Flux des sites DIP

The Court’s activities are suspended during the so-called semaine blanche, i.e., between 3 and 7 November 2025. The first event related to private international law is the hearing that is set to take place on 12 November in case C-14/25, Thüringer Aufbaubank. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) is requesting the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 […]

By Catherine Shen, Asian Business Law Institute

In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Court) recognized and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 under file number HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Court of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Court (Suzhou Judgment) was announced in September 2025 by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as among the fifth batch of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) model cases.

Background

The applicant, Company Golden Barley International Pte Ltd (legal representative Wu), requested the Suzhou Court to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment, including the obligations imposed on the respondent Xiao to make payment.

The applicant claimed, among others, that Xiao, a director of Company Ba, colluded with other defendants of the case and procured Company Golden Barley into signing contracts with Company Ba and another company and making prepayment, without delivering to Company Golden Barley the goods agreed under those contracts. The Singapore Judgement, among others, ordered Xiao to pay over $6.6 million plus interest to Company Golden Barley. The applicant based its application on China’s Civil Procedure Law, the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to Interest Accrued on Debt during the Period of Delayed Performance during Enforcement and the Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (MOG).

The respondent Xiao, on her part, made several counterclaims. Among others, she contended that service of the Singapore documents was defective as service was forwarded by the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC rather than the Ministry of Justice which is the competent authority designated by China to transmit foreign judicial documents under the 1965 HCCH Service Convention, and that the documents served on her were copies in the English language. Xiao also pointed out that the MOG is non-binding and that the treaty between China and Singapore on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters does not cover judgments recognition and enforcement. Further, the respondent argued that the Singapore Judgment was not final and binding because it was pending appeal among some other defendants, making it ineligible for recognition and enforcement.

Decision

The Suzhou Court noted that courts in China and Singapore have recognized and enforced each other’s civil and commercial judgments since the MOG was signed in August 2018. Reciprocity therefore exists between the two jurisdictions which is required under Chinese law for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in the absence of any international treaty on judgments recognition and enforcement signed by or acceded to by the jurisdictions concerned.

The Suzhou Court also found that service of the Singapore documents on Xiao was not defective. The Chinese embassy in Singapore had entrusted the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC to assist with service for case HC/S194/2022 in July 2022. One month later, the Zhangjiagang People’s Court in Jiangsu Province (Zhangjiagang Court) served those documents on Xiao who acknowledged receipt. Xiao then declined to take delivery of the originals of those documents when contacted again by the Zhangjiagang Court after the originals were subsequently forwarded by the Chinese embassy in Singapore.

Further, the Suzhou Court found that the Singapore Judgment is final and binding. Specifically, the Suzhou Court had requested the SPC to submit a Request for Assistance in Ascertaining Relevant Laws of Singapore to the Supreme Court of Singapore. In its reply issued in December 2024, the Supreme Court of Singapore explained the scope of application of Singapore’s Rules of Court and the provisions therein on default judgments, which helped the Suzhou Court reach its conclusion.

The Suzhou Court accordingly recognized and enforced the Singapore Judgment.

Commentary

With this decision, the Suzhou Court continues the favorable momentum of the courts of China and Singapore recognizing each other’s civil and commercial judgments and affirms the importance and practical application of the MOG despite its non-binding nature.

Further, according to the SPC, this is the first time that a Chinese court has activated the procedure for seeking assistance from a Singapore court to provide clarifications on relevant Singapore law. Article 19 of the MOG says Singapore courts may seek assistance from the SPC to obtain certification that the Chinese judgment for which enforcement is sought is final and conclusive. This “right” is not provided in the MOG for Chinese courts. According to the SPC, the Suzhou Court sought assistance from the Supreme Court of Singapore based on a separate instrument titled the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Information on Foreign Law (MOU). This MOU provides a route for referrals between the courts of the two jurisdictions to seek information or clarifications on each other’s relevant laws. Under the MOU, if it is necessary for courts in China or Singapore to apply the law of the other jurisdiction in adjudicating international civil and commercial cases, a request may be made to the relevant court in the other jurisdiction to provide information and opinions on its domestic law and judicial practice in civil and commercial matters, or matters relating thereto. The Supreme Court of Singapore and the SPC are the courts designated for transmitting, and for receiving and responding to, such requests in Singapore and China, respectively. Any request should be responded to as soon as possible, with notice to be given to the requesting court if the receiving court is unable to furnish a reply within 60 days. Further requests can also be made for more clarifications.

In Singapore domestic law, Order 29A of the Rules of Court 2021 empowers the Supreme Court of Singapore, on the application of a party or its own motion, to transmit to a specified court in a specific foreign country a request for an opinion on any question relating to the law of that foreign country or to the application of such law in proceedings before it. So far, China and the SPC are the only specified foreign country and specified court under Order 29A. Essentially, Order 29A has formalized the procedures under the MOU for Singapore.

This is different from Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2021 which currently lists New South Wales in Australia, Dubai of the United Arab Emirates and Bermuda as “specified foreign countries” and their relevant courts as “specified courts”. Under Order 29, where in any proceedings before the Supreme Court of Singapore there arises any question relating to the law of any of those specified foreign countries or to the application of such law, the Supreme Court of Singapore may, on a party’s application or its own motion, order that proceedings be commenced in a specified court in that specified foreign country seeking a determination of such question. The Supreme Court of Singapore has in place memoranda of understanding on references of questions of law with the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Supreme Court of Bermuda and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. These memoranda of understanding all “direct” parties to take steps to have the contested issue of law determined by the foreign court.

