Flux des sites DIP

A symposium on “Judicial Independence and Liberal Democracy Under Threat: The Challenge of Implementing the ELI Mt Scopus Standards on Judicial Independence” will take place from 10 to 12 December 2025 at the University of Nicosia. The event is organised by the Procedural Law Unit in cooperation with the International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace (JIWP) and will be held at the UNESCO Amphitheatre.

For conflict-of-laws scholars, the theme is of direct relevance. The operation of mutual trust, the circulation of judgments and the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation depend upon structurally independent courts capable of delivering fair and impartial justice. Recent developments in several jurisdictions have renewed the discussion on whether systemic deficiencies can undermine recognition and enforcement mechanisms. The symposium aims to examine these questions against the background of the ELI Mt Scopus Standards, which provide a comprehensive framework for assessing judicial independence in both institutional and functional terms.

The Opening Session, chaired by Assistant Professor Nicolas Kyriakides, will include contributions from representatives of the justice ministries of Greece and Cyprus, members of the Cyprus judiciary and parliament, the Cyprus Bar Association, the European Commission and the European Law Institute. Professor Shimon Shetreet, President of JIWP and Co-Reporter of the Mt Scopus Standards, will also address the audience.

The programme subsequently turns to comparative perspectives, with interventions by Marieta Safta, Graham Zellick, Mikhail Antonov, Alexander Trunk, Daniela Piana, Matthias E. Storme and Achilleas Demetriades. A further session on the contemporary role of courts will feature Valentina Pavlicic, Dragana Kolaric, Amnon Reichman, Gralf-Peter Calliess, Christos Clerides, Takis Tridimas and Giuseppe Franco Ferrari.

The afternoon sessions will consider judicial appointments and structural guarantees, with contributions from Fryderyk Zoll, Sophie Turenne, Caroline Expert-Foulquier, Serhii Kravtsov and Stephanie Laulhé Shaelou, followed by a panel on judicial ethics and accountability with Natasa Plavsic, Philippe Jougleux, George Kontis and Andrea Danuser. The final session, addressing judicial independence in democratic governance, will include Ruti Teitel, Martin Sabelli, Haim Sandberg and Hiram Chodosh, with concluding comments by Maimon Schwarzschild and Elina Asimakopoulou.

For those interested in the institutional foundations of private international law, the symposium offers a timely opportunity to revisit the structural assumptions that underpin cross-border judicial cooperation.

The programme is available here: https://www.unic.ac.cy/event/procedural-law-unit-5th-annual-symposium/

To follow the event online, you may watch the YouTube livestream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQ8sRIRQZs

By Marketa Trimble, Samuel S. Lionel Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Co-Director of the IP Law Concentration, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

It is neither new nor surprising that international treaties affect the design and application of conflict-of-laws rules; not only international conventions on private international law but also other international treaties shape conflicts rules, with human rights treaties being the primary example. But a recent decision concerning the interpretation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”) could have profound and arguably unprecedented effects on the conflict rules that are applied in intellectual property (“IP”) cases, such as cross-border cases concerning copyright infringement, trademark ownership, and patent licenses.

In July 2025, an arbitration panel decided in a WTO dispute between the European Union and China that the Chinese anti-suit injunction policy that led Chinese courts to issue anti-suit injunctions in disputes involving standard-essential patents violated the TRIPS Agreement (China—Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO, Award of Arbitrators, WT/DS611/ARB25, 21 July 2025). The decision, which concerned the Chinese version of anti-suit injunctions, which are referred to as “behavior preservation orders,” was rendered on appeal from a panel report from April 2025. In the absence of a functioning WTO Appellate Body, the appellate decision was rendered under the alternative Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement that was concluded pursuant to Article 25 of the WTO dispute settlement understanding.

