Agrégateur de flux

On 29 May 2026, the symposium Digitalisation of Justice: Perspectives from Germany and the Netherlands will take place at the University of Groningen. Organised by Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen), the symposium will bring together leading and upcoming scholars to explore how digital transformation – from AI in adjudication to fully online proceedings – is […]

 

The announcement below is kindly provided by Agatha Brandão de Oliveira (University of Lucerne, Switzerland)

 

After several years of intensive work, the Choice of Law Dataverse (CoLD) is ready to be shared with the wider community. The platform is an open-access resource gathering more than 17,000 data points — including legislation, court decisions, and other materials from 100 jurisdictions around the world. After collecting and processing this information, we have analyzed and systematized these choice-of-law rules into pedagogical country reports, now freely available for research, teaching, and practice. The project was recently awarded the Swiss National ORD Prize 2025.

We would be delighted to share this milestone with colleagues whose work continues to shape the field.

 

Date and Venue

28.04.2026 | Tuesday, 11.30 a.m. CEST, Online via Zoom

No registration required, calendar invitation with connection link attached

Participants are welcome to join the full programme or drop in for individual sessions — the Zoom link remains open throughout the day, and no registration is required.

 

Programme

11:30 – Understanding the Choice of Law Dataverse

Agatha Brandão (University of Lucerne, Switzerland) will demonstrate the platform’s main features.

12h – Party Autonomy: Sacred Principle or Legal Fiction?
A debate not to be missed between Professor Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po, France), Professor Béligh Elbalti (University of Osaka, Japan), and Professor Gérald Goldstein (Université de Montréal), moderated by Professor Daniel Girsberger (University of Lucerne, Switzerland), on the myths and enduring significance of party autonomy in international contract law.

13h – Permanent Bureau Remarks on Ten Years of the HCCH Principles

Raquel Peixoto offers a retrospective on a decade of the HCCH Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts — what has been achieved, what lies ahead, and how this work intersects with CoLD.

14h – Bilateral Q&A

Participants may also request a 15-minute private session to explore the Dataverse for their own research purposes, ask questions about the project, or sign up as a specialist for their jurisdiction.

17h – Using the Dataverse for Advancing PIL Research

A session we particularly recommend for doctoral candidates and young researchers: Rorick Tovar (University of Lucerne, Switzerland), Solomon Okorley (University of Johannesburg, South Africa), and Ying Wang (Université de Montréal, Canada) discuss how CoLD supports comparative law and case law analysis in their own research.

Further information: cold.global/event/launch
For any questions, please contact agatha.brandao@unilu.ch.

We hope you can join us online for our launch event!

CoLD

Choice of Law Dataverse

University of Lucerne

 

cold.global | LinkedIn | Newsletter

The following call for papers has kindly been shared with us by the editors of The Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI)

This Call for Papers of the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) concerns the first issue to be published at the end of March 2027 and is devoted to the Securitisation of Supply Chains: Critical Raw Materials Between Energy Security and the Green Transition. This issue will be edited by the Editors-in-Chief of the JLMI (Lorenza Mola, Cristina Poncibò and Riccardo de Caria), along with Pritam Banerjee and Vishakha Srivastava as guest co-editor. You can find the call with all the details at the following link:

SECURITISATION OF SUPPLY CHAINS: CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS BETWEEN ENERGY SECURITY AND THE GREEN TRANSITION

The Call invites contributions on the subject of Securitisation of Supply Chains: Critical Raw Materials Between Energy Security and the Green Transition. The growing use of trade policy to advance national and economic security objectives is blurring the boundary between legitimate security measures and disguised restrictions on trade. Countries are increasingly giving new dimensions to traditional instruments such as trade defence instruments, import restrictions, export controls, local content requirements, subsidies tied to trusted supply chains, traceability and transparency requirements, among others, to serve strategic purposes. Moreover, concerns around energy security are translating into the securitisation of trade through control over critical raw materials, with security and resilience of supply chains emerging as the legal and political vocabulary for legitimising discriminatory trade measures.

The authors are called to explore the link between energy security and the green transition with regard to the regulation of trade in critical raw materials, particularly the tension between dependence on critical raw materials and decarbonisation commitments. In this context, the submissions examine the governance of critical raw materials, with a particular focus on their treatment as strategic assets rather than ordinary tradable goods.

The issue will also address the risk factors for security and resilience of supply chains, such as vulnerabilities arising from technological dependencies and asymmetries in access to key technologies.

