Droit international général

The European Commission published on 31 January 2025 its long-awaited report (COM(2025) 20 final) on the application of Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The report is based on Article 30 of the Regulation. The latter provision required the Commission to submit to the European Parliament, the Council and […]

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 January 2025, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention entered into force for Switzerland. At present, 36 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. More information is available here.

On 12 January 2025, the 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Cabo Verde. At present, 52 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 10 January 2025, representatives from 19 French-speaking African States, along with a delegate from the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, convened in Brussels for a meeting focused on exploring the benefits of membership in the HCCH and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. More information is available here.

On 24 January 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. During the meeting, participants discussed the future trajectory of the Working Party, taking into consideration the results of the questionnaire circulated in 2024 and the discussions held at the Malta V conference in October 2024. More information is available here.

 

Vacancies

Applications are now open for the position of Administrative Assistant. The deadline for the submission of applications is 22 February 2025. More information is available here.

Applications for a remote Communications and Outreach Internship will open next week. More information will soon be available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The fourth issue of 2024 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan, On the Track of the Law Applicable to Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law [in English]

Silenced, if not neglected, in (most) legislation and practice, the issue of determining the law applicable to preliminary questions is a constant feature in the systematics of private international law (“p.i.l.”). In legal doctrine, in a nutshell, the discussion develops along the traditional alternative techniques of (i) the independent connection (or disjunctive solution, based on recourse to the conflict rules of the forum even for preliminary questions), (ii) the dependent connection (to which both the so-called “joint” solution and the “absorption” solution are attributable, for which, respectively, the conflict rules of the lex causae or, directly, the substantive law of the latter are relevant), or, finally, (iii) the approach which emphasises the procedural dimension of preliminary questions and leads them back to the substantive law of the forum. In these pages, an attempt is made to ascertain whether, in the absence of EU rules explicitly intended to determine the law applicable to preliminary questions, there are nevertheless indications within the EU Regulations containing uniform conflict rules that make it possible to reconstruct, at least in selected cases, an inclination, if not adherence, of the European legislature to a specific technique for resolving preliminary questions. To this end, particular attention will be paid to the rules defining the material scope of application of the various EU p.il. Regulations in force and in the making, to those establishing the “scope” of the applicable law identified by these Regulations, and to those concerning the circulation (of points) of decisions on preliminary questions. This approach will concern both the preliminary questions the subject-matter of which falls ratione materiae within the scope of those Regulations and those that do not. On the assumption that at least in some areas, if not in all, the EU legislator does not take a position on the law applicable to preliminary questions, leaving this task to the law of the Member States, the compatibility of the traditional alternative techniques used in the law of the Member States (or in practice) with the general and sec-toral objectives of EU p.i.l. and with the obligation to safeguard its effectiveness will be assessed. Finally, some considerations will be made as to the appropriateness, relevance and extent of an initiative of the EU legislator on this topic, as well as the coordinates to be considered in such an exercise.

Sara Tonolo, Professor at the University of Padova, Luci e ombre: il diritto internazionale privato è strumento di contrasto allo sfruttamento della povertà o di legittimazione dell’ingiustizia? [Lights and Shadows: Is Private International Law a Tool for Combating the Exploitation of Poverty or Legitimising Injustice?; in Italian]

The relationship between private international law and poverty is complex and constantly evolving. It is a multifaceted issue in which private international law plays an ambivalent role: on the one hand, as a tool to combat the exploitation of poverty, and on the other, as a means of legitimizing injustice. The analysis of the role of private international law in countering the exploitation of poverty often intersects with other fields, such as immigration law, due to the relevance that private law institutions have on individuals’ status and their international mobility, which is significantly affected in the case of people in situations of poverty.

Lidia Sandrini, Professor at the University of Milan, La legge applicabile al lavoro mediante piattaforma digitale, tra armonizzazione materiale e norme di conflitto [The Law Applicable to Labour through a Digital Platform, between Material Harmonisation and Conflict of Law Rules; in Italian]

This article explores the phenomenon of platform work in the legal framework of the European Union from the methodological point of view of the relationship between substantive law and conflict-of-law rules. After a brief examination of the text of the Directive (EU) No. 2024/2831 “on improving working conditions in platform work”, aimed at identifying its overall rationale and the aspects that most directly reverberate effects on the EU conflict-of-law rules, the article investigates its interference with Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I), proposing an assessment of the solutions accepted from the point of view of the coherence between the two acts and their adequacy to their respective purposes.

This issue also comprises the following comments:

Stefano Dominelli, Associate Professor at the University of Genoa, A New Legal Status for the Environment and Animals, and Private International Law: Tertium Genus Non Datur? Some Thoughts on (the Need for) Eco-Centric Approaches in Conflict of Laws [in English]

Traditional continental approaches postulate a fundamental contraposition between (natural and legal) ‘persons’ – entitled to a diverse range of rights – and ‘things’. Conflict of laws is methodologically coherent with an anthropocentric understanding of the law. Yet, in some – limited – cases, components of the environment are granted a legal personality and some rights. