Feed aggregator

The CJEU held last Thursday in C-682/23 E.B. sp. z o.o. v K.P. sp. z o.o. (my usual grumble on anonymisation: there is exactly zero reason to anonymise names in a bog standard B2B litigation fought in open court).

E.B. (the principal) and E. PL. (the service provider) are two companies incorporated under Polish law. They contracted on 24 March and 24 July 2017 two contracts for construction work in Poland. With effect from 4 March 2017, E. PL. subcontracted with E. S.A., a company incorporated under Romanian law. On 10 July 2017, E. S.A., in turn, concluded a subcontract with K.P., yet another company incorporated under Polish law. This contract contains a jurisdiction clause under which ‘any dispute shall be resolved by the court within whose jurisdiction the contracting party has its registered office’. The clause does not specify the exact scope of the term ‘contracting party’. This is the clause at the centre of the case.

The four contracts referred to above all have Polish law as lex contractus by way of lex voluntatis.

K.P. then allegedly misperformed under the subcontract leading to E.S.A having a €3 million plus claim against K.P. This claim was assigned by agreement of 16 December 2021, concluded between E. S.A. and E.B. and with the participation of E. PL. E.B. took that claim in what it said is both contractual liability and liability in tort, to the Romanian court which it said had jurisdiction in its capacity as the court within whose jurisdiction E. S.A. had its registered office.

K.P. argued lack of jurisdiction for the Romanian court, suggesting a tortious claim did not engage the choice of court and per A7(2) Ia should be heard in Poland as locus delicti commissi. As for contractual liability, K.P. argued that E.B. could not, as a third party to the subcontract in question, rely on the jurisdiction clause at issue.

To question before the CJEU is whether the assignee of a claim arising from a contract, has the right to enforce the jurisdiction clause in that contract against the original party to the contract, if the assignment contract has, in accordance with the national law applicable to the substance of the dispute, transferred the claim and its ancillary rights, but NOT the obligations arising from the contract.

The CJEU up to [40], referring to previous case law (including Maersk, of course), firstly postulates a ius commune rule (supported by the principles of predictability, certainty and good administration of justice of Brussels Ia) that in any case there is enforceability under Article 25 if rights AND obligations have been assigned.

It then [41] ff concludes that it is however also compatible with A25 BIa if a national regulation such as, in this case, Polish private law, as applied by Polish case law, includes enforceability by the assignee of the jurisdiction agreement against the original contracting party, even if the assignment transfers rights only and not obligations, and even if the other, originally contracting party did not consent to the assignment in general or to the assignment of the choice of forum in particular. Except if the original contracting parties expressly agreed that such assignment could not result in the enforceability of the choice of court clause.

The judgment reemphasises the incomplete assignment picture under EU private international law which I also flagged for a planned talk at the Asser institute last week.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.373 ff.

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.

A call for chapters has been issued for the upcoming edited volume Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands, to be published by Springer Nature under the editorship of Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen). The volume explores how digitalisation affects courts and dispute resolution, seeking to balance efficiency and fairness, from remote hearings […]

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité fait une petite pause la semaine du 27 octobre.

en lire plus

On 21 October 2025, the European Commission adopted its 2026 work programme, titled Europe’s Independence Moment. It outlines how the EU plans to respond to current and emerging challenges, from security threats and geopolitical tensions to economic vulnerabilities and the accelerating climate crisis, building on the priorities set out in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines 2024-2029 […]

La chambre criminelle s’est prononcée pour la première fois sur la question de savoir si les saisies pénales ordonnées dans une procédure diligentée par le parquet européen devaient répondre à des conditions spécifiques issues du règlement européen du 12 octobre 2017.

en lire plus

La divergence entre jurisprudences internes constitue un élément attentivement scruté par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme qui fait des garanties procédurales offertes par le droit national un point central de l’effectivité des droits fondamentaux. Dans ce cadre, le rôle d’harmonisation dévolu à la Cour suprême nationale est déterminant, comme le confirme un récent arrêt.

en lire plus

Imagens Médicas Integradas
Concurrence
Selon l’avocate générale Medina, le respect au droit à la protection des données à caractère personnel n’exige pas l’autorisation préalable d’une autorité judiciaire dans des enquêtes sur la concurrence

Tuleka
Voyages à forfait : en cas d’exécution incorrecte du contrat, le voyageur peut être intégralement remboursé, même si certains services lui ont été fournis

This post was contributed by Gilles Cuniberti, Brooke Marshall and Louise Ellen Teitz. They are the authors (with the late Peter Mankowski) of a commentary on the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements forthcoming with Edward Elgar. On 9 October 2025, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-540/24, Cabris Investment already discussed […]

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.

 

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a rendu, la même semaine, deux arrêts issus de litiges d’urbanisme. Deux décisions, techniques en apparence, mais qui rappellent que l’espace bâti n’est jamais neutre : il touche à la propriété, à la vie privée. Dans les deux cas, la Cour a constaté une violation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme confirmant que l’urbanisme peut aussi être un terrain des droits fondamentaux. 

en lire plus

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.

In Cabris Investments, a case decided on 9 October 2025, the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments (Brussels I bis). Article 25 is concerned with choice-of-court agreements. It applies where the parties to a dispute, “regardless of their […]

On 17 October 2025, Regulation (EU) 2025/2073 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The amendment reflects recent notifications by several Member States introducing new types […]

Neuf décisions. Six annulations. Trois retraits non motivés. Quinze ans. C’est le parcours traversé par un requérant malade qui a sollicité la délivrance d’un titre de séjour pour raisons de santé. Au moment où la Cour s’est prononcée, la semaine dernière, il n’avait toujours pas obtenu une décision définitive. L’arrêt rendu par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme contient, malgré son ancrage belge, des indications intéressantes qui pourraient avoir une portée plus générale en matière de droit des étrangers. 

en lire plus

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.

 

 

 

After two successful editions (here and here), the new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is scheduled to held on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 2 to 6 February 2026. It is organised by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the […]