We invite submissions that analyse state priorities, primarily driven by critical raw materials availability divide, and firm priorities, primarily driven by resilience of supply chains. Submissions may explore treatification, unilateral measures, contract clauses on critical raw materials, as well as their broader implications for global trade.

The Editorial Board will select articles based on the quality of research and writing, diversity, and relevance of the topic. The novelty of the academic contribution is also an essential requirement.

Prospective articles should be submitted in the form of full papers to submissions.jlmi@iuse.it by 20 July 2026. Submissions will undergo a preliminary selection process by the editorial board: authors will be notified of the outcome of this preliminary selection by 10 September 2026.  Selected articles will then undergo a rigorous double- blind peer-review process. Typically, the JLMI accepts contributions within the range of 10.000-15.000 words, including footnotes, but both shorter and longer articles will be considered. We ask prospective authors to kindly make sure that their submission conforms to the JLMI Code of Ethics and Authors’ guidelines (also with regard to disclosure of simultaneous submission to other journals: authors are required to disclose if they have submitted their article elsewhere, both in case of negative and pending reviews, and promptly update the editorial board of any changes in this regard, throughout the whole editorial process with the JLMI). Perspective authors are kindly required to follow the JLMI style guide, and abide by the OSCOLA citation standard. For further information, or for consultation on a potential submission, please email us at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.

The University of Edinburgh is recruiting a postdoctoral research fellow in private international law to work on an exciting new research project funded by the UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) entitled “Fashion’s PLACE – Private (International) Law and Circular Economy”. The project explores the private law and private international law components of legal design for a just circular economy transition in global value chains. It takes the fashion industry as a case study, examining the journey of textiles from the places of production, via the marketplaces of consumption, to the places of disposal.

The post-holder will be line managed by Professor Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm and will be based in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh. The post-holder will work closely with other investigators at the University of Edinburgh and Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, namely Dr Antonia Sommerfeld, Dr Michael Picard and Professor Ralf Michaels.

The post is full-time (35 hours per week).

The deadline for application is May 4th 2026.

More information on the project here, on the call here.

The University of Edinburgh is recruiting a postdoctoral research fellow in private international law to work on an exciting new research project funded by the UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) entitled “Fashion’s PLACE – Private (International) Law and Circular Economy”. The project explores the private law and […]

In a judgment of 11 February 2026, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) ruled that Article 3(3) of the Rome 1 Regulation forbids courts to apply non state law. As a result, it allowed an appeal against the judgment of a court of appeal which had applied Jewish law. […]

The next webinar in the Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series will be given by Prof. Csongor Nagy (University of Galway) on the topic “EU Law and Sports Arbitration: When Global and Regional Regimes Meet“.

The webinar is scheduled for 22 April 2026, 14:00 – 15:00 UTC.

More information about the event and registration is available here, at the webpage of the organiser – the Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen.

This post has previously been published by PAX Moot (with minor changes). Photo: University of Ljubljana Team. 

The PAX Moot 2026 — Vladimir Koutikov Round has come to an end, and what an incredible edition it has been. We hope it was an unforgettable experience for all participants — a unique opportunity to engage in high-level argumentation on Private International Law, grow advocacy skills, and forge lasting friendships along the way.

Without further ado, we are proud to announce the results of this year’s competition:

• Winner — University of Ljubljana
• Runner-up — Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski

Best Written Submission (shared 1st place) University of Warsaw & University of Ljubljana
Honourable Mention for Written Submission: Singapore Management University | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid | University of Antwerp

Best Oralist Awards:

• 1st place — Chloe Xin Ying Chia (Singapore Management University)
• 2nd place — Lara Vangoethem (Maastricht University)
• 3rd place — Benedetta Gargiulo (Maastricht University)

We extend our deepest gratitude to our hosts from Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, and to the European Commission for their generous funding, which makes this incredible event possible.

To every team, coach, judge, and volunteer who contributed to making PAX Moot 2026 a success: thank you.

Photo credit: Mayela Celis

The following Call for Contributions has been kindly shared with us by Sandrine Brachotte (UAntwerpen):

The organizers are pleased to invite you to contribute to a book and conference on the theme of decoloniality and legal methodology in Europe, given the political importance of methodology. This subject requires Europeans to draw inspiration from the knowledge and experience of the regions they colonised. Legal scholars must also learn from civil society and studies carried out in the social sciences.

