Feed aggregator

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on Thursday 30 January 2025 at 14:30 (Mexico City time – CST), 21:30 (CET time). The topic of the webinar is: From the Old to the New Private International Law: Contexts, Objectives, Methods and Practice and will be presented by HE Ambassador Mario J. A. Oyarzábal (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83362977786?pwd=VsniAolvT9vCNnbjVl4FdbAqXkOX9E.1

Meeting ID: 833 6297 7786

Password: AMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

Issues 3 and 4 of 2024 of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht have recently been published. They feature various contributions that may be of interest for the readers of this blog. Specifically, issue 3 includes the following articles and case note. Die Europäisierung des internationalen Erwachsenenschutzes Jan von Hein on the proposal for a […]

While the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 is underway across EU Member States, and it will have to be done according to the timing already indicated in this blog, attention is increasingly turning to the pressing need to strengthen anti-SLAPPs protections in the Western Balkans. The issue of SLAPPs is a growing concern in this […]

Cet épisode vous propose des clefs de compréhension de la résistance des juges face au gouvernement italien, depuis l’ouverture des centres de rétention de migrants, externalisés en Albanie. Les juridictions italiennes ordonnent le rapatriement des migrants vers l’Italie, en se basant sur un arrêt récent de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Plusieurs questions préjudicielles ont été posées à la Cour de justice. La Commission européenne annonce une nouvelle proposition de directive « retour » au printemps 2025. Le Conseil des Barreaux européens invite la Commission à veiller aux garanties en termes de respect des droits fondamentaux, de recours effectifs et d’accès au droit.

en lire plus

Dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre d’un instrument de reconnaissance mutuelle relatif à l’exécution des jugements en matière pénale (Décision-cadre 2008/909/JAI du 27 nov. 2008), la chambre criminelle affirme, d’une part, sa compétence pour placer le mis en examen sous contrôle judiciaire en présence d’une détention provisoire irrégulière, réserve faite du cas de la violation du principe de spécialité. Elle étend, d’autre part, l’applicabilité de ce principe au contrôle judiciaire et précise son application quant à l’autorité apte à y renoncer, à savoir l’État de condamnation. 

en lire plus

Royal Football Club Seraing
Arbitrage sportif : selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, les sentences du Tribunal arbitral du sport doivent pouvoir faire l’objet d’un contrôle complet par les juridictions nationales afin de vérifier la compatibilité des règles de la FIFA avec le droit de l’Union

Ministarstvo financija (Bourse Erasmus+)
Citoyenneté européenne
Bourse Erasmus + : le montant versé à un étudiant ne doit pas être pris en compte pour le calcul de l’impôt sur le revenu du parent l’ayant à sa charge

The Société de législation comparée has published a compendium of legal studies on foreign law (Le Droit Étranger). The scholarly works in this 3-volume collection examine the role of foreign law in shaping legal thought and practice, offering insights into its academic contributions, practical applications, and future perspectives. Background Over the last ten years, the […]

An online conference on International Recovery of Maintenance on the Basis of Authentic Instruments is set to take place on 29 January 2025 from 3 to 5 PM CET, hosted by the German Institute for Youth Services and Family Law (DIJuF). Authentic instruments, such as enforceable deeds, allow maintenance debtors to commit to child support […]

MegaFon / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : le Tribunal confirme les mesures restrictives adoptées contre l’opérateur de téléphonie mobile russe MegaFon

Johan Tufte-Kristensen (Copenhagen University) and Mustafa Sert (Gorrissen Federspiel law firm) have authored a new Danish textbook titled International privatret (Private International Law). The book focuses exclusively on choice of law issues, omitting procedural aspects such as jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. It offers a comprehensive overview of choice of law issues from […]

Nouvelle année, nouvelle présidence tournante du Conseil de l’Union européenne par la Pologne qui succède à la Hongrie jusqu’en juillet prochain. Le programme polonais met un accent particulier sur la sécurité européenne, entendue très largement et couvrant différents secteurs qu’il s’agisse de la sécurité territoriale, énergétique, alimentaire, mais aussi économique, prenant acte de certains aspects mentionnés par Mario Draghi en septembre dernier.

en lire plus

Many thanks to the members who have informed me of the relatively sophisticated phishing email that they received today in my name, asking for assistance. As always, the email address was suspicious. If you reply to this email, you will be asked: Thank you for your kind reply. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience, but […]

Francesca Farrington (University of Aberdeen) and Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) has made available on SSRN the Research Project Papers No 2024.13-05 on Applicable Law in Claims for Damage Arising Out of Unsafe Working Conditions: The Case of Begum v Maran. This publication is part of an ongoing series of outputs from the LSGL-funded project […]

As announced on this blog, the Faculty of Laws of University College London will host the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law on 11, 12 and 13 September 2025. The call for paper issued for this purpose will end on 17 January 2025. Submissions should be sent by that date to […]

Les deux derniers mois de l’année 2024 ont été marqués par l’absence d’arrêts ou de décisions de grande chambre, par une relative discrétion des affaires françaises et par des affaires venues d’ailleurs qui ont permis à la Cour de Strasbourg de renforcer sa détermination à participer à la lutte contre la traites des êtres humains, les violences domestiques ou le sort des personnes atteintes de troubles psychiatriques, ainsi que de confirmer son intérêt pour les droits des détenus ou sa prudence face aux questions migratoires.

en lire plus

Il n’est pas nouveau, en droit de la concurrence, qu’une entente puisse être réprimée, au titre de l’article 101 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, si les effets restrictifs de concurrence qu’elle produit sont seulement potentiels, dès lors qu’ils sont suffisamment sensibles. C’est ce que rappelle classiquement la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne dans une décision du 5 décembre 2024. Allant plus loin, elle établit explicitement un parallèle entre l’article 101 et l’article 102 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, qui prohibent les abus de position dominante, en énonçant que, en ce qui concerne la démonstration d’effets anticoncurrentiels, l’interprétation faite de l’article 101 correspond à celle de l’article 102, ce qui mérite d’être souligné.

en lire plus

This submission written by Celeste Hall, JD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Global Legal Scholar.

The legal news has been awash lately in the recognition and enforcement of investment arbitration awards by U.S. courts. Most of the press is on the long-running and still-unfolding saga regarding Spain (see here and here). And a new decision recognizing an award against Zimbabwe was just issue at the end of December, as well. Here, however, we would like to add to the news with the recent decision recognizing an investment arbitration award against Mexico in United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated.

Like most investment arbitrations, the decision tells a sordid tale. Lion Mexico Consolidated (LMC) is a Canadian company which provided financing to a Mexican businessman, Mr. Hector Cardenas Curiel, to develop real estate projects in Nayarit and Jalisco, Mexico. Cardenas’ company failed to pay on the loans, and LMC tried for years to obtain payment, all to no avail. Cardenas then began what was described as a “complex judicial fraud” to avoid payment, including a forgery and a subsequent lawsuit in a Jalisco court to cancel the loans. LMC was never informed of the suit and therefore, never appeared. The Jalisco Court issued a default judgment discharging the loans and ordering LMC to cancel the mortgages; Cardenas then arranged for an attorney to act fraudulently on LMC’s behalf to file and then purposefully abandon the appeal. LMC only learned of the entire scheme when they attempted to file their own constitutional challenge and were rejected. The Mexican Courts refused to allow LMC to submit evidence of the forgeries, so LMC brought a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration against Mexico for its failure to accord Lion’s investments protection under Article 1105(1) of NAFTA.

In the arbitration, Mexico argued that Article 1105(1)(b) only applies to investments, and because LMC is an investor, it could not seek relief under Article 1105(1). The arbitral tribunal disagreed and awarded LMC over US$ 47 million in damages. In the U.S. courts, Mexico petitioned to vacate the Award, and LMC cross-petitioned to affirm it.

Mexico conceded that the DC Circuit’s power to vacate an arbitral award is limited: as long as the tribunal “interpreted” 1105(1) the Court must confirm the award even if serious interpretive error was committed. Mexico attempted to skirt this issue by claiming that the Tribunal did not “interpret” anything. Instead, in Mexico’s view, they simply ignored the literal meaning of investments of investors by granting relief to Lion.

The Court was not impressed by this argument. It held that “[t]he Tribunal addressed Mexico’s interpretation of Article 1105(1) head on, employed common interpretative tools to reach a different conclusion, cited authorities in support of its reading, and explained its reasoning. By any definition of the word, the Tribunal interpreted Article 1105(1). Because the Court can’t second-guess that interpretation, the Court DENIED Mexico’s Petition to Vacate the Arbitral Award, and GRANTED LMC’s Cross- Petition for Confirmation, Recognition, and Enforcement of the Arbitral Award.”

Additionally, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed Hector Cardenas Curiel. Cardenas knew that the arbitral case hinged upon his fraud but did not pursue intervention at the arbitral stage. The Court found that Cardenas’ attempt to intervene at this stage was “too little too late”, and Cardenas did not meet the requirements for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or 24(b).

This decision is important because it follows a long line of cases giving deference to arbitrators in investment treaty cases; when they interpret the governing treaty and decide cases thereunder, their decisions will not be second-guessed by U.S. courts later.

As posted earlier here, the conference organizers and editors of the JPIL are welcoming submissions for the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law, to be held in London 11–13 September 2025.

Proposals including an abstract of up to 500 words can be send to JPrivIL25@ucl.ac.uk until 17 January 2025.

More information can also be found here.

The University of Edinburgh is seeking a full-time permanent Lecturer in Global Law for its School of Law. Further details can be found here. As mentioned in the full job description, expertise in private international law will be appreciated. The closing date for applications is 20 January 2025.