The EU complaint to the WTO in the case was certainly not the first, or the only, attack on anti-suit injunctions that national courts have issued in patent cases in order to stop parties from litigating in parallel in foreign jurisdictions. Opponents of anti-suit injunctions have been successful, for example, in the Paris Court of Appeal and in the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court; these courts found that in the particular cases, U.S. court-issued anti-suit injunctions violated parties’ rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (IPCom GmbH & Co. Kg v. Lenovo (United States) Inc, No 14/2020, Paris Court of Appeal, 3 March 2020; Huawei v. Netgear, UPC, Munich Local Division, Order of 11 December 2024, File No. ACT_65376-2024 UPC_CFI_791-2024). But while the effects of those decisions have been limited and focused on anti-suit injunctions, the arbitral panel decision in the WTO case could have much wider implications.

The arbitral panel in the WTO case found that TRIPS Agreement Article 1.1, according to which WTO “[m]embers shall give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement,” creates a corollary obligation for WTO members “to do so without frustrating the functioning of the systems of protection and enforcement of IP rights implemented by other Members in their respective territories.” Because the anti-suit injunctions policy at issue affected the patent holders’ ability to enforce their rights that WTO member countries provided for in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, the panel held that the policy violated the TRIPS Agreement. The panel acknowledged that “the TRIPS Agreement does not address issues of private international law,” but concluded that “the TRIPS Agreement … requires that Members not frustrate the effective protection of trade-related IP rights in the territories of other Members.” It explained that “[t]he provisions of the TRIPS Agreement would be rendered inoperative if Members were allowed to frustrate the implementation by other Members of their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.”

Although the arbitral panel decision concerns anti-suit injunctions in patent cases, its reasoning raises the question whether the panel’s interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement could affect the application of other conflict-of-laws rules and affect the rules in any cases involving IP rights covered by the Agreement. Anti-suit injunctions are not the only means through which conflicts rules can impact the ability of a foreign country to protect the IP rights that the foreign country provides. Justiciability of foreign IP rights violations allows courts to adjudicate IP rights infringements arising under foreign countries’ laws, which foreign countries could perceive as depriving their own courts of the opportunity to vindicate the countries’ IP law violations and preventing the countries from fulfilling their obligation to “give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement.” Choice-of-law rules that direct courts to apply the law of the forum to remedies in cases of foreign IP rights infringements could also be viewed as diminishing or frustrating foreign countries’ protection of their IP rights, and any denials of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments concerning foreign IP rights, which might, for instance, be because of their repugnancy with the public policy of the recognizing court’s forum, clearly frustrate foreign countries’ enforcement and protection of their IP rights.

A pessimistic reading of the decision could lead to the conclusion that the arbitral panel’s interpretation forecloses the application of many principles and rules of conflict of laws that assist or could assist in the cross-border litigation of IP cases. In the past two decades, teams of conflicts & IP law scholars in the United States, Europe, and Asia have proposed sets of conflicts principles and rules that would overcome strictly territorial approaches to IP rights enforcement and promote greater flexibility in cross-border IP litigation, such as wider justiciability of foreign IP rights violations, greater numbers of courts with broader jurisdiction over IP disputes, concentrations of proceedings of related causes of action concerning IP rights in different countries, and the application of a single country’s law for ubiquitous (such as online) IP rights infringements. Among the several proposals, the projects by the American Law Institute, the European Max Planck Group, and the International Law Association have been the most detailed. Much of this work could now seem to be to no avail in light of the arbitral panel’s interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement.

An optimistic reading of the arbitral panel decision could offer support for the current conflicts principles and rules, and at least for some of the principles and rules proposed by the projects. Conflicts rules should support collaboration among courts in their enforcement of each other’s national laws, including IP laws, and thus contribute to countries meeting their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. For example, justiciability of foreign IP rights violations can frustrate the ability of foreign courts to adjudicate violations in their jurisdictions, but in some cases, the justiciability rule can pave the way for the only available avenue for effective enforcement of the rights, such as when a rights holder can afford to litigate only once, and a concentration of proceedings, facilitated by the rules of justiciability, of parallel violations of IP rights under multiple countries’ laws provides the only realistic possibility for a rights holder to enforce his rights. Certainly, any rules that aim to maximize the recognizability and enforceability of foreign judgments in IP cases should be consistent with a requirement that a foreign country’s ability to “give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement” not be frustrated.

Not all conflicts rules, and not the rules in all circumstances, will live up to the corollary obligation that the arbitral panel identified in Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Detailed analyses should study the compliance of different conflicts rules with the obligation, and also contemplate the role that the rules might play in achieving the overall goals of the TRIPS Agreement when a foreign country’s IP laws and/or judgments do not comply with the Agreement. Rules such as the public policy exception and internationally mandatory rules might pose interesting questions in this regard.

The durability of the arbitral panel’s interpretation is unclear; because it is a product of the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, the arbitral panel’s decision is binding only on the parties and is not precedential for all WTO members, and future decisions within the WTO dispute settlement could produce other interpretations. For now, the interpretation by the arbitral panel suggests that courts should be looking closely at the TRIPS Agreement when addressing conflict-of-laws issues in cross-border IP cases.

Maria Victoria Cuartero Rubio (University of Castilla-La Mancha) and Jose Manuel Velasco Retamosa (University of Castilla-La Mancha) edited El Derecho de Familia a la luz del derecho fundamental europeo al respeto a la vida familiar (Family Law in Light of the European Fundamental Right to Respect for Family Life) with Aranzadi. The book, part of […]

The general course of international law that Professor Campbell McLachlan (University of Cambridge) gave at the Hague Academy of International Law On the Interface Between Public and Private International Law was published in volume 446 of the Collected Courses of the Academy. Our understanding of the operation of law beyond the State has been deeply shaped by two […]

Registration is open for the book launch celebrating the publication of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary, to be held in hybrid format in The Hague on 11 December 2025 from 1.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. (CET). The book launch will coincide with the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention.

The book launch will consist of two session. In the first session, the authors and discussants will explore selected chapters of the book. Brooke Marshall (University of Oxford) and Stefanie Francq (Catholic University of Louvain) will discuss the manifest injustice and public policy exception in Article 6 of the Convention; Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University) and Fausto Pocar (University of Milan) will discuss declarations under Articles 21 and 22 and accommodating multiple legal systems; and Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg, EAPIL) and Adrian Briggs KC (University of Oxford) will discuss the law applicable to the issue of consent to choice of court agreements. The second session of the event will discuss the practical operation of the Convention and the practical application of the text, with the participation of Delphia Lim (Ministry of Law of Singapore), Colin Seouw (Colin Seouw Chambers LLC), and Anselmo Reyes (Singapore International Commercial Court). Dr Christophe Bernasconi (HCCH) will provide opening remarks, and Melissa Ford (HCCH) will moderate the discussions.

For more information, and to register, please visit: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/choice-of-court/hcch-book-launch

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

The fourth issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025 has recently been published.  It contains the following articles, cases notes and book review.

Michael Howard, “The True History of the Origin of the Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order”

Fifty years ago, in 1975, a revolutionary innovation occurred in English procedural law, the introduction of what is officially named the freezing injunction, formerly and to some extent even now known as the Mareva injunction. It was the consequence of two decisions of the Commercial Court, the Karageorgis and Mareva cases. The thesis of this article, lightly camouflaged, is that these cases and this change were brought about by a combination of four factors which are present in most such developments of the common law: the personal, the institutional, the technical legal and the accidental. It is an attempt to present all of them and to show that the first and particularly the last were disproportionately large contributors.

Masood Ahmed, “State Immunity and the New York Convention”

 

Adrian Briggs, “Book Review of Hong Kong Private International Law” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes)

 

My views

I  read the interesting—but in my view unconvincing—critical review by Emeritus Professor Adrian Briggs of “Private International Law in Hong Kong” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes). My reading of the review is that Briggs laments the authors’ limited engagement with English sources, suggesting that because Hong Kong’s private international law is not as fully developed as Singapore’s, English texts and cases should operate as gap-fillers.