Editors/Organisers:

Sandrine Brachotte, UAntwerpen

Christine Frison, ULiège

Lina Álvarez-Villarreal, Universidad de los Andes

Project Description

This book aims to connect European legal methodology to decoloniality. It examines the compatibility of European legal methodologies for teaching, studying, writing about, elaborating on and applying law with the demands of decoloniality. It will also suggest ways to address areas of conflict, inadequacy and structural misalignment between the two. The book’s focus on legal methodology rather than law reflects the assumption that methods are not apolitical and constitute ways of viewing the world (Gordon, Escobar).

The decolonial perspective exposes how the dominant worldview at the global level continues to marginalise the sensitivities to the world (Mignolo) of people from former colonies and their identities, using not only race and ethnicity, but also gender and sexual orientation (Lugones, Segato). It includes the argument that coloniality has built on the “world-of-One”: one hegemonic – capitalist, anthropocentric, modern, patriarchal, etc. – way of being human (Escobar), shaped primarily by Europe in a history of continuous dispossession of non-European peoples, territories, and nature, and the imposition of modern European values, norms and conceptions of knowledge. Decoloniality further highlights the need to redress this power imbalance as a matter of justice and equality by compensating for the structural peripherality of these sensitivities and identities. To do so, the voices of the people concerned must be listened to in the first place.

In this respect, the law must be reconsidered, as it is one of the main instruments of the modernity/coloniality tandem (Quijano). Its association with state law in legal theory is a product of modernity (Liotta and Szpiga). State law was used by European colonial powers to legitimise the colonial enterprise (García-López and Winter-Pereira), and it remains in place in formerly colonised states. This means that European epistemologies and values, both past and present, continue to govern the lives of formerly colonised communities to some extent (Bazán Seminario). Because coloniality operates on a global scale (Quijano), the decolonial project speaks to the entire world, including Europe. Moreover, as former colonial powers, European states have a special responsibility to address decolonial demands, which requires them to acknowledge a darker truth about themselves and thus the negative impact of coloniality on Europe (du Bois, Césaire, Àlvarez-Villarreal). Furthermore, Europe has much to learn from the epistemologies and struggles of colonised peoples (Comaroff and Comaroff) in order to address the contemporary crises of our time, such as reorganising knowledge (Lander), politics (Walsh, Gutiérrez-Aguilar, Tzul-Tzul), economics (Àlvarez-Villarreal), and dealing with climate and ecological crises (Millán, Escobar).

Decolonial approaches are gaining traction, including within legal studies (eg Achiume, Al Attar & Abdelkarim, Barreto, Kapur, Moreno, Nesiah). In this context, a few scholars have highlighted the need to rethink legal education and research in European universities (Adébísí), as well as the foundations of law and the content of legal rules in European states and at the EU level (eg Ashiagbor, Solanke, Zenouvou, Salaymeh & Michaels, Eklund, Brachotte). International law must of course also be rethought from a decolonial perspective, including in European universities. Yet, the concrete methodological implications of decoloniality for law in Europe remain poorly defined. In this regard, the rich work of several decolonial social scientists (eg Bhambra, Diagne, Carneiro, Galcerán Huguet, Moosavi, Mbembe, Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Omodan, Ribeiro, Udah), scholars working in Indigenous studies (eg Borrows, Datta, Denscombe, Ewing, Krenak, Monchalin, Napoleon, Thambinathan & Kinsella, Smith, Tuhiwai Smith) and decolonial legal scholars from formerly colonised states (eg de Almeida, Diouf, Mosaka) must be built upon.

Audience

The book is intended for legal students, researchers and practitioners, as well as for civil society organisations.

Scope and Themes

The volume seeks contributions addressing, inter alia, the following questions:

• What does decoloniality require from legal research and writing, especially in view of the empirical turn, the historicisation of law, and the decolonial demand to go for “undisciplinarity”?
• How compatible are European universities’ legal and ethical standards, as well as the acquisition policies of their libraries, with these requirements?
• What does decoloniality require of legal education, both in terms of subject matter and pedagogical techniques?
• What does decoloniality require from the legal methods and techniques that are used in legal practice, to draft legislation or to take judicial or administrative decisions considering (i) law in general and (ii) the specificities of each branch of law, such as comparative law, public international law, private international law, European Union law, civil law, criminal law, and migration law?
• Regarding legal research, legal education and legal practice, to what extent can decolonial methods developed in formerly colonised states be implemented in Europe to enhance methodological compatibility, and what are alternative methods to reach that goal?

