the mandate of these contact points to cover domestic disputes as well.

Consumer assistance and new digital tools

Consumers will have the right to be assisted by third parties, such as consumer organisations or businesses that specialise in claims management, though transparency must be ensured.

In addition, the Commission is mandated to develop a digital interactive tool to guide consumers to the correct ADR entity.

Next steps and national transposition

The next step is the formal adoption of the text by the European Parliament’s plenary, which is expected to take place between 15 and 18 December. Following this, the text must also be formally adopted by the Council. Once the Council has formally adopted the text, it will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Directive will then enter into force 20 days after its publication.

The timeline for the Directive’s implementation is set out in Article 5. Specifically, Member States are required to adopt and publish the national laws necessary to comply with the Directive by 26 months after its entry into force. These new national measures must then be applied starting from 32 months after the Directive’s entry into force.

Given this is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States retain discretion to introduce measures that empower consumers even further. For example, they may make ADR mandatory for certain disputes or further extend the material scope. It will therefore be crucial to monitor the national transposition of the Directive to understand how the legal framework will evolve in each Member State.

As part of the International Law Association (British Branch) Lecture Series, a special lecture on Cross-Border Disputes and Conflict of Laws in India: The Case for Asian-Inspired Reform will be delivered by Prof. (Dr) Saloni Khanderia, Professor at Jindal Global Law School (India) and Professor at the Center for Transnational Legal Studies (London), on Wednesday, 15 October 2025, at 6:00 PM (London BST ??) | 10:30 PM (India IST ??). The event takes place at the UCL Faculty of Laws and will also be available online. The session will be chaired by Professor Alex Mills (UCL Laws).

India’s transformation since its 1991 economic liberalisation has positioned it as a key player in global commerce. Indian judges have contributed significantly to international law, both domestically and in global forums such as the International Court of Justice and commercial courts abroad. Yet, despite judicial progress, structural gaps in India’s private international law persist.

This lecture examines how India can strengthen its framework for cross-border dispute resolution, drawing lessons from leading Asian jurisdictions—Singapore, China, Japan, and South Korea—to ensure coherence, predictability, and competitiveness in transnational litigation.

Who should attend:
Practitioners, scholars, students, policymakers, and anyone interested in India’s evolving role in global dispute resolution.

For more details about the lecture and the registration process, visit https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2025/oct/hybrid-cross-border-disputes-and-conflict-laws-india-case-asian-inspired-reform?mc_cid=f1dfe473a9&mc_eid=UNIQID

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025, 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). Professor Nadia de Araujo (Pontifícia Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Highlights on the project for a Brazilian Law on Private International Law”

After more than eighty years Brazil finally has a project for a new Law on Private International Law. The current 1942 law devotes only seven articles to the whole subject. In light of the developments in PIL, the complexities of modern life and the adoption of a series of Hague Conventions and Inter-American Conventions, the project addresses PIL in its entirety. The new law introduces several significant changes: it expressly allows for party autonomy in international contracts, a concept that was not clearly defined in previous legislation, while safeguarding consumer and labour contracts. Additionally, it introduces new rules for proof of foreign law and a more comprehensive set of family law. It also retains domicile as the main rule for capacity and other family rights.

 

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 Journal of Private International Law (Volume 21, Issue 2) features seven articles. Andrew Tettenborn, English conflicts law at sea – the transfer and creation of proprietary interests in ships, 211-227 Surprisingly, the law applicable to the creation and transfer of proprietary interests in ships remains remarkably obscure as a matter of the […]

The University of Genoa (Italy), together with the partnership of the EU co-funded project UniPAR, is organizing a conference on parenthood in the light of Human Rights Law and Private International Law.

In the Conference, the UniPAR research team will present the results of the research and various topics related with EU private international law and children’s rights in the context of parenthood will be addressed. Dr. Raffaele Sabato, judge of the European Court of Human Rights, will deliver the introductory speech.

The Conference will take place on Friday 24 October, 10.00-13.00 CET and 14.00-17.00 CET.

See the programme. Online attendance is possible after prior registration.

When I teach trade law, I often emphasise the standardisation part of international trade including the relevance of CE marking, self-certification, accreditation, conformity assessment etc and their impact on manufacturers and importers’ liability. These laws are not often the subject of scholarship and in handbooks on EU internal market they are usually dealt with succinctly. Yet they are a crucial cog in the machinery of international trade and the EU system for same has its equivalents in the US, UK, Australia etc.

In the case discussed in this post, EU law applies.