I take a different view. I am pleased to see Asian private international law scholars asserting a more autonomous and context-sensitive approach to developing their conflict-of-laws rules. That intellectual independence is healthy for the discipline, and it is precisely the direction I believe African private international law should pursue.

 

 

This post was contributed by Burkhard Hess, who is professor at the University of Vienna. On 2 December 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice gave its long-awaited judgment in case C-34/34, Apple Store Nederland. The Court went for a fundamental expansion of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (in the […]

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.

I reviewed Sánchez-Bordona AG’s Opinion in Case C-34/24 Stichting Right to Consumer Justice v Apple here.

The CJEU held yesterday and did not follow its AG. In doing so it gave collective action under WAMCA a boost. This is not something many will object to. However in my view its judgment is fairly clearly contra legem and I do not think it is a good idea for the CJEU effectively to legislate in this way.

The Court held that Dutch foundations can consolidate their collective claim in just one court in The Netherlands, despite the absence of a clear ex ante procedural rule in Dutch civil procedure providing for same.

The foundations at issue are procedural vehicles, created to bring a class action suit in the name of both identified and unidentified victims of alleged abuse of dominant position by Apple with its fee structure for App Store.

With its judgment, the Court decided not to follow the Opinion of its Advocate General. He had suggested the Court stick to what is a more literal reading of the EU rules on jurisdiction. This Opinion implied that

unless the Dutch rules clearly provide for such consolidation for instance for all breaches of competition law (clearly sanctioned by CJEU Volvo) – which they do not (Dutch lawyers will be better placed to explain why this change has not been made in the context of WAMCA); or

unless the court in the case at issue finds that a multitude of claims brought in various Dutch court – which they had not – must be consolidated in one court on the basis of Dutch civil procedure rules,

, the Court should follow the implications of the actual wording of the EU rule at issue.

In its ruling the Court emphasised that consolidating the claims in one court will make it more efficient to perform the often complex factual and economic analysis required to judge complicated competition law cases like the one at issue. It also highlighted that Apple can hardly be surprised to be sued in one court in The Netherlands given its marketing of the App Store across The Netherlands collectively (as Giles Cuniberti notes, this specific focus on the Dutch market may mean the authority of the judgment does not stretch to cases where such national marketing focus is absent).

I get both elements. However they are de lege ferenda, not de lege lata. Article 7(2) clearly allocates territorial jurisdiction, not just national jurisdiction, to the place of individual harm which must therefore be identified. Should this be considered to go against the interest of the sound administration of justice, then the Regulation ought to be amended (which it has not, despite repeated opportunity to do so, and despite it having been considered in the specific context of collective action, without it actually having been amended).

Note that [64-65] emphasis on ‘unidentified but identifiable’ echoes the requirement of individual harm emphasised also in CJEU Mittelbayerisher Verlag:

As is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, under Netherlands law, a foundation or association which brings a representative action acts as an independent promoter of the interests of persons who, although not referred to individually, have similar interests. Those applicants thus exercise their own right, namely the right to represent and defend the collective interests of a ‘strictly defined group’ which brings together unidentified but identifiable persons, namely users, whether consumers or professionals, who have purchased apps created by developers on the App Store NL to which those persons had access by means of their Apple ID associated with the Netherlands and whose domicile or registered office is likely, for the majority of those users, to be located throughout the territory of that State.

That group must be determined in a sufficiently precise manner to enable interested persons to express their position on the outcome of the proceedings concerned and, where applicable, to receive compensation. In that regard, the Netherlands Government stated, at the hearing, that the outcome of a representative action for the defence of the collective interests of unidentified but identifiable persons is binding on the persons established in the Netherlands who belong to that group and who have not expressed their intention to refrain from participating in those proceedings.

[66] the CJEU notes

a court cannot be required, for the purpose of determining its territorial jurisdiction to hear such an action, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, to identify, for each alleged victim taken individually, the precise place where the damage that may have been suffered occurred, since those victims are not identified individually at the time when that court ascertains whether it has jurisdiction; nor can it be required to identify one or some of those victims.

With respect, that puts the horse before the cart. If such determination cannot be done, then one may simply have to conclude that there cannot be locus damni jurisdiction under Article 7(2), instead turning to locus delicti commissi. However in view of its answer to the locus damni issue, the Court did not reply to the question on the location of the harmful event /locus delicti commissi.

This is a question which is of equally general importance to the effective implementation of competition law and as I discuss in my previous post, could do with clarification. That the Court did not entertain it is an important missed opportunity.

Further, in various places in the judgment the CJEU pushes the ‘sound administration of justice’ as a foundational principle of Brussels Ia. As I argue here, there is in fact little support in the Regulation de lege lata that this principle is core to the Regulation’s jurisdictional matrix. The CJEU clearly pushes it as one.

Overall there will be few who will have sympathy for an economic player the size of Apple who now can more realistically be sued in one court rather than claimants having to first bring the claim across the whole of The Netherlands. In that respect the judgment echoes an earlier one brought against Volkswagen in the context of the Dieselgate scandal. In that judgment, the Court allowed individual, second hand  purchasers of a defective car to sue the manufacturer effectively in their individual place of domicile. In that case therefore Volkswagen was inconveniently forced to defend the claim in a multitude of jurisdictions.

The inconvenience for Apple in current case is that it is being sued in one place by a more sophisticated claimant. However the danger in my opinion lies in the Court effectively applying the law with the perceived unpopularity or sophistication of one of the parties in mind. If current EU procedural law turns out to be ineffective in holding big business to account, then that law must be changed by the legislator. I do not think the Court must do it in the legislator’s stead, in cases where the law’s express provisions are clear.

Geert.

Care Proceedings with an International Element, by Maria Sofia Wright, a practicing English solicitor, has been published by Bloomsbury Publishing. The blurb reads: Presenting the findings of a study of 100 care cases, this book provides rigorous analysis of how jurisdictional issues are determined and how information sharing of child protection operates across borders. It […]

Georgia Antonopoulou (University of Birmingham) and Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University) have issued a call for papers in view of a roundtable that will take place at the University of Birmingham, on 14 May 2026, under the title Bridging Jurisdictions: Rethinking Commercial Conflicts of Laws 10 Years After Brexit. The roundtable will focus on highlighting cooperation opportunities in commercial conflicts […]

Before the Christmas break (from 22 December 2025 to 11 January 2026), the Court of Justice will publish several decisions and opinions related to private international law. As of 30 November 2025, the scheduled calendar includes the decision of 2 December in case C-34/24, Right to Consumer Justice et Stichting App Stores Claims. The main […]

On Friday, December 5, 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). Dr. Béligh Elbalti (Osaka University) will speak, in English, about the topic

“The Double Face of Private International Law: Reconsidering Its Colonial Entanglements”

In its general discourse, private international law (conflict of laws) is often presented as a discipline grounded in principles such as sovereignty, the equality of states, and comity. Its defining traits are said to flow from this premise of equality between legal orders, including its claim to neutrality, its pursuit of international harmony in cross-border cases, and its role in coordinating diverse legal systems. However, it is striking that private international law developed in an international context marked by domination, inequality, and subordination, a context that challenged the very premises on which the discipline claimed to rest.

Within this broader context, private international law appears to have played a dual role. On the one hand, it served as an instrument of colonial domination, particularly by denying its foundational premises to legal systems not regarded as “civilized”. In these contexts, instead of applying the ordinary methods of private international law, alternative mechanisms were employed to manage foreignness, most notably through systems of extraterritoriality – whether in the form of consular jurisdiction, mixed courts, or foreign courts operating in colonized or semi-colonized territories. On the other hand, private international law also functioned as an instrument for restoring sovereignty and achieving independence. The abolition and dismantling of extraterritorial regimes required colonized and semi-colonized states to meet the substantive and institutional conditions considered necessary for recognition as a “civilized nation”. This included, among other reforms, the establishment of a functioning system of private international law, alongside the adoption of substantive and procedural legal frameworks that guaranteed equal rights and protection for foreigners.