Type of Contributions and Selection Process

We invite original and unpublished chapter proposals of approximately 8,000–10,000 words (including footnotes and references).

We welcome authors who have a social sciences or legal background or who claim undisciplinarity, and who are in academia, in legal practice, or in civil society organisations.

We strongly encourage authors who do not feel comfortable in English to submit an abstract in their own language.

Abstracts will be selected on the basis of academic quality, with due regard to representativity and inclusiveness, including diversity in geographical backgrounds, gender, and career stages, in order to ensure a pluralistic discussion.

Conference

The conference will take place at UAntwerp (Belgium) on 25, 26 and 27 January 2027, starting after lunchtime on the first day and finishing before lunchtime on the last day. We are delighted to be able to already announce that Dr. Leon Moosavi will act as a keynote speaker.

 

Participants will be expected to cover their own travel and accommodation expenses. However, the organisers are firmly committed to ensuring that financial constraints do not constitute an obstacle to participation. Scholars who may face difficulties in covering travel or accommodation costs are warmly encouraged to contact the organisers in confidence to discuss possible arrangements.

In addition, where travel is not possible (for example, due to visa restrictions, institutional limitations, or personal circumstances), remote participation will be facilitated, including participation in the conference discussions via online means.

The organisers aim to ensure an inclusive and accessible academic exchange, irrespective of geographic or financial constraints.

Submission Guidelines

Interested contributors are invited to submit:

• An abstract (300–500 words)
• A short biographical note (100–150 words)

Deadline: 30 April 2026

Timeline

• Notification of acceptance: 30 May 2026
• Draft chapter submission: 30 July 2026

• Feedback to authors from external peer reviewers and editors: 30 September 2026

• Final chapter submission (subject to modifications following the conference): 20 December 2026

Contact

Proposals should be sent to: dlmsineurope@gmail.com

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

 

B. Heiderhoff/C. Rüsing: Dealing with parallel proceedings in Third Countries – from Germany via Brussels to The Hague? [German]

The extent to which civil proceedings pending in a third country preclude proceedings before domestic courts varies considerably across jurisdictions. Autonomous German law with its quite strict first-seized rule accords substantial deference to proceedings initiated earlier in third countries. Other legal systems have adopted a more cautious approach, most notably common law jurisdictions, which rely on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Article 33 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation reacts to these differences. At least for some grounds of jurisdiction, it allows the Member State courts to exercise discretion and suspend proceedings if a foreign court has been seized earlier. Ultimately, both autonomous German law and European law attach great importance to priority and to international jurisdiction.

Against this background, the Hague Conference on Private International Law has published a draft convention on parallel proceedings. It seeks to combine jurisdiction- and priority-based approaches with elements of the forum non conveniens doctrine. This article therefore reconsiders, at a more fundamental level, the appropriate response to parallel proceedings. It first compares the German and European approaches and demonstrates why, de lege lata, Article 33 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation cannot be applied by analogy under autonomous German law. On this basis, the article evaluates the draft Hague Convention and critically assesses its underlying orientation.

 

L. d´Avout: Trojan following Coman, Pancharevo and Mirin: Another step forward or an editorial misstep? [German]

According to Trojan, under EU law and despite constitutional prohibitions, a Member State is obliged to directly recognise a same-sex marriage validly concluded in another Member State, without any restrictions on the purposes and scope of direct recognition (free enjoyment of EU citizens’ rights). Here, the CJEU appears to be going one step further. The motivation behind the recognition order is innovative; however, in reality, the court ruling acts as a mere echo of the ECtHR’s case law on defective national personal and family law. Omnis interpretatio sub lege europae periculosa est.

