Agrégateur de flux

This post was written by Dr Franziska Arnold-Dwyer, Associate Professor of Law at University College London (UCL). On 24 November 2025, the Privy Council handed down judgment in Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd v Ivanishvili [2025] UKPC 53 in an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Bermuda. By way of background, it is worth […]

The decision in case C-240/24, BNP Paribas Fortis, will be delivered on 18 December. After a Belgium bank refused to acknowledge the legitimation effect of a European Certificate of Succession issued in Poland, the issuing notary (the Notary in Krapkowice Justyna Gawlica – Krapkowice, Poland) started on its own motion proceedings to withdraw the certificate. […]

Henrike von Scheliha (Bucerius Law School) is currently looking to hire a Research Fellow (with the option to prepare a PhD thesis under her supervision) in German Family and/or Succession Law.

More information is available here.

The European Association of Private International Law calls for expressions of interest from its members to participate in a Working Group on the Jurisdiction Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The immediate goal of the EAPIL Working Group would be to answer to the public consultation on the draft text developed by […]

Had someone asked me before 11 December 2025 to select three key principles underlying the application of Article 6 of the Rome Convention and Article 8 of the Rome I Regulation, dealing with the law applicable to individual employment contracts, I would probably have listed the following: Identical interpretation of the connecting factor of the […]

Leonard Maximilian Wagner is the author of Die internationalprivatrechtliche Qualifikation, a monograph on the issue fo characterisation, or qualification, as it arises in the context of conflict-of-laws rules, recently published by Mohr Siebeck in its Studien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht series. Since its discovery, the question of how to identify the relevant choice of […]

This post was written by Marco Pasqua (PhD, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan). It is the final contribution to the EAPIL on-line symposium on the judgment of the Court of Justice in Cupriak-Trojan. The previous posts were written by Laima Vaige, Alina Tryfonidou, Elizabeth Perry and Anna Wysocka-Bar, and can be found […]

The third edition of the EAPIL Winter School will take place in Como between 2 and 6 February 2026. The upcoming edition’s general topic is Values in Private International Law. Day 1 will be about the protection of weaker contractual parties. The concerns surrounding torts will be dealt with in Day 2. Day 3, on […]

The second annual conference of the Australasian Association of Private International Law will be held from Friday 17 to Saturday 18 April at Ashurst’s offices in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, sponsored by Ashurst.

We are pleased to invite the submission of paper proposals for the conference on any aspect of private international law, broadly understood.  This includes issues of jurisdiction, choice of law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (including how they relate to cross-border issues within a federation), and all areas of private law that raise cross-border and transnational issues.

Paper proposals should be made on this form by Friday 30 January 2026. We also welcome panel proposals. Please email m.keyes@griffith.edu.au if you have a proposal for a panel. Proposed presenters on any panel will be required to submit individual paper proposals.

We welcome anyone interested in private international law, including from the judiciary, legal practice, government, and the academy, from any jurisdiction.  Attendees, including presenters, will be required to pay a registration fee. A conference dinner will be held on the evening of Friday 17 April, at an additional cost.

To keep up to date with AAPrIL events, please connect with us on LinkedIn.

Il ne résulte pas de l’article 1844-7 du code civil que le transfert du siège social d’une société immatriculée en France dans un État étranger non-membre de l’Union européenne, ne disposant pas d’une législation nationale sur le transfert transfrontalier de siège avec maintien de la personnalité morale des entreprises et avec lequel aucune convention internationale n’a été conclue à cet égard avec l’État français, emporte de plein droit la disparition de sa personnalité morale et son remplacement par la société de droit étranger constituée selon les formalités applicables au sein de l’État étranger, ni la transmission universelle de son patrimoine vers cette dernière. Il s’en déduit que les juridictions françaises demeurent compétentes pour mettre la société (…) en liquidation judiciaire.

en lire plus

Locatrans
Convention de Rome du 19 juin 1980
Travail dans plusieurs pays : la Cour précise la détermination de la loi applicable en cas de changement du lieu de travail habituel

This post was written by Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University). It is the fourth contribution to the EAPIL on-line symposium on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cupriak-Trojan. The previous posts, by Laima Vaige, Alina Tryfonidou and Elizabeth Perry, can be found here, here and here, respectively. In this post I would […]

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 by Leyla Kayac?k (Human Rights Expert/ Council of Europe Former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees) on “Border Control & Migration: Safeguarding Fundamental Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”.

