Feed aggregator

On 1 January 2025, Poland assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union, marking the start of a new trio of presidencies that also involves Denmark and Cyprus. The Polish presidency’s programme for the semester ending on 30 June deals with a broad range of topics, including judicial cooperation in civil matters. In this […]

Beevers Kaas
Concurrence
Droit de la concurrence et accords de distribution : le distributeur exclusif doit être protégé des ventes actives effectuées sur son territoire par tous les autres acheteurs du fournisseur

Mousse
Principes du droit communautaire
RGPD et transport ferroviaire : l’identité de genre du client n’est pas une donnée nécessaire pour l’achat d’un titre de transport

The Child Support forum is pleased to invite every interested stakeholder to a new open meeting on the issue of “International Maintenance Recovery on the Basis of Authentic Instruments”.

The payment of child maintenance is not always ordered by a court. Maintenance debtors may commit themselves to make these payments in an enforceable deed, also called “authentic instrument”. The enforceable deeds are usually established by public notaries or public authorities. They should not be confused with administrative orders, as they are based on a voluntary declaration by the maintenance debtor. In case of non-payment, enforcement can be carried out in the State of origin, in the same way as a court decision.

Regarding cross-border cases, the recognition and enforcement of child maintenance claims on the basis of authentic instruments is mentioned in certain provisions. However, the lack of international awareness as regards their nature leads to difficulties when it comes to their implementation. The meeting aims to provide information on these two topics and to allow an exchange between the stakeholders involved on both levels, the establishment and the enforcement of authentic instruments.

To register, click here.

This post has been written by Artur Doržinkevič, a PhD candidate and a lecturer at Mykolas Romeris University. On 21 November 2024, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal issued a ruling in civil case No. e2-651-912/2024, which provided further clarification regarding anti-SLAPP procedures as they pertain to lawyers. Although the case concerned domestic anti-SLAPP procedure, the […]

Over the past 19 years, Professor Symeon C. Symeonides (Alex L. Parks Distinguished Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus) has been providing scholars, researchers, practitionners and student with a comprehensive and extensive compliation of Parivate International law bibliogrphy.

The 2024’s compilation (Private International Law Bibliography 2024: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English) includes 58 books and 427 journal articles, covering a wide range of topics within private international law (conflict of laws) and related fields.

The bibliography addresses key areas such as prescriptive jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, federal-state conflicts, and specific aspects of arbitration. It also encompasses legal issues related to foreign relations and international human rights, providing a valuable reference for those studying or working in these domains.

This compilation serves as a significant resource for legal scholars and practitioners, offering a thorough overview of the literature in private international law and its associated fields.

Access to the bibliography is available on Prof. Symeonides’ SSRN page here.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Prof. Symeonides for his unwavering commitment and remarkable contributions. His bibliography continues to be a cornerstone of legal research and a testament to the enduring importance of meticulous scholarship.

A quick note on Playtech Software ea v Games Global Ltd ea [2024] EWHC 3264 (Ch) in which Thompsell J discussed ia Rome II in an application for service out (of the jurisdiction). 

As confirmed by Arnold LJ in Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 [51]  as a matter of English law, claims for breach of equitable obligations of confidence are not claims in tort: yet that does not rule out that under Rome II, they are non-contractual obligations whose lex causae is determined under that Regulation (see also Autostore).

Thompsell J in casu [100]:

Breach of confidence is a species of unfair competition within Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation and Article 6(2) applies because Playtech’s claims are concerned with alleged acts of unfair competition affecting exclusively the interests of a specific competitor. In these circumstances, Article 6(2) provides that “Article 4 shall apply“. The consequence is that Article 4, which is concerned with the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort, applies to determine the applicable law. This is despite breach of confidence not being a claim in tort for the purposes of English law.

Note that Article 4 Rome II unlike Article 6, contains an overall escape clause. [103] with reference to Celgard, the judge confirms that under Article 4(1) the connecting factor is the direct damage caused by the wrongdoing. Whether the relevant acts also had an effect, and may be regarded as having been carried out, in the United Kingdom, is not the relevant factor.