 

K. A. Prinz von Sachsen Gessaphe: No jurisdiction of German courts to determine the heirs of Pope Benedict XVI. [German]

In this decision, the Munich Court of Appeal (“OLG München”) deals with the international jurisdiction for the appointment of a curator of the estate for the purpose of determining unknown heirs of Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV, who died in 2022. Since he had his habitual residence in the Vatican City State, where he also died, at least since his election as Pope in 2005, the jurisdiction of German courts under Art. 4 EU Succession Regulation was ruled out. The OLG also denied subsidiary jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 10 EU Succession Regulation, as none of the deceased’s estate assets were located in Germany. It also considered that the requirements for emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 11 EU Succession Regulation were not met, as neither the impossibility nor the unreasonableness of initiating or conducting proceedings before the courts of the Vatican City State could be assumed. The court did not, however, address the obvious question of whether the measure could be based on Art. 19 EU Succession Regulation. Ultimately, the OLG can be agreed with, even though the reasoning should have been more detailed in some respects; in particular, it should have addressed the jurisdiction under Art. 19 EU Succession Regulation, which was, however, also to be rejected here because there is no genuine link between the requested measure and the territorial jurisdiction of German courts.

 

M. Gebauer: Renvoi under the European Succession Regulation and its consequences: characterisation in foreign choice-of-law rules; substitution; preliminary questions; adaptation; parallel proceedings [German]

The underlying constellation of the decision proves to be a prototype for the more complex follow-up questions that arise after a renvoi under the European Succession Regulation. These include the characterisation of the third state’s choice-of-law rules according to its own criteria; partial renvoi; the secondary characterisation of the substantive rules of the lex fori, to which the third state’s choice-of-law rules refer; preliminary questions of matrimonial property law within the substantive succession rules; substitution and adaptation. A typical procedural challenge arises when the deceased had the last habitual residence in a third state because the extensive subsidiary jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States according to the European Succession Regulation often leads to parallel proceedings in the respective third states.

 

B. Heiderhoff: Change of applicable law and adjustment of an Islamic mahr to German post-marital claims [German]

The OLG Düsseldorf decided that the agreed amount of an Islamic mahr (dower) may be reduced if the basis of the transaction ceases to exist as a consequence of a change of the applicable law. While the contract was originally concluded under Iranian Law, the court held that due to the acquisition of German citizenship German law became applicable. The court applied section 313 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (“Interference with the basis of the transaction”) because – unlike under Iranian law – the wife can claim division of pension rights under German law. The author first shows that under the Matrimonial Property Regulation (Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103) the law applicable to the mahr will no longer change when Iranian citizens are naturalised in Germany. However, even if one followed the court in assuming a change of the applicable law, section 313 of the BGB cannot be applied as easily as the OLG Düsseldorf held.

 

F. Berner: Cross-border favours [German]

The decision of the Munich Court of Appeal (OLG München) deals with a cross-border favour. Although the OLG correctly concludes that German substantive law applies in the individual case, the decision raises the question of how claims arising from the breach of a duty of care in the context of favours should actually be characterised. For example, it is not entirely clear whether substantive tortious claims in this context always fall under the Rome II Regulation or whether they do not fall – at least partially – under the Rome I Regulation. Equally problematic is the characterisation of the “relationship of favour” (“Gefälligkeitsverhältnis”) – a category between contract and tort. Finally, the decision is also of interest because of its treatment of a comparative law argument within substantive law.

 

M. Stürner: Between lex fori and lex causae: The claim for reduction in price in the event of defective work under Italian law [German]

The Court of Appeal Dresden had to deal with a warranty claim to which Italian law applied as the defendant contractor had its seat in Italy. The claimant’s request was interpreted by the Senate as a declaration of a reduction in price by applying the lex fori, although, pursuant to Article 12 (1) lit. c) Rome I Regulation, the law applicable to the contractual obligation (i.e. Italian law) also determines the consequences of the (partial) non-fulfilment of the contractual obligation. Even if the diverging approaches did not produce different results in the end, it once again shows the difficulties in distinguishing between the fundamental categories of lex fori and lex causae.

 

C. Thole: Judicial Review of fair trial and public policy in exequatur proceedings regarding foreign arbitral awards [German]

The Bavarian Court of Appeal (BayObLG) had to decide upon the enforceability of a Danish arbitral award, against which the respondent, among other things, objected on the grounds of a violation of the right to be heard. The judgment is largely based on the specific circumstances of the individual case and the respondent’s failure to sufficiently substantiate his objections. However, the court decision also points to still unresolved legal questions reaching beyond the case at hand.