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Ltd [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm) is an excellent illustration of this reliance in international trade on quality assurance and self-certification (as opposed to government agents having to check whether imported products meet with the EU’s essential health and safety requirements, here of PPE: Personal Protection Equipment).

The judgment’s context is the UK’s rather awkward ‘VIP lane’ at the time of Covid procurement. The idea behind this ‘priority lane’ for suppliers, as summarised by the BBC, was to “treat offers to supply PPE with greater urgency if they came with a recommendation from ministers, MPs, members of the House of Lords, or other senior officials.” The inevitable result were accusations of cronyism and stories of corporations, set up overnight, gaining multi million pound contracts without the necessary experience in procuring often tightly regulated medical equipment.

In the case at issue, the Government are seeking to recover the considerable monies paid (and some associated costs) after 25m supposedly sterile  surgical gowns were found not to be sterile.

Under the relevant technical specifications for the order, [52] the usual ways of showing compliance with EU essential health and safety requirements was prescribed; and, importantly, per the Medical Devices Regulations – MDR 2002, now assimilated EU law, no person is to place on the market, put into service, or supply a medical device unless it meets the essential requirements set out in Annex I to the Medical Devices – MDs Directive, which provided (section 8.4) that the device must be manufactured and sterilised by an appropriate, validated method.

The formulation of the MDR implies that manufacturers cannot essentially just self certify when it comes to the gowns of relevance to the case (I did not study the classification of the gowns for this post; it is what I surmise from the judgment). The gowns at issue are in a category where the risk profile required higher quality assurance, including “the intervention of a notify body at the production stage” – and where compliance could not be achieved without it: for sterilised products the notified (certification) body needs to certify the procedure leading to the obtaining of sterility until the sterile package is opened.

The CE mark for the shipments at issue was not so accompanied by a notified certification body and were not so certified; upon testing the gowns were shown not to be sterile.

The issues of contractual construction in the case essentially arise out of the practical and regulatory confusion surrounding the purchase of PPE equipment at the time of the pandemic, including European Commission communications suggesting possibilities for derogation from CE marking duties (no such derogation was requested in the case at issue) and the complicated factual to and fro, largely by email, between PPE Medpro (which had ended up in the VIP lane [57] via Lady Mone) and the Government.

[218] Cockerill J after lengthy discussion of all this context holds

on the true construction of the Contract there was a requirement for a validated process; and in breach of the Contract there was no validated process. The evidence which there was did not establish two key parts of the process had been undertaken: bioburden testing and dose setting.

The remainder of the judgment then deals with quantum etc.

A most relevant and instructive judgment.

Geert.

Looking forward to getting my teeth stuck into this one. EU standardisation lawCE marking, conformity assessment, declaration of conformity, manufacturer v importer duty [HMG] v PPE Medpro [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm)www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-10-02T07:40:42.286Z

The program of the XLVIII Seminar of the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) has been published, click here.

To register, click here. Registration is free of charge (except if a certificate of attendance is requested). Only in-person participation is possible this year (with the exception of speakers, who may present online).

For more information, click here and here.

Professors Marilyn Freeman (University of Westminster, UK) and Nicola Taylor (University of Otago, NZ) are carrying out a research project on international child abduction. The research investigates what happens after children have been removed to, or retained in, a country in a way which is considered wrongful in law. This is an issue which has […]

20th Regional Private International Law Conference will be held in Istanbul on 6-8 November 2025 in collaboration with Erdem&Erdem Law Office and Istanbul Arbitration Center (ISTAC). This year’s conference topics are focusing on choice of court/arbitration agreements and the enforcement of decisions rendered by chosen courts or arbitral tribunals. The conference programme can be viewed in here.

Participation is available via Zoom, through the link provided: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84302415223?pwd=JdVlMzX7dzabawYUF6TnjKnjp8xKhf.1 (Meeting ID: 843 0241 5223 Password: 786753)

For further questions you may contact the organizers Prof. Dr. Zeynep Derya Tarman (Koç University Faculty of Law, Dean) and Prof. Dr. Ceyda Süral Efeçinar (Piri Reis University Faculty of Law, Dean) at meoba@ku.edu.tr (M. Ece Oba, Research Assistant at Koç University Faculty of Law).

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH welcomes applications for the position of Legal Officer, based at its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands.

The successful candidate will work in the field of international commercial, digital and financial law, under the responsibility of the Deputy Secretary General. In addition to work in relation to the operation of the 1985 Trusts Convention, the 2006 Securities Convention, and the 2015 Choice of Law Principles, duties will include general assistance in relation to the projects on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), Carbon Markets, Digital Tokens, and the Digital Economy. Depending on the work programme established by CGAP, the successful candidate may be called upon to carry out work in other areas, and will respond to requests for information, assist with comparative law research, the preparation of research papers and other documentation, the organisation and preparation of materials for publication, the preparation of, and participation in, conferences, seminars and training programmes.