The judge [106] upholds claimant’s argument that it is facing competition to its business, which it conducts in the UK, in relation to its sales from at least one game developed by defendant, that has a feature that has relied on its confidential information, allegedly spirited away by a former employee of one of Playtech’s sister companies. The direct damage therefore is held to have been suffered in the jurisdiction and the tort gateway (see also UKSC Brownlie) for jurisdiction satisfied.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed 2024, Heading 4.6.2.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1869462089934450944

Bindl / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal condamne la Commission à payer des dommages et intérêts à un visiteur de son site Internet de la Conférence sur l’avenir de l’Europe en raison du transfert de données à caractère personnel aux États-Unis

Sandrine Clavel, Patrick Jacob and Fabienne Jault Seseke (all professors at the University of Versailles St Quentin) are the editors of a new French journal dedicated to international dispute resolution, Perspectives Contentieuses internationales (PCI). The journal, which will be freely available, aims at covering both public and private law aspects of international dispute resolution. It […]

Il résulte des principes régissant le conflit de lois en matière d’action directe que l’action est possible si elle est permise, soit par la loi de l’obligation principale, soit par la loi du contrat d’assurance, de sorte que, si la loi de l’obligation principale l’autorise, la loi du contrat d’assurance, applicable au régime de l’assurance, ne peut y faire obstacle et ne peut être invoquée que dans ses dispositions qui régissent les relations entre l’assureur et l’assuré, dispositions à laquelle la question de l’action directe est étrangère.

en lire plus

This post was written by Elena Alina Onţanu, Assistant Professor at the University of Tilburg, and Carlos Santaló Goris, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Luxembourg. The Bulgarfrukt judgment is the latest in a series of cases submitted by national judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in which the service […]

This post has been written by Bryan (H.B.) Verheul, PhD Candidate in Private International Law, Leiden University. He attended the Advanced Course in Hong Kong as a participant. Between 2 and 6 December 2024, the second edition of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Advanced Course on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and […]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Conflict of Abortion Laws”

 

With the abolition of the constitutional abortion right in the United States come huge differences among the laws of the states, and that leads to questions about which state law applies when a person from an anti-abortion state travels to a pro-choice state to get an abortion. Can anti-abortion states apply their regulatory and tort regimes to their own residents who leave the state to obtain an abortion? Can they empower residents to sue abortion providers in other states to protect what they view as the “unborn child”? Can pro-choice states confer immunity from suit on abortion providers and on people who get abortions from suits filed in anti-abortion states? Does the United States Constitution limit the power of anti-abortion states to apply their laws in an extraterritorial manner, and, if not, how should courts revolve conflicts of law (private international law) questions about abortion?

 

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 „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:

 

W. Hau: Third countries and the revision of the Brussels Ibis Regulation: jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, recognition and enforceability (German)

The question of whether the provisions of the Brussels Ibis Regulation on international jurisdiction should be extended to defendants not domiciled in a Member State is to be considered in the upcoming round of revision (as expressly stated in Article 79). This paper discusses this question, but also whether the already existing provisions on the relevance of parallel proceedings in third countries have proven effective and whether the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments should finally be put on the Brussels agenda.

 

Ch. Thomale: Ipso facto clauses in cross-border cases (German)

Ipso facto clauses or bankruptcy clauses present a controversial problem to both contract law and insolvency law. After a comparative overview of international substantive solutions to the problem, the article addresses associated conflict of laws issues, notably of characterisation. Special attention is given to “anticipatory” ipso facto clauses, cancelling the contract before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

 

A. Engel/R. Müller: Limits to the freedom of choice of law in the context of player agent services (German)

The article deals with a decision of the Rechtbank Limburg (Netherlands) (31 January 2024 – C/03/313729 / HA ZA 23–42, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2024:524) concerning limits to the freedom of choice of law, in the context of player agent services in international football. The decision hinged upon the application of Section 297 No. 4 of the German Social Security Code III (SGB III). The relevant contract between the parties contained a clause according to which the claimant was exclusively authorised to represent the player during the term of the contract. The German provision would render the clause invalid.

While the parties had chosen Dutch law to be applicable to the contract, the court held that the German provision was applicable in view of Art. 3 para. 3 of the Rome I Regulation, which stipulates the application of mandatory provisions of the state in which the facts of the case are exclusively located if the law of another state is chosen. The article analyses this limit to party autonomy in the context of other limitations which could have been applied: Art. 9 Rome I, regarding overriding mandatory provisions, and Art. 6 Rome I, regarding the protection of consumers. The article pays heed in particular to the requirements of the domestic connections of the case.

 

J. M. Blaschczok: The assessment of arbitration agreements in competition law (German)

In recent years, arbitration agreements have come under the repeated scrutiny of competition law enforcers. By analysing a recent judgment of the CJEU, the Article finds that arbitration agreements are generally still regarded as harmless to competition in EU law. The Article subsequently discusses the exceptional cases in which arbitration agreements have been found to violate competition law. These cases include arbitration agreements which serve to cover-up other infringements of competition law as well as arbitration agreements by which a dominant undertaking imposes an unfair dispute resolution mechanism on a structurally disadvantaged party. The Article concludes that neither EU competition law nor other EU law require the place of arbitration to be located within the single market.