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.

by Dr Georgia Antonopoulou (University of Birmingham) and Dr Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University)

On 14 May 2026, the roundtable Bridging Jurisdictions: Rethinking Commercial Conflicts of Laws 10 Years After Brexit will take place at the University of Birmingham, in the UK. This roundtable will focus on highlighting cooperation opportunities in commercial conflicts of laws between the United Kingdom and the EU in light of current developments including jurisdictional competition, digitisation, sustainability, and international sanctions. The roundtable will feature policymakers and internationally renowned scholars.

We invite submissions of draft articles from researchers and academics, especially at their early stages of their careers, on private international law in the aftermath of the Brexit. The applications should be in English. Kindly email your application to Dr E. Pannebakker (e.s.pannebakker@law.leidenuniv.nl) and Dr G. Antonopoulou (g.antonopoulou@bham.ac.uk). The submissions should include:

• an abstract (max. 200 words);
• a draft or a detailed outline of the contribution (max. 5,000 words);
• a bio/curriculum vitae of the author (max. 2 pages long).

The deadline for submission is 1 February 2026. The selected participants will be notified by the end of February 2026.

During the roundtable, the selected participants will give a presentation of their articles and then receive feedback. Accepted papers will be considered for publication in an edited special journal issue in an international review. The roundtable will cover reasonable costs of travel, accommodation, and meals for the selected participants.

Possible topics include:

• Jurisdictional competition including arbitration and international commercial courts;
• PIL in the United Kingdom post-Brexit;
• The impact of digitisation on private international law (applicable law and/or jurisdiction);
• Sustainability and private international law;
• The impact of trade sanctions on private international law.

We particularly welcome applications from underrepresented groups. Special consideration will be given to female participants vested with childcare and/or other domestic responsibilities.

This project has received funding from the Birmingham – Leiden universities Strategic Collaboration Fund.

We are looking forward to receiving your application!

         

The next session of the conference series European Dialogue on Civil Procedural Law will take place (online) on Thursday, 4 December 2025, from 13:00 to 17:00 (CET), under the theme “Recent Developments on Brussels Ibis”.

The event is organised by Dr. habil. Balázs Arató, PhD, Prof. Dr. Thomas Garber, Prof. Dr. Katharina Lugani and Prof. Dr. Matthias Neumayr.

The Brussels I bis Regulation, together with its parallel instrument, the Lugano Convention, forms the core of European civil procedure law. Events in this series serve to promote dialogue among Member States and with third countries, thereby strengthening and improving the integration and efficiency of European legal instruments. The interim online conference on 4 December 2025 will feature country reports from four legal systems and two presentations on current topics relating to the Brussels Ia Regulation. The event is aimed at academics and practitioners alike. We look forward to a lively exchange.

The speakers are :

• Dr. habil. Balázs Arató, PhD, Budapest, Hungary
• Dr. Caterina Benini, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy
• Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Eva Dobrovolná, Ph.D., LL.M., Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
• Prof. Dr. Étienne Farnoux, University of Strasbourg, France, seconded to the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Lebanon
• Prof. Dr. Thomas Garber, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Katharina Lugani, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany
• Prof. Dr. Robert Magnus, University of Bayreuth, Germany
• Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Martina Melcher, M.Jur, University of Graz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Matthias Neumayr, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Anna Nylund, University of Bergen, Norway

The flyer for the event can be found here.

Please register here.

Participation is free of charge.

HCCH Monthly Update: November 2025

 

Conventions & Instruments

On 5 November 2025, Algeria deposited its instrument of accession to the 1961 Apostille Convention. With the ratification of Argentina, the Convention now has 58 Contracting Parties. With the accession of Algeria, the 1961 Apostille Convention now has 128 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Algeria on 9 July 2026. More information is available here.