 

G. Freise/L. Vollert: Choice of court agreements and overriding mandatory provisions: Does Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation allow for lois de police? [German]

Several EU regulations allow for overriding mandatory provisions. The French Cour de cassation had to decide whether Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation likewise allows for such a reservation in favour of lois de police. The Cour de cassation, however, held that Article 25 Brussels I bis Regulation does not allow the application of overriding mandatory provisions. According to the view taken here, the ruling should be seen in connection with the recent case law of the CJEU. The CJEU has, in its more recent decisions, significantly limited the scope for review of jurisdiction agreements falling under Article 25 Brussels I bis Regulation. From this perspective, the Cour de cassation’s decision is convincing. Nevertheless, some concerns regarding the right to a fair trial remain.

 

A. Spickhoff: Medical device liability in international jurisdiction and conflict of laws [German]

Medical device liability in international jurisdiction and conflict of laws exhibits certain peculiarities due to various actors being involved on the production side. This necessitates a closer examination, particularly in private international law, of the group of parties entitled to be sued under Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation. Before this examination, however, the place of the tort establishing jurisdiction, meaning the place of injury or the place at which the tortious act occurred, must be specified in a ubiquitous manner. From the Austrian perspective, in case of a remote tort, only the place of conduct is relevant.

 

S. Vuattoux-Bock: The law applicable to the last purchaser’s direct action [German]

In cross-border supply chains, defects may only become apparent after goods have been resold, giving rise to complex liability issues across multiple links in the chain. Under French law, subsequent purchasers have a direct contractual claim (“action directe”) against all prior sellers, including the manufacturer. However, the applicable law for such claims in international chains has been uncertain. In two landmark rulings on 28 May 2025, the French Cour de Cassation ruled that the “action directe” is governed by the Rome II Regulation. This rejected its previous contractual classification in favour of a tort-based approach for private international law purposes. These decisions have significant implications, particularly for German manufacturers, as they greatly reduce the predictability of liability exposure in the supply chain. Ultimately, the rulings strengthen the position of French, Belgian or Luxembourgish end buyers in international supply chains, but raise substantial concerns regarding legal certainty and risk assessment for manufacturers and intermediaries. This article critically examines these rulings, highlighting the tension between EU-wide coherence and legal certainty. It also discusses possible alternative approaches, including the application of Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation, to better balance the foreseeability of liability for suppliers with the protection of end buyers.

 

M. Weller: Governmental interest analysis and Nazi-looted art [German]

The judgment to be discussed here implements the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court: In actions against states and their instrumentalities, e.g. for the restitution of Nazi-looted art based on the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which the federal court seised with the matter is located (here California) are to be applied, rather than federal choice of law rules. However, in accordance with this requirement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again applied Spanish law on acquisitive prescription under the governmental interest analysis as practiced in California and thus dismissed the action in favor of the state-owned Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid, as it had done before under federal choice of law. California took this as an opportunity to enact legislation in direct response to the ruling in cases like the present one, ordering the application of California substantive law. This prompted the plaintiff to pursue his claim with further legal remedies aimed at rehearing the case, currently with a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision on this petition is still pending. The judgment presented here illustrates the functioning and weaknesses of governmental interest analysis in an exemplary manner. At the same time, the decision is equally exemplary in revealing that – after more than 20 years of proceedings – the processing of historical injustice before state courts under applicable law has its limits. The U.S. should follow its own international plea for “just and fair solutions” and provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, as Germany, for example, has been doing since 2003.

 

GEDIP: The law applicable to rights in rem in corporeal assets [English]

GEDIP: Guidelines on the Influence of European Union Law on Member States Law on Nationality [English]

GEDIP: Guidelines on the treatment of renvoi in European Union instruments on applicable law in civil matters [English]

C. Kohler: The renvoi in European conflict of laws – Meeting of the European Group of Private International Law 2025 [German]

The second issue of the Journal du droit international for 2026 has been released. It contains one article and several case notes relating to private international law issues. The article is authored by Olivier Cachard (University of Nancy) and offers a study of the UNCITRAL Convention on Negotiable Cargo Documents (La Convention des Nations unies sur […]

Issue 1 of RabelsZ 90 (2026) has just been released. It contains the following articles which are all available Open Access: CC BY 4.0:

 

Holger Fleischer, Felix Bassier, Samuel Insull und Ivar Kreuger: Finanzskandale als Katalysatoren der US-amerikanischen Wertpapiergesetze von 1933/34 [Samuel Insull and Ivar Kreuger: Financial Scandals as Catalysts of US Securities Law from 1933 and 1934], pp. 1–57, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2026-0008

The US securities laws from 1933 and 1934 remain to this day the international benchmark for modern capital market regulation. Like many other regulations in this area, the legislation was preceded by major scandals. This article reconstructs the two leading scandals surrounding electricity magnate Samuel Insull and »Match King« Ivar Kreuger. After situating them within the spectrum of scandals occurring in the Roaring Twenties, the article considers these incidents in the larger context of research on corporate law scandals.

