Agrégateur de flux

The author of this post is Caterina Benini, post-doctoral researcher and adjunct professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. The recognition and enforcement of foreign punitive damages judgments in Italy is no longer considered anathema. In 2017, overturning its previous opposition, the Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court held that […]

Normal 0 21 false false false EN-GB ZH-CN X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:43.1pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:43.1pt; text-align:justify; text-justify:inter-ideograph; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standardcontextual; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB; mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}

By Ross Pey, Western University, Canada

1. Introduction

In Case C-86/23 E.N.I. and Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG II (‘HUK-COBURG II’), the principal issue that arose was whether a Bulgarian compensation provision may be interpreted as having mandatory effect. In suggesting that it does not, the Court required the facts to have sufficiently close links with the forum. (Hereinafter the ‘sufficient connexion test’) Ostensibly, a freestanding sufficient connexion test could be viewed as a disguised jurisdictional control of the forum rather than part of a mandatory law analysis. In doing so, parallels to renvoi and forum non conveniens are drawn.

2. Facts

The daughter of the Bulgarian claimants died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The person responsible was insured by the defendant. The claimants commenced a claim in Bulgaria against the defendant for non-material damages suffered for the loss of their daughter. (HUK-COBURG II at [16]–[17])

The case was dismissed on appeal. As German law governed the claim under the Rome II Regulation, the claimants ‘had not established that the mental pain and suffering sustained had caused pathological harm’ required under German law. (HUK-COBURG II at [20], [24], [51])

Crucially, the Court also said that Bulgarian law, in particular Article 52 Zakon za zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (‘ZZD’), did not apply to the case as a mandatory overriding rule under Article 16 Rome II Regulation. This issue as to whether the ZZD applied as a mandatory overriding rule was appealed to the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation), which then referred the question to the ECJ.

3. The CJEU’s Reasoning

In essence, the ECJ said that although it is for the member state court to assess whether Article 52 ZZD was a mandatory overriding rule, it strongly suggested that it did not. (HUK-COBURG II at [47]-[54]). In the operative part, the Court said that that the Rome II Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a forum law ‘cannot be regarded as an ‘overriding mandatory provision’, within the meaning of that article, unless, where the legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum, the court before which the case has been brought finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that national provision was adopted [.]’ (Emphasis mine)

4. Issues with Linking Sufficient Connexion and Mandatory Law

When faced with an allegedly mandatory provision, HUK-COBURG II requires a three-step analysis: (1) identify whether the law has a mandatory effect, (2) identify whether the facts have a sufficiently close connexion with the forum, and (3) determine whether the facts fall under the statute. One reading of the sufficient connexion test in this context is that it is intrinsic to the concept of mandatory law and is read in by the ECJ into the requirements of Article 16 Rome II Regulation. [1] However, there are two issues with this view.

Firstly, it may be that a sufficient territorial connexion forms part of the reason why a forum statute is a mandatory statute and is relevant to determining whether a mandatory rule applies to the facts.[2] But linking territorial connexion and mandatory effect is problematic as they are analytically distinct. In Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29, Lord Llyod-Jones warned that there is a risk of ‘confusion’ if both territoriality and mandatory effect are conflated. The former relates to the intrusion into the territorial affairs of another state, while the latter relates to ‘whether the public policy of the forum displaces the more modest presumption that statutes only apply if they form part of the applicable law.’[3]

Secondly, one might argue that sufficient territorial connexion is required for a forum rule to be deemed a mandatory rule. But the difficulty here is why a territorial connexion with the forum matters at all. The point of mandatory overriding rules is that such rules are so important to the forum that they justify the departure from the law chosen by default choice of law rules. Viewed this way, it is difficult to see why the facts must be sufficiently connected with the forum for a mandatory law to apply. Forum mandatory overriding rules operate precisely because they are reflections of fundamental values of the forum. Requiring a territorial connexion could dilute this.

This is not to say that the Bulgarian law ought to be viewed as mandatory law. Rather, from an interpretative standpoint, grounding a rejection simply because the Bulgarian law fails to satisfy a sufficient connexion test is at least open to question.

5. A Disguised Jurisdiction Analysis?

From the above discussion, there exist questions regarding the role of a freestanding connexion test with the concept of overriding mandatory law. It is, however, plausible to read the judgment differently, where the sufficient connexion test is a jurisdictional analysis of forum choice disguised as a choice of law analysis.

Firstly, this interpretation is not precluded by the judgment itself. In the operative part, the ECJ stated that the ‘legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum’ before the forum court seised conducts a mandatory law analysis. Further, in the Court’s own analysis of what constitutes mandatory law from paragraphs 37 to 54, the Court did not place reliance on the lack of a sufficient territorial connexion. It was a factor in its own right (paragraphs 32 to 36) but does not seem necessary to the mandatory law analysis and the suggestion that Art 52 ZZD does not have a mandatory effect.

Secondly, both the ECJ judgment and the Advocate General’s opinion suggest this. The Court observed at paragraph 36 that although the claim was brought by the parents, who are domiciled in Bulgaria, the accident took place in Germany and was insured by a German insurer. The daughter who died and the person who caused the accident were Bulgarians, but are now residents in Germany. To a common lawyer, this discussion bears a striking resemblance to Step 1 of the forum non conveniens analysis in Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC 460, where the court asks which jurisdiction has the most real and substantial connexion with the dispute (ie. the ‘natural forum’). The jurisdictional impetus is fortified by the Advocate General’s opinion, which at paragraph 53 explicitly states that ‘the requirement of a close link helps to prevent forum shopping.’

This jurisprudential instinct to discuss the sufficiency of connexion is not unwarranted. Under the Brussels I bis Regulation, jurisdiction is allocated by a series of brightline rules, normally based on the domicile of the defendant (Article 4), and at times the claimant (for instance, under Article 11). Crucially, in Case C-281/02 Andrew Owusu v N. B. Jackson, the ECJ erred on the side of certainty in rejecting the doctrine of forum non conveniens. But in doing so, it deprived the courts of a flexible tool to control jurisdiction, making an indirect control via choice of law rules understandable.[4]

In fact, controlling jurisdiction via choice of law is not new. Briggs observes in 1998 that the doctrine of renvoi has, in part, served such a function in English law historically.[5] In this vein, the doctrine of forum non conveniens was part of the ‘tailor-made rules against forum shopping which went straight to the heart of the problem, and did not seek to operate by remote control.’[6]

If so, HUK-COBURG II is another example of the interrelatedness of the conflict of laws. When jurisdictional rules are understood rigidly, the pressure points move to other areas, including the choice of law.

[1] Eg. Dominika Moravcová, ‘Navigating the nexus: The Doctrinal Significance of close connection in the Enforcement of (not only) overriding mandatory norms’ (2025)

[2] Eg. Hague-Visby Rules scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971.

[3] Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29 [36].

[4] The irony here is that the ECJ has now read in a sufficient connexion test into both Rome I and II Regulations, a move which it declined to do in the Brussels I bis Regulation.

[5] Adrian Briggs, ‘In Praise and Defence of Renvoi’ (1998) 47(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 877.

[6] Adrian Briggs, ‘In Praise and Defence of Renvoi’ (1998) 47(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 877, 879.

 

Where does time go…(those who follow me on Linked-in know where it went in January).

I flagged Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion in C‑791/24 TERVE  Production spol. s r. o. v Intesa Sanpaolo Holding International SA when it came out at the time. I am sorry I am only reviewng it now.

E.ON Czech Holding of course features prominently.

The case concerns a dispute re the protection of minority shareholders which did not vote for the delisting of a company (VÚB) in which they hold shares. Slovak law provides that, when such a delisting is decided upon, a takeover bid must be made and that, after the expiry of that bid, the company, or its majority shareholder which made the bid on its behalf, has the right to require the delisting of the remaining shares. Conversely, after the expiry of that period, the minority shareholders may require the purchase of their shares.

Intesa of Luxembourg initiated a share takeover bid, loco VÚB, and, at the end of the three-month validity period, exercised its right of squeeze-out, which resulted in the transfer of the remaining shares into its name. At the same time, TERVE, a minority shareholder opposed to the sale, to exercise its right of sell-out, sent Intesa a draft share purchase agreement, which Intesa did not approve. Intesa justified its refusal on the ground that, since TERVE had not approved its own squeeze-out proposal within the mandatory three-month period, TERVE’s remaining shares had been transferred to Intensa and TERVE therefore no longer had the standing to bring proceedings as a shareholder and had forfeited the opportunity to accept the squeeze-out offer.

The case concerns two types of claims:

The first cause of action seeks to substitute the majority shareholder’s approval of a draft share purchase agreement, presented by the minority shareholders, with a court ruling.

The AG opines this falls within Article 7(1) Brussels Ia’s forum contractus – not A7(2) forum delicti.

The question aims essentially to determine whether the fact that Intesa freely assumed the obligation to make a mandatory takeover bid to purchase
shares in lieu of the issuer of the shares (VÚB, a. s.), in a situation where that
voluntary assumption of the obligation to make a bid preceded and was a
condition for the respondent’s subsequent exercise of the right of squeeze-out, may at the same time be considered as a voluntary assumption of an obligation vis-à-vis Terve (and possibly also vis-à-vis the other shareholders of
VÚB, a. s, who did not vote in favour of delisting their shares) to purchase
shares pursuant to Paragraph 118j of the Slovak Securities Law – a contract whose forum contractus is Slovakia.

Intesa argues there is neither a contract nor A7(2) jurisdiction, the latter it argues requiring ‘civil liability’.

The AG refers to the usual suspects such as CJEU Feniks to come to a wide notion of contract for the purposes of Article 7(1), and dismisses the dense statutory context of corporate take-overs and squeeze-out as being determinant.

His reference (41) in particular to Intesa’s voluntary launch of the take-over bid instead of the corporation itself is confusing (and may indeed lead to the forum shopping consequences he signals. What he really seems to consider crucial (41) is that VÚB’s relationship with its shareholders is contractual in nature. That is the kind of test which I called the ‘ancestry’ test in particular when reviewing Sharpston AG’s Opinion in Ergo.

 

Unfortunately the AG’s answer to the forum contractus question means he does not entertain the forum delicti referral.

 

The other cause of action relates to a claim viz the invalidity of a resolution of a general meeting which decided to transfer the shares of the minority shareholders following the exercise of the right of squeeze-out by the majority shareholder. The response with respect to that claim determines the standing of those minority shareholders to bring proceedings, and the AG opines it is caught by Article 24(2)’s exclusive jurisdictional rule.

(47) the AG first suggests (as does the Commission seemingly) that this question is relevant only if, under Slovak law, the court hearing an application to substitute a majority shareholder’s approval of a sell-out proposal with a court ruling, can rule on the validity of a decision of a general meeting without the company whose decision is being challenged being a party to the proceedings. I assume this is the case for otherwise the decision may be impossible to be imposed upon that company.

(55-57) are the core paras (with reference before and in the paras to the classics such as BVG, Hassett and Doherty, Kerr: In the paras below, I have deleted the references

55.      Consequently, it is necessary to examine whether, in the context of a legal action seeking to substitute the approval of the sell-out proposal with a court ruling, the preliminary issue of the validity of the decision of the general meeting to transfer the remaining shares to the person exercising the right of squeeze-out can constitute the principal subject matter of the dispute.

56.      TERVE’s standing to bring proceedings depends directly on whether or not the resolution of the second general meeting is valid since, if that resolution is invalid, the transfer of the shares to Intesa is called into question and TERVE is still a shareholder of VÚB. However, if that resolution is valid, TERVE has lost its status of shareholder and can no longer exercise its right of sell-out.

57.      I therefore consider that the validity of the resolution of the second general meeting is an essential premiss for TERVE’s action to substitute Intesa’s approval of its draft agreement to purchase the remaining shares with a court ruling.  It is actually that resolution which establishes the right of sell-out for the other shareholders. The situation in the present case is not one in which the alleged invalidity of the decisions of the company’s organs is ancillary to the principal subject matter of the action. Accordingly, the Slovak courts have jurisdiction on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction provided for in Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

(60) in its own  delisting proposal, Intesa referred to Slovak courts’ jurisdiction: hence being sued there can hardly have been unexpected.

I do hope the CJEU wil take the opportunity of the forum contractus question to refine its formula on Article 7(1).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.192 ff, 2.405 ff.

 

 

 

 

 

The European Parliament has published in January 2026 two in-depth studies devoted to the operation and future of the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Together, these studies offer a timely and complementary assessment of one of the cornerstones of international family law instruments in relation to the Brussels II […]

The general course in private international law delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law by Louis d’Avout during the 2022 Summer Session was published in the Academy’s Pocket Books Series (1 032 pages). Louis d’Avout is Professor at Université Paris Panthéon-Assas. In addition to his numerous scholarly works, readers of this blog may recall that his special course on “L’entreprise et les conflits internationaux de lois” was also published in the Academy’s Pocket Books Series in 2019. The general course is title « La cohérence mondiale du droit » (“The Global Coherence of Law”). The publication of a general course in private international law—particularly in the Academy’s Pocket Books Series—deserves the attention of the readers of this blog. The aim of this review is, modestly, to offer a glimpse into this important work so readers who are sufficiently francophone may be encouraged to read it directly, while those who are not are offered a brief overview of the author’s approach. 

Two caveats. First, translations, and inevitable related inaccuracies, are mine. Second, it should be stated at the outset that a work of such scope is not easily summarized: the demonstration, subtle and original, is based on detailed and nuanced analyses and is supported by an impressive bibliographical apparatus, of remarkable diversity. One may note in that respect the author’s relentless effort to draw on a very large number of courses delivered at the Academy of International Law, both in private and in public international law. It is unfortunately impossible to reflect such wealth in the present review other than in a very selective manner.

The course’s program 

The program of the course as encapsulated in the title is ambitious. The idea of “coherence” in law, and especially in private international law (PIL), is particularly evocative. On the one hand, it evokes the often recalled need to preserve the coherence of the forum’s legal order in the face of the disturbance that foreign norms may generate. On the other hand, it also conveys the traditional objective pursued by conflict of laws: the international harmony of solutions. The use of the term “global” (mondiale) gives this search for coherence a particular breadth: it does not concern merely the legal treatment of international or transnational private relationships—the traditional object of private international law—but rather the articulation of legal regimes (State and non-State, domestic and international, public and private) whose still largely disordered coexistence is one of the defining features of our time. As will be seen, the perspective adopted in the course is normative, oriented toward the pursuit of global legal coherence. This search must be understood in a double sense: to uncover coherence where it exists, and to restore it where it does not. At a first level, coherence refers to the rationality and predictability of legal regimes, as well as to their effectiveness. Such coherence (or at least the aspiration to it) is regarded by the author as consubstantial with law itself.

The context in which this search for coherence unfolds is marked by a triple dynamic. On the one hand, increased individual mobility and technological change have diminished the relevance of geographical distance, and even of the crossing of borders. On the other hand, and correlatively, new forms of inter-State cooperation or coordination have emerged. Added to this is the development of non-State and/or transnational legal regimes. These factors give rise to collisions between legal regimes, confronting individuals and enterprises alike. The author proposes to draw on the technical and conceptual wealth of private international law in order to bring coherence to this normative disorder. After all, PIL has a (multi-)millennial experience in resolving conflicts of norms.

Two points are central to the author’s approach. First, the search for coherence must be conducted at the supra-State level. The State level is still relevant for reasoning about conflicts of norms and their resolution, but with a view to a “framework extended to global society” (p. 29). Second, although the search for coherence benefits individuals, it does not necessarily entail a subjective right of individuals to the transnational coherence of law, that is, a right to enjoy a single legal status notwithstanding the crossing of borders and the diversity of legal systems (p. 41). 

Starting point and definitions

An introductory chapter, strikingly entitled “Confronting Global Legal Anarchy” (“Face à l’anarchie juridique mondiale”), provides the starting point of the demonstration and key definitional elements. Legal coherence does not mean “the uniformity of applicable rules and the absolute centralization of dispute resolution mechanisms, supplemented by a transnational enforcement police force,” but rather “the state of a system in which coordination between partial legal systems is generalized and whose effects are guaranteed, for the benefit of the predictability and legal certainty expected by each subject or user of the law” (p. 54). The expression “partial legal systems” refers, it seems, to the incompleteness of any legal system in the perspective of a transnational relation (here at least, comp. p. 117). The definition of coherence introduces the idea of a spontaneous coordination, which plays an important role in the demonstration, as will become clear. The author also revisits the traditional definitions of private international law. Rather than a conceptual definition centered on the notion of internationality (internationality of sources or subject-matter internationality), he prefers a functional definition (p. 75), structured around two objectives: respect for the legitimate expectations of the parties despite their exposure to diverse legal regimes, and the international harmony of solutions, which implies an “aptitude for universality” (p. 75) and the exportability of the solution adopted. Again this definition will prove instrumental in the demonstration (particularly to show that the singularity of PIL rules should not be overstated, compared to other norms).

After a brief historical overview presented in six evocative tableaux, the author examines the merits of three intellectual representations of the discipline, all of which share a connection with general international law: State-centrism, inter-Statism, and the allocation of jurisdiction. The author’s approach is structured by this concern with the relationship between private and public international law. In so doing, he deliberately continues a doctrinal current that has become rather minority in contemporary PIL scholarship (at least in France). In any event, private international law brings together mechanisms for opening State legal orders and articulating them with one another (p. 111).

The author then turns to defining “inter-State and transnational coherence of law” (p. 112). He devotes particularly dense pages to this issue, pages which are difficult to summarize but are decisive for the originality of his perspective. He emphasizes institutional and procedural coherence—that is, the institutions, procedures, mechanisms and actors whose work produces coherence. This procedural coherence is fundamental and constitutes a sine qua non condition of a legal system, whereas normative coherence (the consistency and logical character of the solutions produced) is both secondary—since it flows from institutional and procedural work—and closer to an ideal, often imperfectly achieved. 

Equally decisive is the author’s conviction as to the necessity of coherence. The “praise of incoherence” (p. 127) is dismissed as stemming from a confusion between normative coherence and institutional coherence: the former, being ideal, may fail to convince, whereas the latter is genuinely necessary for the jurist. In short, coherence and incoherence are opposing poles of a complex reality; the existence of incoherences is not sufficient to discredit the need for coherence. As a result, coherence is both necessary and achievable.

Basically, incoherence arises from the tendency of legal systems—particularly the most sophisticated and robust among them, namely States—to reason in autarchy and to impose their own viewpoint (often in the name of their internal coherence) at the expense of the “global rationality of the law applied”. What makes coherence possible is the openness of legal systems to one another (and thus openness to otherness) and their willingness to cooperate. The international (public) legal order itself is marked by a corresponding tension between unilateralism (each sovereign acting alone) and concertation (sovereigns acting together). Coherence in the international order may follow a horizontal (inter-State) or a vertical (supra-State) model. The vertical, supra-State and overarching (tending toward monism) model allows for a form of universality (a jus commune). By contrast, the horizontal model is characterized by pluralism. The author associates each model with a method of private international law: verticality and monism allow for bilateralism, whereas horizontality (and pluralism) implies unilateralism (p. 169). 

The book’s outline and summary

The horizontal/vertical distinction structures the book. The first part is devoted to the study of horizontal interactions: independent “legal spheres” interact with one another, coherence is not guaranteed but may be produced through mutual consideration and interaction. The second part focuses on institutional verticalization, a partial and complementary dynamic (limited to certain sectors or regions of the world), based on the creation and intervention of supra-State bodies capable of producing coherence for the benefit of individuals.

Horizontal interactions between legal systems

The first part of the course is therefore devoted to what the author terms “horizontal” interactions between “independent legal spheres”. In this context, he examines the mechanisms of classical private international law: conflicts of laws and conflicts of jurisdictions or authorities. Here, the “conjunction” of viewpoints (that is, of legal orders) with respect to an international private relationship is, in a sense, voluntary rather than mandatory. It operates through two main sets of mechanisms: first, the attachment of situations to a particular law, court, or authority; and second, cross-border cooperation between authorities (for example, the taking of evidence, the delegation of formalities, or the enforcement of judgments).

The spirit of Relativism

In the first chapter, the author sets out the rudimentary elements of the discipline. These rudiments appear clearly in historical perspective. He explores the tools spontaneously used by courts in order to take account of the foreignness of a person or a situation vis-à-vis the forum. This perspective is original, in particular because it does not merely recount a historical evolution but demonstrates the persistence of these instruments in contemporary PIL. The earliest manifestations of the openness of State legal orders were guided by a concern to achieve equity “formulated from the standpoint of the lex fori”, through recognition of the foreign elements of the situation to be regulated, combined with interpretative techniques applied to the law of the forum to reach a fair outcome. The author emphasizes that these instruments, rudimentary though they may be, are not devoid of subtlety. At their root lies a form of judicial spontaneity oriented toward the pursuit of equity in cross-border relationships. 