The successful candidate will also support the work of the office of the Deputy Secretary General, and may be called to take on such other work as may be required by the Secretary General from time to time.

Applications should be submitted by 1 November 2025 (5.00 p.m. CET). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

 

The use of videoconferencing in cross-border civil and commercial court proceedings has its challenges in the EU, although the use of videoconferencing is supported by a number of regulations such as the Taking of Evidence Recast Regulation, the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation, the European Account Preservation Order Regulation, the Digitalisation of Judicial Cooperation Regulation. […]

After Indonesia, China, Japan, India and recently Hong Kong, the prestigious Hart series “Studies in Private International Law – Asia” has released a new volume on Cambodian Private International Law, authored by Nobumichi Teramura (Associate Professor, Keio University Law School; Affiliate, Centre for Asian and Pacific Law in the University of Sydney).

This book is the 14th volume in this outstanding series, which, in only six years of existence, has successfully manages to transform the “little attention” once paid to developments in private international law in Asia into an explosion of Asian scholarship and a growing and dynamic field of study.

This new volume, however, is somewhat different from the other abovementioned volumes that comprehensively cover private international law in a specific jurisdiction. As rightfully stated in the Series Editors’ Preface, “[o]f those six volumes, this is possibly the most challenging.” This is because, as the author points out, Cambodia “still does not have a comprehensive legal framework that addresses conflict of laws issues, and research on Cambodian private international law is still in its infancy.” Cambodian law “does not yet contain rules on international jurisdiction,” nor does it have “any special statutory body of law dealing specifically with the conflict of laws.” Moreover, Cambodian courts “have never recognised and enforced judgments issued abroad.”

In this regard, the Series Editors posed in their preface the question of whether, under such circumstances, “it is too early to speak of, much less write about, a coherent body of Cambodian private international law.” But this is precisely what makes this volume particularly interesting and unique. It proposes a striking approach: the development of principles of Cambodian private international law by reference to Japanese legal principles and experiences. This is explained by the long-standing involvement of Japanese scholars and agencies in Cambodia’s legal development through technical assistance, and by the fact that Cambodian law “borrow[s] heavily from Japanese law.”

In pursuing this undertaking, the author has relied “mostly…on English and Japanese literature on Cambodian law and society,” given the “significant volume” of materials available in those languages, particularly in Japanese, on Cambodian law. The author himself acknowledges that his “research approach to Cambodian private international law is experimental and will inevitably attract criticism.” Nevertheless, while engaging in this Sisyphus-like endeavor, he humbly “hopes that the discussion in this book can serve as a starting point for a dialogue among legal experts in Cambodian law for considering the next reform of Cambodian private international law, regardless of whether the experts agree or disagree with the suggestions made” therein.

One thing is certain: as the first (and so far the only) comprehensive contribution on Cambodian private international law in English, and probably in any language, it provides valuable access to the first sustained and systematic reflection on this subject. By doing so, the book fills a significant gap in the literature, opens new avenues for scholarly debate, and lays a foundation not only for discussion and critical reflection but also for future reforms in this field. From this perspective, the book’s objective can be said to have been fully achieved.

 

The description of the book reads as follows:

This book is the leading reference on Cambodian private international law in English.

The chapters systematically cover the whole of Cambodian private international law, including commercial matters, family law, succession, intellectual property, competition (antitrust), and environmental disputes.

The chapters do not merely cover the traditional conflict of law areas of jurisdiction, applicable law (choice of law) and enforcement. They also look into conflict of law questions arising in arbitration and assess Cambodia’s involvement in the harmonisation of private international law globally and regionally within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Similarly to the other volumes in the Studies in Private International Law – Asia series, this book presents the Cambodian conflict of laws through a combination of common and civil law analytical techniques and perspectives, providing readers worldwide with a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the subject.

 

Table of Contents includes the following:

1. Introduction

Part I: Foundations of Cambodian Private International Law

2. Status of Private International Law in Cambodia and Preliminary Matters

3. Treatment of Foreign Law

Part II: Jurisdiction

4. Direct Jurisdiction

Part III: Choice of Law

5. Choice of Law for Contractual Obligations

6. Choice of Law for Non-Contractual Obligations

7. Choice of Law for Property Issues

8. Family Law

9. Law of Corporations, Insolvency, Antitrust and Unfair Competition

Part IV: Recognition and Enforcement

10. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Part V: Arbitration

11. International Arbitration

12. The Harmonisation of Private International Law

Dans deux arrêts rendus les 4 et 11 septembre 2025, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte un éclairage sur l’articulation de la décision-cadre 2002/584/JAI relative au mandat d’arrêt européen avec la décision-cadre 2008/909/JAI relative à la reconnaissance entre États membres des jugements prononçant des peines privatives de liberté.

en lire plus

Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University

In June 2025, the US Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) 605 U.S. 280 (2025). The Opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here,  here and here (on the hearing).