This may explain why Order 29 is titled referrals on issues of law while Order 29A is titled requests for opinions on questions of foreign law. It should be noted that equivalent provisions are in place for referrals involving the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) (SICC Rules, Order 15 and Order 15A).

Finally, it may also be interesting to explain SPC’s lists of model cases. As a civil law jurisdiction, China does not practice Stare Decisis. Nor does it formally recognize the binding effects of precedents. However, the SPC does publish different lists of judgments which it deems of guiding value from time to time. Those judgments can be “guiding cases” which, loosely speaking, are of the highest “precedent value” and are subject to the most stringent selection criteria. They can be “model cases” which are of significant importance but are subject to less stringent selection criteria. They may also be “gazetted cases” which are judgments published on the official SPC newsletter for wider reference (but not guidance). Model cases may also be released for specific subject matter areas, such as intellectual property, financial fraud, etc. The Suzhou Judgment here is among the BRI model cases which mostly concern commercial disputes involving jurisdictions along the route of China’s BRI program.

This write-up is adaptation of an earlier post by the Asian Business Law Institute which can be found here.

 

 

In Case C‑398/24 [Pome], the CJEU yesterday held without AG Opinion.

Under Estonian law, choice of court is only valid in respect of disputes connected with the economic or professional activity of both parties to the agreement in question (in the case at issue, an agreement between two natural persons concerning the transfer of half the share of the equity in a flat, and the coinciding monies owed by the acquiring party to the other; neither of them seemingly professionally engaged in real estate.

The question referred is essentially whether Brussels Ia tolerates

a condition, imposed by the national law of the Member State whose court has been designated by the parties to an agreement as having jurisdiction, according to which an agreement conferring jurisdiction entered into by natural persons is valid only if the dispute at issue is connected with the economic or professional activity of those parties, amounts to a ground for the agreement being ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’, within the meaning of [Article 25 Brussels Ia]

[27] the CJEU with reference to Lastre points out the limited reach of Article 25’s lex fori prorogati rule:

the first sentence of Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 merely lays down a conflict-of-law rule by specifying which national law is applicable as regards the question whether, notwithstanding the fact that all the conditions of validity laid down in that article are satisfied, such an agreement may be null and void on other substantive grounds under that national law

[32] The lex fori prorogati rule only “covers the general grounds for an agreement being null and void that may have an impact on a contractual relationship, namely – in particular – those which vitiate consent, such as error, deceit, violence or fraud, and incapacity to contract”. By contrast [35] the Estonian rule at stake “does not constitute one of the general grounds for [contractual] invalidity”, rather [37] undermines the respect for “the autonomy of the parties..the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements” which are clearly essential to Brussels Ia. Ad nauseam, [39]

to impose a condition under national law, which renders an agreement conferring jurisdiction invalid if the dispute is not connected with the economic or professional activity of the parties to the agreement, would be contrary to those parties’ freedom of choice’ (reference here to Refcomp).

[42] over and above the principle of party autonomy, the Estonian rule also infringes the core objective of legal certainty:

the legal certainty ensured by Regulation No 1215/2012 would be compromised if it were possible, for a national legislature, to lay down additional conditions of validity pertaining to agreements conferring jurisdiction themselves and insisting in particular on the existence of a connection with the type of activity of the parties to the dispute.

The CJEU’s emphatic support for party autonomy also means it did not entertain the referring court’s suggestions on recital 20’s renvoi rule (with Estonian residual private international law, like many Member States, declaring Rome I to be applicable despite its exclusion of choice of court agreements, hence making the lex (voluntatis) contractus applicable to the question of substantive validity of choice of court).

The judgment is yet again solid evidence of the status of party autonomy as a foundational principle under Brussels Ia.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.343 ff.

The latest issue of the International & Comparative Law Quarterly includes two contributions dealing with private international law. The first, by Richard Garnett, is entitled Foreign Judgments and the Relationship between Direct and Indirect Jurisdiction. A key issue in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is jurisdiction, with a distinction drawn between ‘direct’ jurisdictional […]

Jean-Baptiste Racine (University Paris II Panthéon Sorbonne), Fabrice Siiriainen (University of Nice) and Séverine Menétrey (Free University of Brussels) have published the fourth edition of a manual of French international commercial law (Droit du commercial international). The book surveys all aspects of international commercial law: private international law of corporations, of contracts, and of guarantees. […]

As announced earlier on this blog, applications are open to join the Lindemann Fellowship, a programme established in 2024 to support promising academics in the field of private international law. Fellows are accepted for a three-year period, with new Fellows joining each year.  The core of the Fellowship is an annual fully funded meeting of […]

On 19 November 2025, from 2 to 3 pm UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Kirsten Henckel (University of Groningen) on The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law. The webinar will explore how digitalisation has transformed property and inheritance, raising new challenges […]

The Greek publisher Nomiki Bibliothiki has published a book by Haris Meidanis, in English, titled The Private International Law of Commercial Mediation. In a commercial contract that contains a mediation clause, a dispute arises. Mediation starts and the related questions begin: Must the parties sign an agreement with the mediator and under which law? Should […]

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 […]

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 […]

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.

 

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 […]

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.