This pursuit is guided by a spirit of legal relativity: the transnational private relationship is exposed to a diversity “of laws, customs or values” (p. 187), and this diversity must be considered. The author thus shows how foreignness and relativity constitute the foundational elements of what he terms “international civil law”. The foreigner receives particular treatment when the lex fori is applied, and the international or foreign situation calls either for a reception mechanism (and, correlatively, for limits to relativism, notably an international public policy exception subject to modulation), or for a form of spatial limitation of the lex fori (as exemplified by the presumption against extraterritoriality in U.S. law). The author further demonstrates how these instruments continue to be used in contemporary law to manage situations of legal otherness within the domestic legal order itself. States are prompted to limit the undifferentiated and uniform application of their own laws through compromise solutions, often entrusted to the judiciary (see, from this perspective, the discussion of the Molla Sali judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, p. 218). The identity of individuals may likewise warrant specific accommodations from the inward pull of communities. The author reflects on the relationship between this spirit of relativism (both international and internal) and a form of liberal individualism, particularly as expressed through the growing judicial consideration of fundamental rights. From this perspective, the application of the principle of proportionality in private law may be seen as a manifestation of this spirit of relativity.

The author then explores the tactics developed by judges—and still employed today—to loosen, where necessary, the constraints of the lex fori, which remains the unavoidable starting point for the forum judge when confronted with an international situation. These tactics include the self-limitation of the law of the forum (see, for example, the analysis of the Gonzalez-Gomez decision of the French Conseil d’État, p. 266), creative interpretation of the lex fori, prise en consideration of foreign law, and judge-made international substantive rules. Judicial creativity, however, has its limits: true conflicts are difficult to overcome (see the analysis of unilateral techniques, p. 290 et seq.). The spontaneous modulation of the lex fori, while significant, reveals certain weaknesses and highlights the need for a selective method that appears to “allocate competences among the various legal spheres or among the different poles of law production” (p. 217).

Connecting factors and conflicts rules

The following chapter is devoted to connecting factors, whether from the standpoint of jurisdictional competence or of the applicability of laws. One of the drawbacks of the spontaneous judicial method of adapting the lex fori described in the preceding chapter lies in its casuistic nature, which proves ill-suited to the massification of international private relationships. The author defines the technique of connecting factors in general terms as establishing a rational link between a transnational situation and either a specific legal regime, whether domestic or conventional, or a collective entity (a State or an international organization) (p. 319). He devotes particularly thorough and insightful developments to connecting factors, highlighting their richness, diversity and complexity (see the synthesis at p. 344 et seq.).

Among other points, the author rejects an overly rigid opposition between unilateralism and bilateralism, noting that “the connecting operation may function in both directions” (p. 323): the connecting factor may operate either on the side of the legal consequence or on that of the presupposition of the rule. He usefully distinguishes between the policy of the connecting factor—that is, the intention guiding its author—and the justice of the connecting factor, which results from it and may be assessed independently. The respective connecting roles of bilateral conflict-of-laws rules, unilateral applicability rules, and jurisdictional rules are thus clarified. In another original move, the author also draws a link between the recognition of a foreign judgment and the operation of connecting factors, particularly from the perspective of reviewing the origin of the judgment (indirect jurisdiction).

Following these general observations, the author successively examines jurisdictional connecting factors (judicial or administrative) and substantive connecting factors. With regard to the former, one may summarize (see p. 398) the rich analyses developed as follows. Jurisdictional (or administrative) connecting factors are distinct from substantive connecting factors. They are unilateral (save under conventional regimes) and generally plural and alternative (with some exceptions), giving rise to a situation of “concurrent international availability” of authorities belonging to several legal orders. These connecting factors are not purely localizing: they always have a purpose grounded in considerations of appropriateness, sometimes linked to substantive aspects of the dispute. In any event, the connecting factor is not purely procedural. It affects the substance of the dispute (the forum applies its own procedural law and its own private international law), and it expresses a (legal) policy, understood as a balancing of the interests at stake. As regards administrative authorities, the connecting factors adopted are generally dictated by the applicability of the administrative law concerned, which the authority is tasked with enforcing (according to the model of the lex auctoris). The unilateral and diverse nature of jurisdictional rules creates risks for the coherence of the legal treatment of situations, thus calling for conciliatory mechanisms, namely the forum’s consideration of foreign judicial activity.

With respect to “substantive connecting factors” (conflict of laws rules, then), L. d’Avout claims from the outset a “substantive impregnation of the rules, imbued with objectives and revealing legal policies forged by their authors” (p. 402). These considerations are sometimes specific to the international context and sometimes derive from the orientations of domestic substantive law (often a combination of both). Faithful to his commitment to methodological flexibility, the author develops the idea of a progressive crystallization of synthetic bilateral rules, starting from an intuitive unilateralism (see pp. 412–416). Here he draws on the German doctrine of Bündelung (with reference to Schurig). This approach is convincing with regard to the formation of connecting categories. It is complemented by a sophisticated functional approach (with reference to the work of Professor Brilmayer in the United States). The choice of a connecting factor is above all a matter of appropriateness, taking into account both the divergent interests of the individuals directly concerned and, through consideration of externalities, the collective interests affected by the situation (p. 435).

These balances are struck by the author of the rule and are therefore liable to vary from one State to another, or where the rule has been adopted at a supranational level (for example, at the European level). The author thus distances himself from an apolitical, universalist, but also singularist vision of the discipline: the conflict-of-laws rule is a rule like any other, a deliberate rule. On this basis, the author addresses the classical difficulties of the conflict-of-laws method: characterization and dépeçage (pp. 439 et seq.), conflicts of systems (p. 443), and the authority of the conflict-of-laws rule (p. 447). In each case, the analyses are guided by the previously articulated teleological precepts, without any particular search for originality for its own sake (as the author himself acknowledges), but rather by a concern for… coherence.

The pragmatism advocated by the author is not exclusive of visceral attachment to the conflict-of-laws rule as a rule. Targeted adjustments that depart from this abstract mode of regulation (such as the escape clause or the recognition method) have their place, but they must remain subsidiary and be used with caution. Concluding on this point, the author offers a nuanced diagnosis of the connecting rule. As an international extension of domestic legislation, it is indeed an instrument of coherence (or at least of cohesion). Being anchored in the legal order that adopts it, it is however not capable—at least not systematically—of ensuring “the harmonious junction of legal spheres” (p. 473). Mechanical application must therefore be avoided, and the rule must be accompanied by a cooperative attitude, thus offering a transition to the following chapter.

Transnational cooperation

The final chapter of the first part is accordingly devoted to “transnational cooperation” and “communications between authorities”. The author adopts a broad conception of transnational judicial cooperation, ranging from ancillary technical cooperation (such as the taking of evidence or service of documents) to what he terms cooperation-communication, and even co-determination of solutions (p. 477). These mechanisms are important because they offer some remedy to the shortcomings identified earlier (competing jurisdictions and divergence in substantive connecting rules).

The prominence given to these instruments and the analyses developed in this chapter constitute arguably one of the course’s most strikingly original contributions. To be sure, significant scholarly work has already been devoted to international judicial cooperation (see the references cited in the chapter’s introduction). The analyses presented here stand out nonetheless both for their ambition to offer a comprehensive reflection on mechanisms that had previously often been addressed piecemeal, and, above all, for their full integration into a private international law framework, on an equal footing, so to speak, with the conflict-of-laws rule. This innovation is made possible by the course’s overarching perspective, since transnational judicial cooperation is fully part of the search for the global coherence of law.

L. d’Avout proposes a useful typology: administrative or judicial assistance or mutual legal assistance (acts auxiliary to the main proceedings); cooperation at the periphery of the main proceedings (a category that includes the recognition of judgments and public acts—see the justification at p. 499 et seq.); and more innovative hypotheses of co-determination of legal solutions, whether within a conventional framework (the example given is the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children, p. 507) or through spontaneous coordination. It is in respect of this last category that the developments are the most interesting and innovative (see the examples given at p. 519 et seq.).

On this basis, the author constructs a genuine theory of the concerted resolution of international disputes (illustrated by a traffic-light metaphor, p. 530). Without being able to go into the details of this theory here, its starting point lies in the ideal unity of the proceedings on the merits, possibly supplemented abroad by collaborative ancillary measures and by a subsequent review of acceptability (namely, recognition of the judgment on the merits). Because this ideal is not always achievable—nor even always desirable—additional instruments exist to ensure reciprocal consideration of judicial activity: stays of proceedings (potentially conditional upon a prognosis as to the regularity of the forthcoming judgment), or even the forum’s consideration of the likely outcome of the foreign proceedings. Instruments for managing procedural conflicts also occupy a prominent place (p. 536 et seq.).

The search for coherence does not, however, imply an idealized view of international litigation: frictions do exist, and they cannot always be avoided. What matters is to identify their causes and consequences clearly, rather than proceeding in isolation and disregarding their effects (whether for the parties, or one of them, or for the objectives pursued within a given branch of law). After examining several areas particularly conducive to transnational judicial concertation (family litigation, insolvency, and collective proceedings), the author proposes both existing and potential tools, advancing several stimulating proposals: the transnational procedural agreement and the transnational preliminary reference (question préjudicielle transnationale), to name a few. Should one then recognize an autonomous duty of cooperation incumbent upon judges or authorities in international cases? Characteristically, the author’s answer is cautious: cooperation is not the primary mission of the judge or of an administrative authority; it remains secondary (p. 575). 

Having thus explored the avenues of horizontal cooperation between legal systems—demonstrating both their potential and their limits—and following a rich intermediate conclusion, the author turns to the phenomenon of partial verticalization, which represents their transcendence.

Verticalization

The second part, entitled “Verticalization – Institutional Responses to the Interpenetration of Legal Spheres”, may come as something of a surprise to readers. Indeed, as it goes beyond the horizontality examined thus far, it tends to move away from the classical perspective of private international law. For the author, however, this movement is a natural one, as only a supranational construction is capable of overcoming the residual oppositions between States’ viewpoints. The approach unfolds in two successive stages. The first form of verticality examined is that of federative organizations, such as the European Union, whose role in coordinating legal regimes is undeniable. The second (and more exploratory) form of verticality concerns international law itself: are there international institutions that can be leveraged in the service of the global coherence of law?

The role of federative organizations  

The first chapter of this second part examines “the coherence of law through federative organizations”, that is to say, new modes of articulating legal regimes and of reducing the accumulation and conflict of international rules. The demonstration begins with European regimes of coordination in public law insofar as they affect individuals and companies. European measures facilitating administrative procedures have made it possible to remedy the overlap of national legislation or administrative procedures that necessarily results from individual mobility. European integration has also established articulations of State competences to the same end. Likewise, European Union law has fostered the polymorphous mobility of companies by organizing the normative and administrative interventions of the Member States. The chapter offers further, equally convincing examples: federative organizations effectively articulate sovereignties. The author further proposes a distinction between two aspects : the intensification of horizontal cooperation and institutional federalism. 