As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers, alleging inter alia negligence, public nuisance and defective condition. The basic theory laid out was that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the trafficking of guns to Mexico causing harm and grievances to this country. In this regard, the complaint focuses on aiding and abetting of gun manufacturers (rather than of independent commission).

In a brilliant judgment, Justice Kagan ruled that PLCAA bars the lawsuit filed by Mexico. Accordingly, PLCAAS’s predicate exception did not apply to this case.

This case has attracted wide media attention and a great number of amici curiae briefs was filed urging both reversal and affirmance or being neutral. Those urging reversal far outnumbered the other two categories, some of which were filed by Attorney Generals of numerous US states, American Constitutional Rights Union, American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., National Rifle Association of America, Product Liability Advisory Council, Second Amendment Foundation, Sen. Ted Cruz and others, Gun Owners of America, Inc., etc.

Primary holding

Held: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.

Main federal statutes applicable and case law cited

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 119 Stat. 2095, 15 U. S. C. §§ 7901–7903

18 U. S. C. § 2(a) – Principals

Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 703 (1943)

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471 (2023)

Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014)

United States v. Peoni, 100 F. 2d 401, 402 (CA2 1938)

For further information (incl. PLCAA’s predicate exception), please refer to the previous post on the hearing, here.

A few takeaways from the judgment are the following:

Plausibility

The Court clarified that plausibly “does not mean ‘probably,’ but ‘it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.’” And Mexico did not meet that threshold (p. 291). Indeed, the Court goes even further and speaks of mere speculation as regards some of Mexico’s allegations (p. 296).

Aiding and Abetting

The Court stated the requirements of aiding and abetting derived from criminal law (as coined by Learned Hand): “an aider and abettor must ‘participate in’ a crime ‘as in something that he wishes to bring about’ and ‘seek by his action to make it succeed.’” The Court said that Mexico failed to properly plead this to the level required (p. 294).

Considering that Mexico based its claims on aiding and abetting liability, the Supreme Court begins by setting forth the three ancillary principles: 1) Citing Twitter, the Court notes that aiding and abetting is a rule of secondary liability for specific wrongful acts. In the case of a broad category of misconduct, the participation must be pervasive, systematic and culpable; 2) Aiding and abetting usually requires misfeasance rather than nonfeasance (such as failure to act or an omission when there is no independent duty to act); 3) Incidental activity is unlikely to count as aiding and abetting (p. 292).

In this regard, the Supreme Court ruled that Mexico’s allegations only refer to nonfeasance (or indifference) (p. 297). The Court also noted that contrary to normal practice in this type of cases, Mexico does not pinpoint any specific criminal transactions that the defendants allegedly assisted. And at the same time, Mexico sets the bar very high by alleging that all manufacturers assist a number of identified rogue dealers in their illegal pursuits (p. 294).

Importantly, the Court notes that “Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise.” (p. 295) Indeed, they supply to middleman distributors that are independent. It is the conduct of rogue dealers, two levels down, that causes Mexico’s grievance and Mexico does not name them (there is only a reference to a Washington Post article, see our previous post).

A note to the reader: Mexico did identify a distributor in its complaint (Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., which does business as Interstate Arms), however its complaint barely mentioned it, that is why the Court decided for simplicity’s sake to focus only on manufacturers (see footnotes 1 and 4 of the judgment).

The Supreme Court also dismissed Mexico’s allegations that the industry had failed to impose constraints on their distribution chains to reduce unlawful actions (e.g. bulk sales or sales from homes), which the court considers as “passive nonfeasance” in the light of Twitter. Nor were the allegations regarding the design and marketing decisions of guns accepted as these products may also appeal to law-abiding citizens.

History of PLCAA

The Court ends with some analysis of PLCAA’s purpose and the kind of suits it intended to prevent. The Court concludes that Mexico’s suit closely resembles those suits and if it were to fall in the predicate exception, it would swallow the entire rule.

Comments

At the outset, please note that the comments already made regarding the hearing of this case apply to a large extent to the final judgment.