 

Bero Gebhard, Julian Greth, Dispositive Organhaftung: Perspektiven aus Rechtsvergleichung und Rechtsökonomik [Contracting Around Director Liability: Perspectives from Comparative Law and Law & Economics], pp. 58–91, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2025-0070

The business judgment rule is intended to protect managers and board members from personal liability in connection with business decisions, thereby enabling risk-optimized decision-making. However, the requirements of an adequate information base and reasonableness preserve incentives for risk-averse behaviour, and the possibility of erroneous evaluations of business decisions by courts creates further incentives for board members to shy away from risk, yet such risk aversity is inefficient in a diversified shareholder structure. This article examines mechanisms for excluding the personal liability of board members in Delaware (USA) and Switzerland. The policy reference point is the ex ante dispositive liability regime under § 102(b)(7) Delaware General Corporation Law, whereas Swiss corporate law relies on less effective ex post mechanisms. The authors call for the implementation of an opt-out model for liability due to breaches of duty of care, similar – but not identical – to the legal framework in Delaware; such a model could be especially beneficial to high-growth companies. To this end, a policy proposal is developed that should also allow for exemption from liability for gross negligence.

 

Julia Kraft, Pflichtprüfung und Anschlusszwang im Kontext grenzüberschreitender Genossenschaftsmobilität. Wie viel Zwang verträgt die Freiheit? [Mandatory Audits, Membership in Umbrella Organizations, and the Cross-border Mobility of Cooperatives.
How Much Constraint Is Still Freedom?], pp. 92–119, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2026-0003

The cross-border mobility of companies is an expression of the freedom of establishment, which also applies to cooperatives, as emphasized in Art. 54(2) of the TFEU. But German cooperative law doubly constrains the freedom of establishment. First, every registered cooperative (eingetragene Genossenschaft, eG) under German law is subject to mandatory periodic audits. Second, cooperatives must belong to an umbrella organization that the state has authorized to perform the audits. Both obligations – core elements of the German act on cooperatives – may conflict with the freedom of establishment. Considering the German government’s 25 June 2025 draft of an act to »Strengthen the Legal Form of the Cooperative«, this article explores the tension between regulatory constraints and the freedom of establishment and assesses whether the requirements imposed by German cooperative law are compatible with it.

 

Christian Rüsing, Zum Verhältnis von Internationalem Privat- und Verwaltungsrecht.
Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Eingriffsnormen im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht [The Relationship between Private International Law and Administrative International Law.  The Example of Overriding Mandatory Provisions in EU Conflict of Laws]m pp. 120–156, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2026-0005

The relationship between private international law and administrative international law is rarely examined in detail. Yet both areas would benefit from considering the other. In the context of private international law, this is particularly pertinent in relation to overriding mandatory provisions. In the HUK-Coburg II case, the CJEU recently established two unwritten requirements for the enforcement of these provisions: Courts may enforce such provisions only if, first, the legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum and, second, the public interest cannot be achieved through the application of the lex causae. This article demonstrates that the criterion of a sufficiently close link with the Member State of the forum is viewed differently when considered alongside the principles of administrative international law. The second requirement, the necessity test, has – among other things – a significant influence on approaches to coordinating administrative and private international law through the instrument of overriding mandatory provisions. The article therefore examines how both areas can be better coordinated, at least within the internal market.

 

Mary-Rose McGuire, Das auf Datennutzungsverträge anwendbare Recht.
Eine kritische Analyse der Einordnung von Art. 3 DSGVO und Art. 1 Abs. 3 Data Act als international-privatrechtliche Kollisionsnormen [The Law Applicable to Data Sharing Agreements.  A Critical Analysis of the Classification of Article 3 GDPR and Article 1(3) Data Act as Conflict-of-law Rules under Private International Law], pp. 157–190, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2026-0007