The first aspect provides an opportunity to examine mutual recognition as a form of articulation of competences, as well as its limits (p. 664 et seq.). While acknowledging the major achievements of European integration, the author rightly insists on the need to avoid imposing automatic recognition where the underlying control whose outcome is being recognized has not been fully harmonized. The second aspect developed concerns the action of supranational administrative bodies.

The author then turns to the “vertical discipline of conflicts of laws in the interest of private persons”. The issue here is to assess the impact of federative organization on the configuration and resolution of conflicts of laws. Following a preliminary discussion addressing the matter from an institutional perspective (in the form of an illuminating EU–US comparison), the author devotes profound developments to the renewal of conflict-of-laws reasoning brought about by institutional verticality. At the heart of this reflection lies the figure of the supranational judge, an external third party to conflicts of laws between Member States, and a point of “triangulation” of these opposing viewpoints.

Without being able to reproduce the entirety of the argument here, it may be noted that it leads the author to issue the following warning: “an analysis of current law does not support the emergence, within regional spaces, of an unconditional right of individuals to the transnational coherence of law and to a resolution of conflicts of laws favorable to them” (p. 725). Supranational courts that were to lose sight of this would expose themselves to the risk of “judge-made legislation”. The author nevertheless identifies “an intensified duty to take account of discordant viewpoints and, at times, to articulate them in novel ways, in application of the organization’s law and in the absence of harmonization by it of the applicable law”. Particular attention should be drawn to the author’s precise reassessment of the figure of so-called “diagonal conflicts”, based on a fruitful distinction between horizontal conflicts resolved along the vertical axis through fundamental rights, and frictions between a supranational regime and a State regime (see pp. 761 et seq.).

Verticality in public international law

The final chapter is both the natural culmination of the overall demonstration and one that will likely most surprise PIL scholars. Having examined the effects of the verticality of federative organizations of States on conflicts between legal regimes, the author considers it natural to search directly within international law for instruments capable of coordinating legal regimes applicable to private persons. The surprise may stem from the fact that contemporary private international law doctrine—at least in France—has largely ceased to look to general international law as a remedy for deficits in legal coordination.

The author’s perspective here is once again innovative. While there is no substantive subjective right of individuals or companies exposed to discordant legal treatment, the possibility of a procedural subjective right may be envisaged “insofar as such a faculty allows, either immediately or following unsuccessful recourse before State bodies, access to an impartial judge capable of stating the law or of reviewing the manner in which it has previously been applied” (p. 795). The author thus embarks on a quest for this emerging procedural right in its various modalities (individual claims against the State; claims mediated through another State or an international organization). This leads him to explore avenues as diverse as investment arbitration, the fascinating experience of binational courts (and their spontaneous production of private international law solutions, p. 819 et seq.), as well as the International Court of Justice, whose case law is scrutinized to detect the tentative emergence of substantive rights of individuals. The author perceives here a potential for a de-specialization of the Law of Nations through the expansion of its addressees (p. 874).

The author then turns to international institutional fragmentation, that is, the fragmentation of the various regimes (territorial State regimes, special international regimes). He concludes that techniques of horizontal interaction between these legal spheres should be developed, and possibly even hierarchical principles (p. 901). A solution might lie in seizing an authority capable of arbitrating conflicts of competences exercised by independent international bodies, by expanding the advisory procedure before the International Court of Justice, or even by entrusting it with a mission of resolving these conflicts of competence.

Finally, the author seeks to determine whether, in order to transcend the multiplicity of clashing legal regimes, it might be possible to invent and construct a new “jus commune” (droit commun). He advances three series of proposals or concluding observations in this regard. The first concerns the contemporary role of States and State sovereignty: the author calls for the consolidation of an “interface State between local communities and distant communities” (p. 920). In his view, “the durable persistence of State organization requires a minimum level of inter-State cooperation”. The second series of observations concern the possibility of the emergence of this universal jus commune and its defining qualities. The author focuses on points of convergence (principles, values, standards) that make it possible to discern a phenomenon of conjunction between norms of diverse origins. Finally, the author returns once more to the legal discordances affecting international relations to emphasize that, beyond disciplinary, conceptual, and terminological distinctions, a single problem emerges: the lack of coordination between autonomous legal spheres. Given contemporary developments in human societies, spatial mechanisms for resolving certain of these discordances may appear less relevant. What is therefore required is a genuinely substantive coordination, resting on the production of concerted solutions (in the various forms discussed above). For the most difficult cases, the subsidiary intervention of a supranational court could be envisaged.

Highlights

Within the limited space of this review, it is unfortunately not possible to engage in a detailed discussion of the analyses developed, other than by pointing to them in the summary above and advancing the following few remarks, necessarily too general.

The summary above perhaps gives a sense of the scope of the demonstration undertaken. It is particularly impressive and compelling in that it escapes the traditional boundaries of the discipline to embrace the globality of the phenomenon of normative fragmentation. Such an undertaking is remarkable. Global legal incoherences are numerous and addressing them solely through the lens of conflicts of laws or conflicts of jurisdiction would inevitably have been reductive. Moreover, as befits the ambition of a general course, the book offers a comprehensive and original framework for understanding the discipline. It is in a sense conceptualized anew (in object and methods) and endowed with a new vocabulary. This reconceptualization does not however entail revolutionary breaks with existing solutions. Nor is that its ambition: the author warns repeatedly against such ventures. Rather it provides a new perspective that enables regenerating analyses. The author never yields to the temptation of a purely hierarchical response to legal discordances, nor does he idealize horizontality as a sufficient answer to the conflicts generated by the interpenetration of legal spheres. Instead, he patiently reconstructs the diversity of techniques available—horizontal, vertical, institutional, procedural—and evaluates their respective capacities to achieve coherence without sacrificing pluralism. Also worthy of note is the deliberate choice to avoid doctrinal factionalism (unilateralism vs. bilateralism; localizing vs. substantive approaches; monism vs. pluralism) by adopting a generally pragmatic stance. The demonstration is constantly guided by a concern for individuals and economic actors confronted with the accumulation of fragmented regimes. Without positing the existence of a general subjective right to legal coherence, the author identifies concrete expectations, procedural guarantees, and institutional mechanisms capable of mitigating the most difficult effects of normative fragmentation. 

The author concludes with a quote from Savigny, inviting contemporaries to make full use of the doctrinal heritage accumulated in order to contribute to the advancement of scientific progress in the field. This quotation is doubly revealing of the author’s approach. First, the call to exploit accumulated doctrinal wealth is followed here with impressive determination. On every page, the author is keen to draw from both older and more recent sources, and to give resonance to the diversity of viewpoints. Second, the demonstration appears to be guided by an idea of progress: not in the sense that contemporary doctrine or case law would be superior to that of the past, but, as Savigny suggests, in the sense that the conflict-of-laws discipline itself progresses—and thus the coherence of law progresses—through “the combined forces of past centuries.” Without lapsing into naïveté, the argument reflects a form of optimism on the part of the author regarding the march toward global legal coherence. Such optimism is commendable. It may nevertheless be argued that belief in coherence as a cardinal value is not today universal, within and without the law. Thus, for example, the idea that irrational (incoherent) behavior by a State exposes it to sanctions (from within!, p. 920) unfortunately suffers daily contradiction. Moreover, multilateralism is undergoing a crisis so profound (for instance explored here by P. Franzina, from a private international law perspective) that some argue, not without reason, that it has never existed other than as a façade (as contended by the Prime Minister of Canada in a recent speech in Davos). Just over three years after this course was delivered at The Hague Academy, reasons for optimism are scarce. This does not imply that optimism is impossible, perhaps quite the opposite. The 2026 reader may wonder however what influence (if any) the recent aggravation of the crisis of multilateralism (as well as the simultaneous rise of adversarial and transactional sovereignism) would have on the demonstration of the author.

As noted above, the perspective of the course is normative in the sense that the search for coherence is presented as both desirable and possible. The temptation of normative disorder is only briefly considered, and then rejected, essentially on the ground that law and normative disorder are incompatible. Some might find this position not entirely convincing. There are several ways of approaching this issue, but one of them is to try to see what risks being lost in the pursuit of coherence (and thus of order). Alternative, non-modern forms of legality may come to mind. There are alternative presentations of the discipline that assign a predominant role to a radical acceptance of otherness (see, for example, the recent book by H. Muir Watt, reviewed here), from a pluralistic perspective. One of the criticisms then directed at contemporary private international law (at least at bilateralism) is its tendency to make room for alternative normativity only at the cost of its intense reconfiguration through the legality of the forum (through the lens or the rationality of the forum). From this perspective, the search for coherence (the process of rendering coherent) risks appearing as an extension of this rationalizing program. In reality, the opposition should perhaps not be overstated. As noted, L. d’Avout demonstrates methodological flexibility, without a priori privileging either bilateralism or unilateralism (or monism over pluralism, for that matter). Moreover, the coherence at play here is decentered from the forum, rather than imposed from an overhanging forum. In a sense, it is procedural and dialogical between States (as well as other “legal spheres”, i.e. alternative sources of normativity), rather than directly normative. Nevertheless, the demonstration rests on the idea that rationality is the inescapable horizon of law—an idea that maybe will face some pushback. Certain contemporary critiques of the international (legal) order (for instance, the decolonial scholarship, see this paper by S. Brachotte in a PIL perspective) tend instead to deeply deconstruct the very idea of legal coherence. These contemporary dynamics (the deep crisis of multilateralism and the teachings of the critical legal studies) obviously come from very different places and exist on different levels but they have in common a form of skepticism towards the concept of legal coherence. The reader may wonder to what extent they contradict the main thrust of the book, or if they can be reconciled with it, for instance through a reliance on, and reconfiguration of, horizontal (and intrinsically pluralist) modes of coordination. 

The recently published book Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (Editoriale Scientifica, 2025), edited by Laura Carpaneto, Francesca Maoli, and Ilaria Queirolo, offers a timely and rigorous contribution to European private international law and family law scholarship.

This volume follows the convention reported at this blog here and likewise presents the results of the UniPAR – Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe project, an EU-co-funded research initiative that addresses some of the most complex legal challenges in cross-border parenthood. Bringing together expert authors from different universities across European Union, the book combines theoretical frameworks with practical insights into how parenthood is recognised and regulated across different Member States. Covering six EU jurisdictions (Spain, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland) the book provides comprehensive national reports and comparative analyses on key issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, adoption, recognition of decisions and birth certificates and judicial cooperation in parenthood matters. The contents are available here.

This scholarly work advances the debate on the need for coherence in legal frameworks governing parentage and family relationships in European Union, especially in contexts involving cross-border mobility, assisted reproductive technologies and the recognition of family statuses across Member States. The final conclusions and recommendations serve both academic and policy audiences, offering structured reflections on legislative gaps and potential paths towards harmonised rules in EU private international law.This is an essential resource that deepens understanding of the legal implications of cross-border parenthood and strengthens the foundation for future legislative reform in European Union.