 

D. Fischer: § 40 KGSG as an overriding mandatory provision (German)

Erik Jayme stated incidentally in a conference report in 2018 that sec. 40 (1)–(4) Kulturgutschutzgesetz (KGSG) is an overriding mandatory provision. Haimo Schack makes the same qualification.  This finding can be confirmed for sec. 40 (1) and (2) KGSG. This article concentrates on the nature of these two paragraphs of sec. 40 KGSG as overriding mandatory provisions.

 

B. Kasolowsky/C. Wendler: German Courts confirm Anti-Suit Remedy against Sanctioned Russian Parties breaching Arbitration Agreements pursuant to Section 1032(2) GCPR (English)

Following last year’s landmark decision recognising the availability of declaratory anti-suit relief, the Berlin Higher Regional Court has again applied Section 1032(2) GCPR and broadened its scope of application. In its new decision, the court reiterated that sanctioned Russian parties remain bound to previously concluded arbitration agreements. In addition, the court offered even more hands-on protection for parties trying to serve proceedings in Russia.

 

L. M. Kahl: Security for legal costs before the Unified Patent Court compared to German and Austrian law (on UPC, Central Division Munich of 30 October 2023, UPC_CFI_252/2023) (German)

The article takes a decision of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) as an opportunity to examine the discretionary provision on security for costs, Art. 69 (4) UPCA, in more detail. According to this provision, both enforcement difficulties against third countries and the insolvency risk of the plaintiff can be considered. Among other things, the article deals with the effects of the attribution of UPC acts to the contracting member states pursuant to Art. 23 UPCA on the ordering of a security, how a so-called decision by default is to be interpreted when the claimant fails to provide a security and traces the line of previous case law. This can be seen as part of a general trend towards better protection of defendants.

 

J. Gibbons: Acceptance of English Notary Public Certificate of corporate representation without requirement of being a scrivener notary: recent decision of Regional Higher Court of Cologne (English)

The purpose of this article is to explain the professional standing, qualification, legal competence, regulatory equivalence, authority and evidential value of the acts of notaries public and scrivener notaries in England and Wales. This is considered necessary, as a number of German courts have, in recent years, rejected certificates of corporate representation issued by a notary public in England for use in Germany and elsewhere on the ground that they are not issued by a scrivener notary.

 

Ch. Thomale: Inheritance of limited partnership interests in cross-border cases (German)

The case note discusses a judgment rendered by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, concerning the inheritance of limited partnership interest in a German partnership while the inheritance succession is governed by Austrian law. The note focuses on the company and partnership law exceptions according to Art. 1 para. 2 lit. h) and i) Regulation (EU) 659/2012 and places these in the overall context of EU conflict of laws.

 

S. L. Gössl: Birth registrations and (no) procedural recognition in Ukrainian surrogacy cases (German)

In two cases, the BGH dealt with the attribution of parenthood to a child born to a surrogate mother in Ukraine. Under Ukrainian law, the German intended parents would have been the legal parents. The BGH refused to recognise this allocation under both procedural law and conflict of laws. From a dogmatic point of view, her statements are well justifiable. The distinction between a ‘decision’ and other administrative acts in the sense of procedural recognition could have been explored further.

 

M. Andrae: Correction of the date of birth under civil status and social law based on foreign court decisions and public documents (German)

A person‘s identity includes their date of birth. In the area of social law, a person’s rights and obligations are partly dependent on their age. The date of birth is part of the social insurance number. If the person in question was born abroad, it is often the case that only the year of birth is given and, if necessary, proven. This has corresponding consequences for civil status certification and social law. The registration under civil status law is then limited to stating the year of birth. In the area of social law, July 1st of the year in question is fictitiously assumed. The insurance number contains blank spaces in this regard. Later, a specific date of birth is claimed and a foreign decision or documents are presented as proof. In other cases, a date of birth with a different year of birth is claimed in this way. The article discusses under which conditions the original civil status entry must be corrected and a different date of birth must be assumed for social law purposes.

 

N. C. Elsner: Review of OGH, order of 2.11.2023 – 5 Nc 22/23i: Enforcement of a British decision in Austria (German)

 

L. M. Kahl: Review of OGH, order of 31.1.2024 – 3 Ob 6/24i: Judicial conflict: Inadmissible non-application of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure by Russian courts due to a Russian presidential decree (German)

 

A. Anthimos: UK Third Party Costs Orders Enforceable in Greece (German)

A UK third-party costs order (TPCO) is a totally unknown procedural concept in Greece. In the course of exequatur proceedings, the Piraeus first instance court and the Piraeus court of appeal were called to examine the issue for the first time in Greece, both declaring that no obstacles, especially those intertwined with procedural public policy, are barricading the path towards the declaration of enforcement of a TPCO issued by a judge in the UK.

Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.