On 27 November 2025, Monaco deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. With the accession of Monaco, 38 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Monaco on 1 March 2026. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 10 to 14 November 2025, the Working Group (WG) on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the fifth time. Pursuant to its mandate, the WG continued its consideration of draft provisions for one new instrument on legal parentage generally, including legal parentage following an international surrogacy arrangement, and finalised its report for the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the HCCH. More information is available here.

From 11 to 14 November 2025, the Permanent Bureau (PB) of the HCCH organised a series of events at COP30 in Brazil, partnering with the Latin American Climate Lawyers Initiative for Mobilizing Action and the Ministério Público Federal of Brazil. More information is available here.

From 18 to 20 November 2025, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Digital Tokens met for the second time. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG made further progress on the study of the private international law issues raised by digital tokens. More information is available here.

On 20 November 2025, the PB of the HCCH hosted HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2025, dedicated to the 2019 Judgments Convention. International experts convened to discuss the Convention’s potential impact and champion its wider adoption. More information is available here.

On 25 November 2025, the third meeting of the WG established to finalise the Model Forms pertaining to Chapter II of the 1970 Evidence Convention was held online, hosted by the PB of the HCCH. More information is available here.

On 26 November 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

The PB of the HCCH has launched a public consultation on the Draft Text of a possible new convention on parallel proceedings and related actions, to be held from 18 November 2025 to 26 January 2026. Experts, practitioners and judges from diverse legal traditions with experience in cross-border litigation and private international law more broadly are encouraged to participate in the consultation. More information is available here.

 

Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the book launch celebrating the publication of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary, to be held in hybrid format on 11 December 2025 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. (CET). 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.

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions, as report of the Working Group’s second meeting. This post follows up on the report (Part I). The second meeting of the Working Group provided an overview of a selection of national transposition acts […]

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions. It is the first part of a report on the Working Group’s second meeting. The second part forms the object of a separate post that will be published tomorrow. On 18 November 2025, the EAPIL Working […]

Bilkent University Faculty of Law and Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye cordially invite you to submit abstracts for the International Conference on Legal Aspects of Migration Management to be held at Bilkent University on 6-7 March 2026.

The Conference aims to give the opportunity to researchers who would like to present their theoretical or empirical research on the development of policy, legislative and administrative responses to key migration issues.

We particularly encourage submissions on the questions of evolution of the international legal regime relating to migration; the right of asylum and asylum procedures; border management; sustainability and migration; circular migration; protection of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups; effects of digitalisation on migration; externalization of migration policies, recognition of personal status; migrants’ access to fundamental rights and durable solutions. Proposals involving comparative perspectives of international, European and national approaches are most welcome.

Abstracts (max. 500 words) (in English or in Turkish) should be sent to migration@bilkent.edu.tr by 5 January 2026.

Detailed information shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr

 

Written by Dr. Zihao Fan (Peking University Law School)

On 14 November 2025, the annual survey Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2024 (“the 2024 Survey”) was published in the Chinese Journal of International Law (Oxford University Press, Vol. 24(4)). This survey continues the long-running series of yearly reports, now in its twelfth year since 2013, and it remains an indispensable resource documenting China’s development in private international law for an international audience. The Survey is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/24/4/jmaf031/8321298?login=true

1. Content and Focus of the 2024 Survey

The 2024 Survey covers six areas: an overview, civil subjects, jurisdiction, choice of law, international judicial assistance, and international arbitration and judicial review. Its characteristics are as follows:

First, the Survey follows the structure of previous years, summarising original materials without providing commentary.

Second, it further streamlines case facts and extracts core viewpoints. It covers two revised laws, one treaty approved by the Chinese government, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, seven batches of Supreme People’s Court (SPC) case reports, forty-three directly relevant typical cases, one SPC Work Report, and other official information and media sources.