On 18 February 2026, from 3 to 4 pm UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) under the title Between Ambition and Realism – What to Expect from the Upcoming Reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation? The […]

1. Introduction

For more than 20 years after the handover, Hong Kong courts had regularly noted difficulties with the ‘trial supervision system’ (also known as ‘retrial procedure’ ) in the Chinese Mainland when attempting to recognise and enforce Mainland judgments under the common law, as the trial supervision system was thought to mean that these judgments fail to meet the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement. Such thinking was criticised by scholars as problematic.[1] To address the issue, statutory regimes on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong have been implemented. More recent studies documented changes in the judicial attitude of Hong Kong courts,[2] but there was a lack of definitive rulings to clarify the legal position. This article focuses on the most recent Hong Kong cases which confirmed that the trial supervision system in the Chinese Mainland has no automatic impact on the recognition and enforcement of Mainland judgments in Hong Kong. A party alleging that the trial supervision system has affected the finality and conclusiveness of a Mainland judgment must prove the likelihood of a retrial being ordered through factual and/or expert evidence.

2. Early Cases

This vexed issue was first considered in Chiyu Banking Corp Ltd v Chan Tin Kwun, where Cheung J held that a Mainland judgment was not final and conclusive as it was not ‘unalterable in the court which pronounced it’ due to the trial supervision system.[3] This approach was seemingly affirmed in Lam Chit Man v Lam Chi To, but the Court of Appeal did not conclusively decide on the matter, as both parties did not adduce expert evidence on PRC law regarding the effect of the trial supervision system.[4]

Subsequently, in Lee Yau Wing v Lee Shui Kwan, the Court of Appeal was faced with a challenge against a Hong Kong summary judgment predicated on a Mainland judgment. The majority of the Court did not rule directly on the effect of the trial supervision system.[5] However, Chung J’s dissenting judgment raised the point that the trial supervision system was similar to the grounds of appeal in Hong Kong, and hence should not bar the finding that a Mainland judgment was final and conclusive.[6] This view, although not binding at that time, paved the way for later attempts in distinguishing Chiyu Banking.[7]

With no further cases directly addressing the issue or overruling the Chiyu Banking approach, the trial supervision system proved to be an obstacle for enforcing Mainland judgments under the common law for nearly two decades. The change in judicial attitude was hinted in the 2016 Court of First Instance decision of Bank of China Ltd v Yang Fan.[8] In that case, To J found himself bound by the earlier Court of Appeal decisions, but expressed in obiter that the trial supervision system in the Chinese Mainland had undergone significant changes since 2013 and it was ‘more like an appellate regime’; as such, the mere possibility of the trial supervision system being applicable did not preclude a Mainland judgment from being final and conclusive.[9] Further cases also expressed similar views in obiter.[10] Despite this change in attitude, the law at that time was still ambiguous, and clarifications did not come until much more recently.

3. Recent Cases

Several recent cases in late 2025 and 2026 have substantially clarified the law. It is now evident that under both the common law and statutory regimes in Hong Kong, the existence of the trial supervision system is no longer accepted as a ground to challenge a Mainland judgment as not ‘final and conclusive’ if there is no relevant supporting evidence.

3.1 Common Law Regime

In Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong,[11] one of the disputed issues was whether the trial supervision system would render a Mainland judgment unenforceable for not being final and conclusive under the common law regime. After reviewing the relevant authorities (at [11.1]–[11.25]), DHCJ Jonathan Wong made the following clarifications (at [12.1]–[12.6] and [13.1]–[13.2]):

1. Chiyu Banking cannot be read as authority for the proposition that the trial supervision system per se renders a Mainland judgment not final and conclusive. With reference to Lee Yau Wing (which Cheung J decided the case as Cheung JA), it was emphasised that the line of cases stemming from Chiyu Banking had not authoritatively determined the issue.[12]
2. The correct proposition is this: it is only when a retrial has been ordered that any order made in the original trial ceases to be res judicata between the parties. The possibility of a retrial would not by itself render an original judgment as not res judicata.[13]
3. The trial supervision system per se does not render a Mainland judgment not final or not conclusive. A Mainland judgment will likely satisfy the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement as set out in Nouvion v Freeman:[14]
   1. In the Mainland proceedings, there is no limit as to what arguments can be raised and advanced;
   2. The trial supervision system is considered to be akin to an appeal, especially considering the fact that the judgments are enforceable in the Mainland unless and until a retrial is ordered;
   3. A litigant has no right to re-litigate a matter which has been determined by a Mainland judgment, and their avenues to challenge a first instance ruling is by way of appeal or an application for a retrial;
   4. Parties to a Mainland judgment do not have a unilateral right for retrial, and the potential retrial is conditioned upon the exercise of discretion by an external organ, premised on some error or violation by a judicial officer;
   5. An analogy can be drawn with foreign default judgments, which, despite being liable to be varied or set aside by the court granting it, may nevertheless be final and conclusive for the purpose of common law enforcement unless and until it is set aside; and
   6. The absence of any time limit on the Mainland court and the procuratorate to invoke the trial supervision system does not affect the foregoing analysis, as the mere possibility of an appeal does not preclude a judgment from being final and conclusive under common law.
4. The paramount consideration when considering whether a Mainland judgment is final and conclusive, is the likelihood of a retrial being ordered under the trial supervision system. This is a matter to be demonstrated by factual evidence or expert evidence, or a combination of both. Some relevant considerations include:
   1. The cogency of the Mainland judgment being challenged;
   2. Whether the conditions leading to the invocation of the trial supervision system are satisfied;
   3. Whether the party has made an application under the trial supervision system; and if so, whether the application has been decided and the outcome of the application, or if not, the reasons for not applying; and
   4. If the party has not made or is no longer able to make an application under the trial supervision system, what is the likelihood of the Mainland court or the procuratorate initiating the Retrial Procedure on their own motion.

Sunsco International Holdings Ltd clarified the applicability of previous authorities and definitively affirmed that the trial supervision system is in no way per se an impediment in finding Mainland judgments as final and conclusive under the common law. The mere theoretical possibility of the trial supervision system being invoked should not strip the judgment of finality; such possibility should instead be supported by evidence. In Tsoi Chung Tat Prince v Wei Zhongxia, DHCJ Gary CC Lam further suggested that the question should be determined by expert evidence (but not necessarily oral expert evidence), and the burden of proof is on the party relying on the Mainland judgment to prove that it is final and conclusive by adducing expert evidence on Mainland law.[15]

The principles in Sunsco International Holdings Ltd received support in Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min.[16] The plaintiff in that case sought to enforce a judgment made by the Beijing Higher People’s Court under the common law regime. The decision of DHCJ MK Liu (at [43]–[52]) provided a useful illustration of the application of the clarified common law position. The defendants contended that there were substantive grounds for a retrial as the original judgment lacked evidentiary support and that there might be new evidence not previously considered in the Mainland judgment. These contentions were rejected as flawed or fanciful, and the defendants failed to show an arguable case that there is a likelihood that a retrial would be ordered under the trial supervision system. The Mainland judgment was therefore held to be final and conclusive.

3.2 Statutory Regimes

The clarifications under the statutory regimes were provided in Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Co Ltd.[17] In that case, the plaintiff was seeking to enforce a Mainland judgment handed down by the Huzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The issue was whether the judgment was final and conclusive under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 597) (‘MJREO’), which took effect in 2008.

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, G Lam JA held that subsections (a) to (d) of section 6(1) of the MJREO were meant to be disjunctive and exhaustive regarding the categories of judgments that fall under the MJREO. Specifically, G Lam JA explicitly mapped out the relationship between the relevant provisions of the MJREO and the trial supervision system (at [63]–[66]):

1. Prior to the ‘Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned’ signed in 2006 (‘the 2006 Arrangement’), it had already been noted that the trial supervision system had given rise to issues as to whether Mainland judgments are final and conclusive.[18] Accordingly, draft provisions were designed to address the common law requirements of finality. These provisions eventually made their way into Article 2 of the 2006 Arrangement.
2. Further, in the Report of the Bills Committee on the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, it was noted that the trial supervision system may give rise to finality issues, and ‘special procedures would be adopted in order to address the common law requirements of finality’.[19] As such, section 6(1) of the MJREO was specifically enacted to address the common law requirement that the judgment is final and conclusive.

Hence, it was held that under the statutory regime, potential issues on the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement relating to the trial supervision system were pre-emptively addressed by the enactment of section 6(1) of the MJREO. As long as the judgment falls under the categories listed under section 6(1), the judgment is deemed to be final and conclusive irrespective of the operation of the trial supervision system, and one should not be required to fall back on the common law. The same reasoning was explained by DHCJ KC Chan earlier in Re Shenzhen Qianhai Orient Ruichen Fund Management Co Ltd in early 2025.[20]

It is submitted that the foregoing principles are also very likely be applicable to the expanded statutory regime of the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 645) (‘MJCCMREO’), which came into effect in 2024:

1. The MJCCMREO sought to give effect to the ‘Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’ signed in 2019 (‘the 2019 Arrangement’). Similar to Article 2 of the 2006 Arrangement, Article 4 of the 2019 Arrangement includes provisions relating to the trial supervision system.
2. Section 8 of the MJCCMREO stipulates a list of ‘effective’ Mainland judgments akin to section 6(1) of the MJREO. Thus, the foregoing reasoning by G Lam JA can be applied to section 8 of the MJCCMREO: the list should be treated as exhaustive, and as long as the Mainland judgment falls under any category explicitly stated under section 8, it is capable of being enforced regardless of the effect of the trial supervision system.[21]
3. The MJCCMREO intends to provide a mechanism which is similar to the MJREO for a wider range of judgments in civil and commercial matters, not limited to judgments arising out of an exclusive choice of court agreement.[22] The two ordinances serve similar purposes; for consistency reasons, they should adhere to the same principles regarding the effect of the trial supervision system.[23]

4. Conclusion

These recent clarifications from the Hong Kong courts are much welcomed in resolving the effect of the trial supervision system that had befuddled the courts for almost 30 years. From the author’s perspective, this clarified view must also be correct. Under the common law regime, it is consistent with the modern viewpoint that a possible appeal avenue is not by itself an impediment to the recognition and enforcement of the trial judgment.[24] As for the statutory regimes, it is consistent with the provisions of the 2006 and 2019 Arrangements and the subsequent statutes enacted respectively, the MJREO and the MJCCMREO.