The European legislature has issued a series of legal acts aimed at creating a European data space. Common to these instruments is that they establish a regulatory framework for this data space but leave it to be filled by the relevant actors through a network of contracts. The acts include only isolated requirements for these contracts, and their conclusion, validity, and termination is otherwise governed by national law. With regard to such data use contracts, harmonized private international law does not yet provide any specific rules. The two central legal acts – the GDPR and the Data Act – contain provisions only on the territorial scope of application. Against this background, it is subject to debate whether the general conflict-of-law rules of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations apply or are superseded by conflict-of-law rules “hidden” in the rule on the scope of application. Practical differences arise particularly with regard to the admissibility of choice of law and the applicability of European data law in relation to third countries. The analysis shows that a reliable determination of the applicable law requires distinguishing between the existence of rights to data, contracts relating to data, and breaches of obligations relating to data. The article advocates application of the Rome Regulations on determining the law applicable to contracts and torts with adaptation to the specific characteristics of the digital space.

 

BOOK REVIEWS

This issue also contains several reviews of literature in the fields of comparative private and private international law and on related topics (pp. 191–221).

The latest issue of the French journal dedicated to international dispute resolution, Perspectives Contentieuses internationales (PCI), has been released. It is an open access publication and can be freely read here. This new issue features a special dossier on the exploitation of natural resources in the context of the energy transition. Edited by Rebecca Legendre […]

On 16 April 2026, the Court of Justice rendered its judgment in Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and Others v Prysmian and Others and Smurfit Kappa and Others v Unilever and Others (Joined Cases C-672/23 and C-673/23), concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) […]

You are invited to the next Migration Talk organized by the Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the European Union and in Türkiye.

Speaker: Prof. Dr. Diego Acosta, University of Bristol

Title: An Analysis of Free Movement Regimes Globally

Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2026 – 12:30 PM – 1:20 PM (Turkish Time)

Event Location: via Zoom (The Zoom link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr)

GE 250/251 will be given for full attendance.

The event will be held in English.

About Guest

Dr. Diego Acosta is a Law Professor at the University of Bristol in the UK. He has authored over 80 academic works and has consulted for various governments and international organisations worldwide. As a prominent speaker, he has presented his research at academic conferences and workshops in more than 40 countries. He has been interviewed by several media outlets, most recently by The New York Times. You can visit his professional website at: www.diegoacosta.eu

Abstract

Governments worldwide engage in a variety of treaties to regulate the movement of people, which either impose restrictions or make mobility easier. However, the treaties facilitating movement are not properly categorized. Instead, scholars and policymakers often pile them up under the wider umbrella of free movement. The Freemove project, supported in part through a grant from the Open Society Foundations, is the first one ever to comprehensively map, analyze, and compare all bilateral and multilateral free movement of people regimes at the global level. Users can access information about each regime, see how they have evolved over the last 30 years, compare them with others, and assess trends in this crucial area which affects the rights of millions of people in situations of human mobility. The website is available here: www.freemovehub.com

 

The first issue of 2026 of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht contains the following articles and case note which might be of interest for the readers of the EAPIL blog: Ignacio Tirado, UNIDROIT on the Occasion of Its (first) 100 Years The editorial traces the UNIDROIT’s origins and evolution, reflects on how it has […]

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité fait une petite pause pendant les vacances de Pâques.

en lire plus

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte une réponse négative à la question de savoir si le décret flamand du 23 juin 2023 dit « Habiter sa propre région » – permettant aux communes flamandes situées en zone de forte pression immobilière de réserver des logements à des acquéreurs justifiant d’un lien local suffisant, grâce à une prise en charge partielle du prix par la commune – constitue un « régime d’aides » soumis à l’obligation de notification préalable prévue à l’article 108, § 3, du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne. L’affaire lui permet de rappeler que la qualification de régime d’aides au sens de l’article 1er, sous d), du règlement (UE) 2015/1589 suppose notamment qu’aucune mesure d’application supplémentaire impliquant l’exercice d’un pouvoir d’appréciation ne soit requise.

en lire plus

Le demandeur à une instance peut s’en tenir à la simple apparence de domicile pour y assigner le défendeur en application du règlement Bruxelles I bis, s’il a pu de bonne foi croire qu’il constituait le domicile réel et s’est fié à une apparence trompeuse à la constitution de laquelle le défendeur n’est pas étranger.

en lire plus

Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani and Dora Zgrabljic Rotar have edited Recognition and Enforcement of Non-EU Judgments, a collection of essays resulting from a project run under the same name by the Young Research Network of EAPIL. This book examines the EU Member States’ national rules on recognition and enforcement of Non-EU judgments. Through its country […]