Tentative Programme

Keynote Speakers

•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow

•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law

 

Speakers and Presentations

•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law

Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow

•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage

Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)

Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde

•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law

•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation

Maggie Fleming Cacot

•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law

Yehya Badr, Yamamah University

•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye

Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University

•Evolving Models of Restitution

Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam

•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland

Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,

We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.

January 2025 starts at the CJEU with the delivery of AG J. Richard de la Tour’s Opinion in case C-536/23, Mutua Madrileña Automovilista. The Landgericht München I (Regional Court of Munich I, Germany) is referring the following question to the Court of Justice: Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 [the Brussels I bis […]

The editors of ConflictofLaws.net would like to wish you a year filled with happiness, health, and success, academically and otherwise.

2024 has been another great year for the blog, with close to one new post per day (bringing us to more than 5,500 posts in total) and record numbers of readers and subscribers. Our content, just like our readership, reflects the global scope of the blog, with popular posts including Saloni Khanderia & Shubh Jaiswal’s article on the application of the lex fori ‘by default’ in Indian courts, Mayela Celis’ note on Smith & Wesson v Mexico, Orji A Uka & Damilola Alabi’s contribution on service under Nigerian law, Yasmín Aguada & Laura Martina Jeifetz two-part piece on international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law, and Tobias Lutzi’s comment on the CJEU’s decision in Real Madrid.

In addition to our e-mail newsletter (which continues to be surprisingly popular), you can subscribe to our blog on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and – from this year on – Bluesky.

Today (31-December 2024), FAMIMOVE 2.0. is coming to an end after having accomplished all of its goals and created a solid network of experts. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law and is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2022-JCOO program. For more information, click here.

The project aimed to improve the protection of migrant children and families by bringing actual practice more in line with EU goals and values, such as the protection of fundamental rights and best interests of the child. It sought to provide more effectiveness to EU objectives through a better coordination of instruments in overlapping fields, such as Regulations in private international law in family law matters and migration law rules.

The project’s duration was 24 months, starting on 1 January 2023. Total Project Costs: €863,584.70, of which an EU contribution of €777,226.23. The consortium comprised the following universities: Maastricht University (the Netherlands – coordinator), University of Münster (Germany), University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (France), Lund University (Sweden), Eotvos Lorand University (Hungary) and Ghent University (Belgium).

The achievements of the project are the following (some of which are publicly available):

• Seven awareness raising seminars were held in each of the partners’ countries (in their official languages). These seminars brought together migration and child protection authorities, as well as private international law experts;
• Three transnational pilot projects / roundtables relating to key issues of international child protection in a migration context: cross border recognition of guardianship, kafala and child marriage. These roundtables were held in Milan, Paris and Münster and gathered experts from at least three countries each. See also the leaflets below for more information:
• The final conference took place in Brussels: some of the presentations are publicly available here. See also the blog post The role of judge: from compassion to rights
• A book: Children in Migration and International Family Law: The Child’s Best Interests Principle at the Interface of Migration Law and Family Law – open access available here. We have previously announced it on this blog here. The book has twenty chapters that have been divided into the following: Introduction, General Topics, Guardianship for Unaccompanied Minor Refugees, Early Marriage, Kafala and Additional Topics;
• Leaflets on the project and guidelines – Leaflets available in 6 languages can be downloaded here
• A FAMIMOVE website was created: https://famimove.unimib.it/. This website features a blog, which has approximately 40 entries, ranging from activities conducted under the project to the latest news on migration/refugee law as well as private international law. I would like to highlight the following entries:
  • Family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection: the EUAA overview
  • The new Early Marriages Act in Germany
  • The Court of Justice on the recognition of refugee status
  • The OJ publication of the new EU law on asylum and migration

Undoubtedly, FAMIMOVE 2.0 has contributed to a better alignment of migration law and private international law. This project’s legacy is well documented in the publications referred to above. It is to be hoped (at least in my view) that similar initiatives will emerge in the future, especially now that the application of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum is looming in the distance (scheduled for 2026), and which will certainly present new challenges and opportunities.

FAMIMOVE 2.0 is a continuation of an earlier requested grant to the European Commission. As part of FAMIMOVE 1.0, two documents were issued:

Children on the move: A private International Law Perspective

Private International Law in a Context of Increasing International Mobility

Views and opinions expressed in this project are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

It’s been another busy year for the EAPIL blog. More than 300 new posts have been published over the past twelve months. Around 80 of them focused on cases brought before the Court of the Justice of the EU, the European Court of Human Rights and domestic judicial authorities. There were fewer posts on case […]

The first issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) for 2025 will be published on 6 January 2025. The following advance abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. W. Hau, Third countries and the revision of the Brussels Ibis Regulation: jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, recognition and enforceability [German] The […]