 

This article is written by Wilson Lui (Centre for Private Law, The University of Hong Kong; Melbourne Law School), with research assistance by Avery Cheung (The University of Hong Kong).

 

[1] See eg Philip St John Smart, ‘Finality and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments under the Common Law in Hong Kong’ (2005) 5 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 301; Weixia Gu, ‘A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong–China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and Renewed Momentum’ (2020) 52 Cornell International Law Journal 592. See also Section II below.

[2] See eg Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes, Hong Kong Private International Law (Hart Publishing 2025) 279–80.

[3] Chiyu Banking Corp Ltd v Chan Tin Kwun [1996] 2 HKLR 395 (CFI) 399.

[4] Lam Chit Man v Lam Chi To [2001–2003] HKCLRT 141 (CA) [18]–[21].

[5] Lee Yau Wing v Lee Shui Kwan [2007] 2 HKLRD 749 (CA) [15]–[29], [34]–[38]. See also Wu Wei v Liu Yi Ping (unreported, CACV 32/2009, 27 March 2009).

[6] Lee Yau Wing (n 5) [55]. In coming to this conclusion, Chung J admitted that his views had changed from his earlier decision in Lam Chit Man v Cheung Shun Lin [2001–2003] HKCLRT 243 (CA).

[7] Gu (n 1) 611.

[8] Bank of China Ltd v Yang Fan [2016] 3 HKLRD 7 (CFI).

[9] Bank of China Ltd (n 8) [51]–[54].

[10] Jiang Xi An Fa Da Wine Co Ltd v Zhan King [2019] HKCFI 2411 [85]–[90]; Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min [2022] 4 HKC 116, [2022] HKCFI 1027 [65]–[66]; Poon Sing Wah v Poon Sing Nam [2025] HKCFI 720 [117(a)].

[11] Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong [2025] HKCFI 5238.

[12] Lee Yau Wing (n 5) [15]; Sunsco International Holdings Ltd (n 11) [12.2].

[13] Bobolas v Economist Newspaper Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1101 (CA).

[14] Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1.

[15] Tsoi Chung Tat Prince v Wei Zhongxia [2026] HKCFI 716 [47].

[16] Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min [2026] HKCFI 197.

[17] Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Company Ltd [2025] 3 HKLRD 447, [2025] HKCA 434.

[18] See also Huarong Overseas Chinese Asset Management Co Ltd v Li Xiaopeng (transliteration) [2025] HKCFI 6402 [54].

[19] Legislative Council of Hong Kong, ‘Report of the Bills Committee on the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill’ LC Paper No CB(2)1521/07-08 (10 April 2008) para 73.

[20] Re Shenzhen Qianhai Orient Ruichen Fund Management Co Ltd [2025] HKCFI 707 [24]–[30], cited in Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd (n 17) [67]–[69].

[21] The Court of Appeal observed the striking similarity between the two sections as well: Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd (n 17) [15].

[22] Legislative Council of Hong Kong, ‘Report of the Bills Committee on Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill’ LC Paper No CB(4)871/2022 (12 October 2022).

[23] See eg Sunsco International Holdings Ltd (n 11) [11.25].

[24] Nouvion (n 14) 13; China NPL Holdings Pte Ltd v Mo Haidan [2021] 1 HKLRD 344, [2020] HKCA 1014 [54]–[57].

Par un arrêt du 5 février 2026, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme juge contraire à l’article 1er du Protocole n° 1 le cumul intégral, sans mise en balance, d’une confiscation pénale du prix ou du profit de l’infraction et d’une condamnation à indemniser l’administration pour le même préjudice. Les autorités nationales doivent apprécier l’effet combiné de ces mesures et tenir compte de la double nature – punitive et réparatrice – de la confiscation, sous peine de faire peser sur l’intéressé une charge excessive.

en lire plus

The first 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. In her contribution, Estelle Fohrer-Dedeurwaerder (University of Toulouse Capitole) discusses the international element of legal situations (La manipulation de l’internationalité des situations juridiques). The English abstract reads: […]

Richard Fentiman will be speaking on “Contactless Injunctions: New Approaches to Jurisdiction in English Law” at the forthcomming virtual workshop in the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law series “Current Research in Private International Law” to be held on on Tuesday, 3 March 2026, at 11:00 (CET).

Richard Fentiman is Professor Emeritus of Private International Law at the University of Cambridge. His research is especially concerned with the law and practice of international commercial litigation and in particular with issues concerning jurisdiction and interim remedies. He will be speaking about the practice of the English courts which regularly grant extraterritorial injunctions to freeze foreign assets or prevent foreign proceedings. In a departure from past practice they will now do so even in the absence of any material link with England. This reveals much about English law’s distinctive approach to injunctions and begs deeper questions about the appropriate grounds for exercising jurisdiction in private international law.

The virtual lecture will be held as a video conference via Zoom. Prior registions is necesarry by Monday, 2 March 2026, using this link.

Since not all readers of the blog can be presumed to be avid consumers of the Journal of Legal History, it may be worth pointing out that issue 46/1 (2025) (table of contents  here) was dedicated to jurisdiction in the European Central Middle Ages. In their (open access) introduction, historians Danica Summerlin and Alice Taylor suggest explaining medieval law neither through the (rediscovered) Codex Justinianus as the basis of a ius commune, nor through the concept of legal pluralism, but instead through the emerging law of jurisdiction. Indeed, their approach deviates from earlier state-focused analyses on struggles between state and church and instead “foregrounds actors and performances as the means by which jurisdictions were asserted, defined and formalized – or, to put it another way, as the means by which jurisdiction came into being.”  The issue emerges from a British Academy funded multi-year research project on Jurisdictions, political discourse, and legal community, 1050–1250 that brought together (legal) historians from Europe and North America – but not, it seems, conflict of laws scholars. The contributions are fascinating and relevant for those of us who want to understand conflict of laws through its history – and may perhaps even provide a basis for future collaborations across disciplines?

An upcoming milestone in private international law — Recognition and Enforcement of Non-EU Judgments (Bloomsbury / Hart Publishing, Feb. 19 2026), edited by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Zgrabljic Rotar.

This is not just another doctrinal text, but the first comprehensive comparative deep dive into how EU Member States handle judgments from outside the EU, an area of law that has been notoriously fragmented and under-theorized.

The book contains country reports from 21 EU Member States on their national rules on recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in a unified framework, giving the reader both breadth and comparative depth. The editors pull these strands together in a detailed comparative report that highlights patterns of convergence and divergence across EU jurisdictions. Additionally, the book situates the Member State approaches in relation to the Brussels I regime and the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, which is itself reshaping global judicial cooperation. It had practical and scholarly appeal

The release date is 19 February 2026 and it is available for pre-order already at here.

This post was written by Giacomo Marola (PhD). As announced on this blog, on 5 February 2026 Advocate General (AG) A. Rantos delivered his Opinion in Case C-232/25, Idziski, following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Polish Supreme Court. The case concerns the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (now Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation) […]

This post was written by Silvia Marino, Professor of EU law at the University of Insubria in Como and Director of the EAPIL Winter School. The third edition of the EAPIL Winter School in European Private International Law took place at the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como […]

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the second symposium relating to private international law in Africa to be hosted on this blog, following a series that has run consistently since 2 February 2026. The first symposium, which focused on private international law in Nigeria, took place on 14 December 2020 and was jointly hosted on Afronomics and this blog. It was organised by Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong and me.

Professor Beligh Elbalti and I are deeply grateful to the scholars who agreed to participate in this symposium at short notice, including Dr Solomon Okorley, Dr Theophilus Edwin Coleman, Dr Elisa Rinaldi, Miss Anam Abdul-Majid, Mr Kitonga Mulandi,  Dr Boris Awa, and Dr Abubakri Yekini.

The idea for this second symposium originated with my dear colleague, Professor Beligh Elbalti, and I am thankful to him for involving me in the leadership and organisation of this project. The symposium finds its true genesis in a larger edited volume we are currently preparing on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Africa, which examines developments across no fewer than twenty-six African jurisdictions.

In the course of organising the project, we were struck by the depth and richness of engagement with private international law in African courts. This reality stands in sharp contrast to the popular but mistaken assumption that private international law in Africa is stagnant. On the contrary, the field is very much alive and kicking.

African courts are increasingly being called upon to engage with issues of private international law, and this is an empirical reality that our symposium seeks to demonstrate. At the same time, courts face significant and well-documented challenges, including inadequate legal frameworks, insufficient engagement with comparative law, and research approaches that prioritise the transplantation of foreign perspectives rather than the development of solutions grounded in local realities.

We therefore hope that courts, legislators, and researchers will actively engage with, develop, and refine the principles of private international law from an African perspective, in a manner that is context-sensitive, doctrinally sound, and responsive to the continent’s lived legal experience.

In this post, I briefly reflect on five overarching themes: situating African private international law within its broader context; the use of comparative law to promote independent and critical thinking; strengthening cooperation among African scholars; the importance of sustainable funding; and the need for stronger local institutional infrastructure.

 

II. RE-SITUATING AFRICAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WITHIN ITS PROPER CONTEXT

One of the central challenges confronting African private international law is its continuing reliance on inherited colonial traditions, particularly those of European powers such as England, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Across the continent, many legal systems still mirror the frameworks they received during the colonial period. Thus, common law African jurisdictions tend to follow the English approach; Francophone systems largely adopt French doctrine; Roman–Dutch jurisdictions reflect a mixture of Dutch and English influences; Lusophone countries retain Portuguese models; and there are also Spanish law influences on few African countries.

This inherited structure has not always served African private international law well. While many European states have modernised their rules to facilitate economic integration, cross-border commerce, and development, numerous African jurisdictions have yet to undertake comparable reform. The result is often a body of law that is historically derivative rather than functionally responsive to contemporary African realities.

These concerns have long been recognised in the scholarship. More than three decades ago, Professor Uche Uche, delivering lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law, called for “a genuinely African-based and African-influenced work on the conflict of laws.” Professor Christopher Forsyth similarly cautioned against the “unthinking” acceptance of foreign solutions, warning that African private international law should not behave like “the weathervane flipping one way or the other as the winds blow from abroad.” In the same spirit, Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong has argued that, while extra-African sources remain relevant, African scholarship should draw primarily on African case law, legislation, and academic commentary, and should situate its analysis within the continent’s present challenges, including regional economic integration, the promotion of trade and investment, migration, globalisation, and legal pluralism.