Third, it focuses on several key issues:

• Ascertainment of extraterritorial law. In recent years, China has not only established multiple ascertainment centres, but the SPC has also issued specialised judicial interpretations and typical cases. Local courts have introduced rules relating to the ascertainment of foreign law, and many local courts and foreign-law ascertainment centres have published dedicated reports. These achievements have placed China’s judicial practice in foreign-law ascertainment genuinely “at the forefront” internationally.
• Jurisdiction in anti-monopoly cases and the application of the appropriate-connection principle became focal points of Chinese private international law practice during the year.
• Choice of law in contracts. SPC Reply Regarding the Validity of an Agreement Entered into by a Hong Kong or Macao-Funded Enterprise Registered in the Mainland Part of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to Choose the Law of Hong Kong or Macao as the Applicable Law for Contracts or to Designate Hong Kong or Macao as the Place of Arbitration represents a significant breakthrough: two Mainland parties may choose Hong Kong or Macau law and may designate Hong Kong or Macau as the place of arbitration.
• Judicial review of arbitration. The SPC selected fifteen typical cases concerning judicial review of arbitration, including cases supporting the further development of Hong Kong arbitration, which is of positive significance.

Fourth, the 2024 Survey also covers other matters, including representative offices of foreign enterprises and foreign law firms in China. Notably, provisions allowing for the extraterritorial application of Chinese law are becoming increasingly common, and the securities-law field witnessed the first case in which a court exercised jurisdiction based on such a provision.

1. Abstract of the 2024 Survey

The Survey provides the following abstract:

The 2024 survey of the Chinese practices in private international law highlights five aspects: First, in terms of legislative developments, two revised laws, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, were adopted. The Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) also issued seven groups of 43 typical cases. Additionally, China ratified the Agreement on Judicial Assistance and Cooperation in Civil or Commercial Matters with Saudi Arabia. Second, Chinese courts concluded substantial numbers of international cases: 26,000 foreign-related civil and commercial cases, 34,000 maritime cases and 18,000 commercial arbitration judicial review cases. Third, regarding jurisdiction, Chinese courts for the first time applied the appropriate connection approach under Article 276(2) of the Civil Procedure Law. In civil monopoly cases, both the SPC’s new judicial interpretation and selected cases confirmed that jurisdiction follows tort and contract rules. Fourth, regarding choice of law, foreign law ascertainment remains prominent, with Chinese courts demonstrating increased efforts to research and apply foreign laws through numerous reports, cases and rules. Finally, regarding arbitration, the SPC released six typical cases supporting the arbitration in Hong Kong and a Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration. In the Report, the SPC identified three cases involving public policy to illustrate the application scope while maintaining strict application standards.

III. Core Rationale of the Survey Series

Since 2013, the English-language annual Survey of Chinese private international law practice has centred on developments in Chinese private international law, reviewing both institutional developments and judicial practice. It covers conflict of laws, uniform substantive law, international civil procedure, international commercial arbitration, and international commercial mediation. This structure is common to all editions, though specific emphases vary each year.

Between 2013 and 2024, the series has addressed twelve SPC Work Reports, twenty-nine laws, thirteen administrative regulations, seventy-six judicial-interpretation-type documents, and 307 cases.

It is noteworthy that Chinese courts adjudicate more than 45,000 foreign-related civil, commercial and maritime cases each year. Most cases included in the Survey are selected by the team after extensive review of large numbers of judgments available on China Judgments Online and Peking University’s legal database, with the intention of identifying representative examples.

By providing original materials—including legislative and regulatory developments and case law—the series traces the evolution of China’s foreign-related civil and commercial legal system and judicial practice. The author aims to “tell the story of China’s foreign-related rule of law in an international language”, using a documentary style that enables domestic and international readers to appreciate China’s progress in this field.

Since 2023, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has served as a supranational patent litigation forum for 18 EU member states. On 3 October 2025 the UPC Court of Appeal delivered its first final judgment, in a dispute between Philips and Belkin concerning alleged infringement of a patent relating to wireless charging technology. Although the UPC […]