The Supreme Court rendered a judgment that is clear, logical and addresses key matters of the litigation, without testing the troubled waters of proximate cause. In particular, it avoids departing from previous precedents such as Direct Sales and Twitter, which in my view set clear standards with regard to aiding and abetting liability. It also helpfully stated the requirements of aiding and abetting derived from criminal law (as coined by Learned Hand) and applicable to the case at hand.

During the hearing of this case, there was much uncertainty regarding the different federal statutes applicable, as well as the relationship between the different actors in the distribution chain of weapons. None of that confusion is seen in this judgment, which is extremely clear and well-thought through.

As regards, the liability of merchants and their products (as referred to in my previous post, such as baseball bats and knives), the Supreme Court helpfully clarified that: “So, for example, an “ordinary merchant[ ]” does not “become liable” for all criminal “misuse[s] of [his] goods,” even if he knows that in some fraction of cases misuse will occur. Twitter, 598 U. S., at 489; see id., at 499. The merchant becomes liable only if, beyond providing the good on the open market, he takes steps to “promote” the resulting crime and “make it his own.” United States v. Falcone, 109 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2) (L. Hand, J.), aff’d, 311 U. S. 205 (1940).” (p. 292)

Justices Thomas and Jackson (coincidentally the two black justices of the Court, a conservative and a liberal justice, respectively) filed Concurrent Opinions, which blurs the line between the two camps. In my view, these Opinions are more restrictive than the unanimous decision and make it more difficult to file a suit, requiring an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the violation (Thomas) or making non-conclusory allegations about a particular statutory violation under PLCAA (Jackson). In my view, the majority decision does not require either.

In sum, the majority Opinion greatly clarifies this area of law. A positive development, amid the tumultuous docket of the Court in this era of great uncertainty.

 

Photo by Thinkstock on Freeimages.com

 

 

 

An e-mail has been sent to the members of the European Association of Private International Law, to invite them to attend invitation the a meeting of the General Assembly, due to take place via Zoom on Friday, 28 November 2025, at 5 pm CET. The Assembly will discuss, inter alia, about possible amendments to the […]

BNetzA / ACER
Énergie
Le Tribunal annule une décision de l’ACER en matière de gestion des marchés de l’électricité

In October 2025, the Court will deliver several opinions and decisions on the interpretation of private international law instruments. AG R. Norkus’ opinion in case C-516/24, Winderwill, is scheduled for Thursday, 2 October. The request for a preliminary ruling originates from the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany). It focuses on the Maintenance Regulation: Is an application for […]

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme estime, à une très courte majorité, qu’il résulte de la mise en balance des différents intérêts en jeu, valablement effectuée par les juridictions internes, que les motifs retenus par ces dernières pour justifier la primauté de la liberté d’information étaient suffisants et pertinents pour justifier l’ingérence litigieuse et qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

en lire plus

HCCH Monthly Update: September 2025

 

Conventions & Instruments

On 18 September 2025, Argentina deposited its instrument of ratification of the 1996 Child Protection Convention. With the ratification of Argentina, the Convention now has 58 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Argentina on 1 January 2026.More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 11 and 12 September 2025, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH hosted a Roundtable and Training on the application of the 1980 Child Abduction and 1996 Child Protection Conventions, in particular concerning the children of Ukraine. More information is available here.

From 17 to 19 September 2025, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its fourth working meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG made further progress on the study of the applicable law and jurisdiction issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs. More information is available here.

On 25 and 26 September, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH hosted training on the HCCH’s core family law Conventions and projects for a group of judges and court officials from 16 States. The training was organised in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network. More information is available here.

On 26 September 2025, the second meeting of the Working Group (WG) established to finalise the Model Forms pertaining to Chapter II of the 1970 Evidence Convention was held online.

 

Upcoming Events

Registration is now open to the public for online participation in the “HCCH-IDLO Dialogue on Digitalisation of Public Services and Justice”. The event will be held on Friday 10 October 2025, from 10.00 to 11.30 a.m. (CEST). Interested persons should register no later than Tuesday 7?October 2025 via this registration form. More information is available here.

 

Vacancies

Applications are now open for the position of Legal Officer. The deadline for the submission of applications is 1 November 2025. More information is available here.

Applications are now open for the position of Finance / Human Resources Assistant. The deadline for the submission of applications is 11 October 2025. 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.

The author of this post is Francesca Maoli, a researcher in international law at the University of Genova. The handling of international child abduction cases raises human rights concerns. The solutions introduced by the 1980 Hague Convention and, in the EU, by the Brussels II-ter Regulation, have been interpreted in the light of children’s rights. […]