Encouragingly, contemporary African scholarship increasingly reflects this intellectual independence. The present symposium offers a clear illustration. Contributors rely principally on local African sources and contexts rather than treating European doctrine as the default template. My joint post with Yekini highlights the growing importance of recognition and enforcement of international court judgments in Anglophone Africa and shows that African jurisdictions are beginning to lead intellectually in an area that remains underdeveloped elsewhere. Awa’s blog demonstrates that Member States of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) have a significant number of situations in which they attempt recognising and enforcing each other’s judgments. Elbalti’s study of Mozambique illustrates the risks of scholars mechanically interpreting colonial transplanted rules without close attention to local jurisprudence. Abdul-Majid and Mulandi’s discussion of Kenya reveals judicial concern that exclusive jurisdiction clauses may export dispute resolution to foreign courts to the detriment of domestic adjudication. Rinaldi shows that South African courts are attentive to cross-border employment disputes involving restraints of trade, and that any critique of their rulings by practitioners or scholars should be carefully anchored in sound legal principle.  Coleman further demonstrates Ghana’s distinctive approach to proving foreign law in cross-border marriages, including potentially polygamous unions.  Finally, Okorley examines a decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal affirming that a child’s habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention is not determined by the marital status of the parents.

Externally, in another contribution, Coleman draws on the South African concept of ubuntu to interrogate the inequalities that may be embedded in party autonomy. Oppong and I also argue that African government contracts should not be subjected to foreign governing laws on public policy grounds.

None of this suggests that African private international law should become insular or excessively interest based. On the contrary, comparative engagement remains indispensable. The point is not to reject foreign influence, but to adapt it critically and constructively, ensuring that private international law develops in a manner that reflects African realities while participating confidently in global legal discourse.

 

III. UTILIITY OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN ENHANCING INDEPENDENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING

A further area in which private international law in Africa can be strengthened is through deeper and more systematic engagement with comparative law. In a recent study I co-authored with Yekini, we concluded that private international law in Nigeria—and, by extension, in several other African jurisdictions—remains underdeveloped in part because of limited comparative engagement. Indeed, it has been persuasively argued by Professor Diego Arroyo that private international law is scarcely conceivable without comparative law. As Professor Otto Kahn-Freund, famously remarks “comparative law is the mother of private international law.” I share these views as well.

Comparative analysis, however, should not be equated with continued dependence on the approaches of former colonial powers. Far from it. Properly understood, comparative law entails a broad and critical examination of diverse legal systems across the world in order to identify solutions best suited to local needs. Its purpose is intellectual openness, not slavish imitation. Currently, Asian private international law has evolved primarily through imitation before transitioning into a phase of innovation and eventual exportation (see here). This has primarily been done through extensive comparisons with legal systems around the world. I have also remarked that the Asian approach can “significantly benefit the ongoing development and reform of private international law in Africa” (see here).

This underscores the importance of legal education and professional training. Outside South Africa and a small number of other jurisdictions, legal education in many African countries remains heavily shaped by inherited colonial curricula, with limited exposure to comparative or regional perspectives. Moreover, meaningful dialogue across African legal systems is often lacking. Apart from parts of Southern Africa—and, to a lesser extent East Africa—many jurisdictions rarely engage systematically with developments elsewhere on the continent.

The practical consequences of this insularity are tangible. In a recent blog post, I discussed a Nigerian Court of Appeal decision that enforced a South African choice-of-court agreement in a dispute that was otherwise entirely domestic. Counsel for the claimant had undertaken no research into South African law. Had they done so, they would likely have discovered that South African courts themselves would decline jurisdiction on that case for want of a sufficient connection to South Africa, leaving the claimant without a forum to sue! A modest comparative inquiry might therefore have altered both the litigation strategy and the outcome.

South Africa has, in many respects, emerged as a leader in fostering comparative engagement. In this regard, particular credit is due to Professor Jan Neels for his work at the University of Johannesburg as Director of the Research Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries, which has trained and mentored a growing cohort of African scholars with strong comparative expertise. Elbalti and I have benefited greatly from collaboration with many of these scholars.

Importantly, the tools for comparative research are increasingly accessible. Open-access databases such as AfricanLII and SAFLII provide rich repositories of African jurisprudence that can and should be utilised more systematically by lawyers, judges, and scholars. Comparative engagement of this kind promotes intellectual independence rather than dependence. By examining a range of possible approaches before making doctrinal choices, African courts and legislatures can craft solutions that are both contextually appropriate and globally informed.

 

IV. COOPERATION AMONG AFRICAN SCHOLARS

A further area in which private international law in Africa can and should be strengthened is scholarly cooperation. The South African concept of Ubuntu aptly captures the spirit required: “I am because we are.” The development of African private international law cannot be the achievement of a single scholar or even a single jurisdiction. It must instead be the product of sustained collaboration across the continent. Collective intellectual effort, rather than isolated national initiatives, is essential to building a coherent and contextually responsive body of doctrine.

Encouragingly, some institutional foundations already exist. In addition to the important work facilitated by Neels at the University of Johannesburg, the Nigeria Group on Private International Law (NGPIL) has sought to promote dialogue and capacity building within Nigeria. The NGPIL, co-founded by Dr Onyoja Momoh, Dr Abubakri Yekini, Dr Chukwudi Ojiegbe, Dr Pontian Okoli and myself, brings together primarily UK-based scholars committed to strengthening Nigerian private international law through regular lectures, mentorship of early-career researchers, prize initiatives for students, and policy engagement aimed at encouraging the Nigerian government to recognise the strategic importance of private international law for economic development.

Nevertheless, more remains to be done. Efforts by Elbalti and me to establish a broader, continent-wide African private international law network have thus far proved difficult to sustain, particularly in terms of consistent participation. This highlights both the logistical challenges and the need for stronger institutional support structures.

Comparative experience demonstrates what is possible. Other regions have successfully institutionalised scholarly cooperation through bodies such as the Asian Private International Law Academy and the European Association of Private International Law, which provide regular forums for dialogue, research collaboration, and the exchange of ideas. A similar, genuinely pan-African platform would significantly advance the field. It is my hope that such an initiative will soon emerge and help consolidate the growing momentum behind African private international law.

 

VI. FUNDING AND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

For private international law in Africa to generate meaningful and lasting value, it requires sustained and significant funding. The blunt reality is that this responsibility must rest primarily with African stakeholders — including governments, businesses, professional bodies, and regional institutions.

By contrast, established dispute-resolution hubs such as England, New York, Singapore, and Switzerland derive substantial economic and reputational benefits from international commercial adjudication. With deliberate investment in modern, efficient, and credible private international law frameworks, African jurisdictions can retain similar revenue within the continent and reduce the persistent dominance of Global North fora in resolving African disputes.

Elbalti in his forthcoming paper on foreign law in Africa, has called for the establishment of a dedicated research centre for comparative law, akin to the Max Planck Institute or the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. He further suggests that Neel’s centre at the University of Johannesburg could play such a role by serving as a hub for sustained comparative research and doctrinal development.

If Africa is to compete effectively for international litigation and arbitration business, however, funding alone will not suffice. Serious institutional reform is indispensable. Infrastructure must be strengthened, judicial quality and consistency enhanced, delays reduced, training regularised, and corruption decisively addressed. Without these structural improvements, even the most sophisticated legal rules will struggle to attract confidence.

 

VI. CONCLUSION

Taken together, the reflections offered in this symposium challenge the persistent misconception that private international law in Africa is marginal or stagnant. The opposite is true. Across the continent, courts are engaging meaningfully with cross-border disputes, scholars are producing increasingly rich and context sensitive analyses, and new networks of cooperation are beginning to emerge. African private international law is no longer merely derivative of external models; rather, it is slowly but steadily becoming more self-aware, self-confident, and intellectually independent.

The path forward is clear. By grounding doctrine in African realities, embracing comparative learning without slipping into slavish imitation, strengthening scholarly collaboration, and investing seriously in funding and institutional capacity, African jurisdictions can build private international law systems that are both locally responsive and globally competitive. If these foundations continue to develop, Africa will not simply follow global trends but will increasingly help shape them.

Professor Ralf Michaels made a comment in the Asian context which I will quote and adapt to the African context by inserting “Africa” instead of the original use of “Asia”, “Africa is no longer object or subject but method, no longer one but many parts that are in dialogue with each other, no longer recipient or opponent of Western law and instead co-producer of modernity and of modern law. In this, the West has at least as much to learn from Africa as Africa did from the West. “

The energy, creativity, and commitment demonstrated by the contributors to this symposium — and by the wider community of African scholars and judges — give ample reason for optimism. The future of private international law in Africa is not only promising; it is bright.

 

Une société mère recourt aux capacités « d’autres entités », au sens de l’article 63, § 1, de la directive 2014/24/UE du 26 février 2014 lorsqu’elle entend utiliser, pour l’exécution d’un marché public, les capacités d’une filiale dont elle détient la totalité du capital. Une société mère qui entend recourir aux capacités d’une filiale dont elle détient la totalité du capital et dont l’un des gérants est également gérant de la société mère ne saurait être exclue d’une procédure d’appel d’offres au seul motif qu’elle n’a pas joint à son offre le DUME de cette filiale, une telle omission pouvant faire l’objet d’une régularisation pour autant qu’aucune disposition du droit national n’y fasse obstacle et que cette régularisation soit mise en œuvre dans le respect des principes d’égalité de traitement et de transparence.

en lire plus

Event type: Hybrid Date & time: 26 Feb 2026, 13:00 – 14:00 Speaker: Prof. Eugenio Hernández-Bretón, Universidad Central de Venezuela and Universidad Monteavila About the event: Over the past 50 years, Venezuela’s legal framework for the oil industry has been on a roller coaster. In 1975, the industry was nationalized, compensating private investors, but an “intentional” loophole allowed for private participation. In the mid-1990s, nationalization shifted to the “oil opening,” despite facing political opposition and legal battles, and allowing for extensive private participation in the oil sector as well as providing for arbitration in certain cases. By the early 2000s, a new business model emerged, denouncing the previous “phony nationalization” and leading to a “renationalization” that reserved primary activities (exploration and extraction) for the Venezuelan state, and terminating agreements with private investors. This resulted in numerous arbitration cases worldwide, with some awards ordering Venezuela to pay substantial sums, though few were enforced and none of the expropriations were compensated. In January 2026, as a result of recent events, a new hydrocarbons law was proposed, currently under parliamentary consideration, easing private participation in primary activities and explicitly allowing international arbitration, which had been demonized in the previous two decades. About the speaker: Eugenio Hernández-Bretón is tenured professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela and at Universidad Monteavila, both in Caracas. He holds the chairs of private international law and international civil procedure. He has also lectured on Arbitration and Comparative Law, among other courses in Venezuela and abroad, including at The Hague Academy of International Law. As a practicing lawyer he has participated in numerous international arbitration cases. Professor Hernández-Bretón earned a doctorate in laws from the University of Heidelberg, and master’s degrees from Columbia University and the University of Tubingen. He received his law degree from the Universidad Catolica Andres Bello in Caracas. Additionally, Professor Hernández-Bretón served as President of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences of Venezuela. Further information, including details on how to book a free ticket for the event, is available here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2026/feb/venezuelas-oil-between-rock-and-hard-arbitration-place.