Venue: Online via Zoom
Date: 17 December 2025, Wednesday
Time: 12:30 – 13:20 (UTC +3)
The Zoom link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr

Ryanair / Commission (TAP ; aide à la restructuration)
Aide d'État
Le recours de Ryanair contre la décision de la Commission approuvant une aide à la restructuration d’un montant de 2,55 milliards d’euros que le Portugal a accordée à TAP est rejeté

Intel Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
Marché des microprocesseurs : le Tribunal confirme la décision de 2023 de la Commission contre Intel mais réduit le montant de l'amende d’environ 140 millions d’euros

This post was written by Elizabeth Stuart Perry, Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor at Department of Law at Uppsala University and a Californian attorney. It is the third contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cupriak Trojan. The previous posts, by Laima Vaige and Alina […]

Très attendue par les acteurs de la gouvernance, l’adoption par le Parlement européen de la directive dite « Omnibus I » a suscité de nombreuses réactions. Si le texte consacre un infléchissement notable des ambitions initialement portées par l’Union en matière de durabilité, il présente néanmoins l’intérêt de préciser la position du législateur européen et d’apporter une meilleure visibilité aux entreprises entrant dans le champ d’application des directives Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, Dir. 2022/2464 du Parl. UE et du Conseil du 14 déc. 2022) et Corporate Sustanibility Due Diligence Directive (CS3D, Dir. 2024/1760 du Parl. UE et du Conseil du 13 juin 2024).

en lire plus

I know we all got pretty excited (if not in the least enthusiastic) by the Grand Chamber ruling in Apple last week. However there was another Private International ruling which involved President Lenaerts (I mention that because he is an authority on PrivIntLaw and my predecessor in the chair here at Leuven).

In Case C‑279/24 AY v Liechtensteinische Landesbank (Österreich) AG, the Court held that the consumer section of Rome I does not apply to a contract concluded between a consumer and a bank where the conditions set out in that provision were not met on the date on which that contract was concluded, but are subsequently met.

In the case at issue, on the date on which the contract concerned was concluded, the Austrian bank concerned was not pursuing its commercial or professional activities in the country where the consumer had his or her habitual residence, and was not directing them to that country. The conditions set out in A6(1)(a) or (b) Rome I were not met therefore. It is only later that this was the case: AY took part in an event organised in Padua (Italy) by an Italian investment company (‘the Padua event’), during which the managing director of that company presented a fund whose portfolio also included ETNs – exchange trade notes, for which AY had earlier opened an account. An employee of the bank also took part in that event in order to introduce the bank to the investors in attendance. Had AY only then opened his account, it would have been a consumer contract.

The CJEU emphasised [33] Rome I’s foreseeability pedigree, [37] legal certainty, and [34] ff party autonomy.

Note the difference with CJEU Commerzbank where, for the jurisdictional angle to consumer contracts, the emergence of an ‘international’ element post contract formation did not stand in the way of the deployment of EU PrivIntLaw.

Geert.

 

 

This post was written by Alina Tryfonidou, Assistant Professor in EU law and Family law at the University of Cyprus. It is the second contribution to the EAPIL on-line symposium on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cupriak Trojan. The previous post, by Laima Vaige, can be found here. […]

This post was written by Laima Vaigė, Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in Private International Law at Uppsala University. It is the first contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in Cupriak-Trojan. The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a landmark Grand Chamber judgment in Cupriak-Trojan (C-713/23) […]