Written by Matteo Mangone, PhD candidate in Private Law at the University of Turin

Protection of Forced Heirs and International Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Germany and Italy in Light of the Bundesgerichtshof Judgment of 29 June 2022

1. The German Approach

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), in its judgment of 29 June 2022, affirmed the following legal principle: the protection of mandatory heirs pertains to German public policy and, consequently, pursuant to Article 35 of EU Regulation No. 650/2012, it is possible to disregard the lex successionis designated under Article 22 of the same Regulation whenever its application does not concretely guarantee mandatory heirs a level of protection at least equivalent to that ensured by German inheritance law.

In the case at hand, the testator, originally from the United Kingdom, but habitually resident in Germany, by will dated 13 March 2015, designated English law as the law applicable to his succession and, as permitted under that law, disposed of his entire estate in favour of a third party, thereby excluding his adopted son. The latter lodged an application with the Regional Court of Cologne seeking information on the existence and scope of his father’s estate, asserting the rights granted to him under paragraphs 2303, 2314, 1754 and 1755 BGB. The court seized dismissed the application, but, on the claimant’s appeal, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, by judgment of 22 April 2021, setting aside the contested decision, ordered the appointed heir to draw up an inventory of the estate assets. The testamentary heir then appealed to the Federal Court of Justice, seeking the full dismissal of the claim.

The Federal Court of Justice, having preliminarily confirmed, on the basis of Articles 22 and 83 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, the validity of the professio iuris contained in the will, even though the will predated 17 August 2015, the date on which the Regulation became applicable, examined the compatibility of English succession law with German public policy. On the one hand, the 1975 Inheritance Act does not provide a forced share for descendants as such, regardless of their economic circumstances, but it merely allows the judge, at his discretion, to grant financially needy descendants a monetary provision against the testator’s will, provided that the latter was resident in England or Wales at the time of death. On the other hand, paragraph 2303 BGB guarantees to the descendant a forced share amounting to half the value of the share to which he would be entitled in intestate succession, regardless of any assessment of the heir’s financial situation; paragraph 2314 BGB grants an excluded mandatory heir the right to obtain information from the testamentary heir regarding the estate and to request the preparation of an inventory, the costs of which are borne by the estate. The Federal Court of Justice held that the provisions of the Inheritance Act contradict German inheritance law, which enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 6 and 14 of the Grundgesetz. These provisions reflect the principle that children’s participation in the estate of their parents is a necessary consequence of their familial bond and an expression of family solidarity, therefore, descendants must always be guaranteed a share of the deceased’s estate, regardless of their financial circumstances.

The Federal Court of Justice further referred to the reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 19 April 2005, which characterized the right of mandatory heirs to their forced share as an inalienable fundamental right, intended to ensure the continuation of the ideal and economic bond between the family’s assets and its members. Participation of the descendant in the ascendant’s estate is thus viewed as an expression of the reciprocal moral and material assistance obligations that underpin family life and which, pursuant to Articles 6 and 14 GG, constitute a constitutionally relevant limit to testamentary freedom. Having established that mandatory succession enjoys constitutional protection, the Court examined whether a violation of the rights granted to mandatory heirs under German law constitutes a breach of German public order and, to this end, it identified three different doctrinal approaches.

A first view holds that, even where the lex successionis does not provide forced shares, German law cannot apply, because the protection of mandatory heirs does not fall within the German notion of ordre public, and therefore Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 cannot be invoked to set aside the lex causae. An intermediate position states that, although the protection of mandatory heirs may in principle be linked to the fundamental principles forming part of the German ordre public, no concrete public order issue arises when, as in the present case, only economically self-sufficient mandatory heirs are left without protection. The prevailing view, followed by the judgment under comment, instead, holds that German public order is violated whenever the law applicable to the succession does not provide mandatory heirs with a level of protection at least equivalent to that offered by German law and, consequently, leads – on a case-by-case assessment – to an outcome incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 GG.

On the basis of these arguments, the Federal Court of Justice concluded that, in the present case, English succession law conflicts with German public policy, to the extent that the possibility of obtaining a monetary provision only where the mandatory heir is in situations of financial need – which, moreover, was inapplicable in the case at hand, given that the de cuius was resident and domiciled in Germany – is considered incompatible with the forced share guaranteed to descendants under German law. The Federal Court of Justice, therefore, applied Article 35 EuErbVO (Regulation EU No. 650/2012), which provides that “the application of a provision of the law of any State specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum.” The violation of public policy entails the non-application of the foreign rule. However, to ensure minimal interference between lex causae and lex fori, any resulting gap must, where possible, be filled by reference to the lex causae itself and, only where this is not possible, should be applied the lex fori instead. In this case, since English law does not guarantee the mandatory heir a forced share meeting the requirements of Articles 6 and 14 GG, the Federal Court of Justice deemed it necessary to apply German succession law.

Finally, the Federal Court of Justice supports its conclusion by stating that is precisely from Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 that it can be inferred that provisions on forced heirship pertain to public policy. Indeed, according to the German judges, given that Article 22 allows parties to choose the law of the State of their nationality as the law governing their succession, one of the functions of Article 35 is precisely to protect mandatory heirs who may be disadvantaged by the chosen law, thereby preventing the professio iuris from being used to frustrate the expectations of those entitled to a forced share.

2. The Italian Approach

The decision under examination makes it possible to compare the approach followed by the German Federal Court of Justice with the approach followed by the Italian Supreme Court and to highlight the relative nature of the notion of international public policy.

The possibility of tracing the protection of forced heirs back to the notion of international public policy has assumed particular relevance with the adoption of EU Regulation No. 650/2012 (I. Riva, Certificato successorio europeo. Tutele e vicende acquisitive, Napoli, 2017, 51 ss). Indeed, unlike Article 46 (2) of Law No. 218/1995, which excluded that a professio iuris made by an Italian testator in favour of the State of residence could prejudice the rights of forced heirs residing in Italy, Regulation No. 650/2012 does not provide that the rules on forced heirship constitute a limit to the applicability in Italy of a foreign law that does not provide for any protection of forced heirs or provides for a less favourable protection than the one offered under Italian law.

Consequently, only if Articles 536 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code are regarded as a fundamental and non-waivable principle of the Italian legal order (G. Perlingieri, G. Zarra, Ordine pubblico interno e internazionale tra caso concreto e sistema ordinamentale, Napoli, 2019; V. Barba, L’ordine pubblico internazionale, in Rass. dir. civ., 2018, 403 ss) and, therefore, are brought within the notion of international public policy, will it be possible to exclude, pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, the application in Italy of a foreign law that violates the rights that Italian law reserves to forced heirs. Since in Italy forced heirship does not enjoy constitutional protection, the resolution of the issue at hand requires, preliminarily, clarification as to whether the principles referable to international public policy may also be derived from provisions of ordinary legislation.

The notion of international public policy, in the Italian legal order, has undergone significant evolution: originally it was held that this limit was respected and, consequently, that the foreign law was applicable in Italy, only where, in relation to the same institution, it was compatible with Italian ordinary legislation (Cass., 5 dicembre 1969, n. 3881; Cass., 14 aprile 1980, n. 2414; Cass., 13 marzo 1984, n. 1680). Subsequently, as a result of the influence of supranational law, it began to be affirmed that international public policy corresponded to the fundamental values expressed by the Constitution and by international and supranational sources (Cass., 15 giugno 2017, n. 14878.). The most recent approach of the Court of Cassation is placed in an intermediate position between the two theses just mentioned, affirming that the notion of international public policy is derived from the Constitution, from international and supranational sources, but also from provisions of ordinary legislation, provided that they express fundamental values of the legal order (Cass., sez. un., 8 maggio 2019, n. 12193).

Having clarified, therefore, that ordinary legislation may also contribute to shaping the notion of international public policy, the point is to understand, as already anticipated, whether the codified rules concerning forced heirship implement a non-waivable principle expressing a value that identifies the Italian legal order.

Italian case-law, in numerous decisions (Cass., 30 giugno 2014, n. 14811; Cass., 24 giugno 1996, n. 5832; App. Milano, 4 dicembre 1992; Trib. Termini Imerese, 15 luglio 1965), contrary to what was maintained by the Bundesgerichtshof in the previously examined judgment, has affirmed that the protection of forced heirs does not pertain to international public policy since, although the protection of forced heirs is safeguarded by mandatory internal rules, its limitation does not entail a restriction of an inviolable human right. This is also argued in light of the fact that forced heirship, as stated, does not enjoy constitutional protection, neither with reference to Article 42 (4) nor with reference to Article 29 of the Constitution, with the consequence that the ordinary legislator could even abolish it. Consequently, in the Italian legal order, foreign rules providing a level of protection of forced heirs lower than the one guaranteed by Italian law may be applied (M.C. Gruppuso, Ordine pubblico e diritto delle successioni. Spunti in tema di divieto di discriminazione basata sul sesso, in Fenomeni migratori, famiglie cross border e questioni di diritto successorio. Una prospettiva di genere., I. Riva (ed.), Napoli, 2024, 256).

This solution, unlike the German one, is consistent with the approach of the Strasbourg Court which, with reference to forced heirship, has affirmed that it does not find protection under Article 8 ECHR, given the absence of any general and unconditional right of children to inherit a share of their parents’ assets (ECtHR, 15 February 2024, Colombier v. France), nor under Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol, since where the law applicable to the succession does not provide any protection of the rights of forced heirs, they are neither holders of an “existing” property right nor of a “legitimate expectation” (ECtHR, 15 February 2024, Jarre v. France), and consequently do not fall within the scope of protection guaranteed by that provision.

Even if the inclusion of forced heirship within the concept of international public policy has been excluded, a conflict between the latter and the law applicable to the succession may nonetheless arise where the foreign succession law violates other fundamental principles of the Italian legal order. Thus, for example, pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, a foreign law that infringes the principle of non-discrimination – which, also in light of recital No. 58 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, is almost unanimously regarded as falling within the notion of international public policy – may in no case be applied in Italy (M.M. Francisetti Brolin, Divieto di discriminazione, autonomia testamentaria e vicende mortis causa. Riflessioni preliminari, in Fenomeni migratori, famiglie cross border e questioni di diritto successorio. Una prospettiva di genere., I. Riva (ed.), Napoli, 2024, 325 observes a potential paradox in this context).

On 15 January 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on an application to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of the alleged partiality of two of the members of the arbitral tribunal. Background The case was concerned with the alleged expropriation by the Federation of Russia of real properties belonging to a […]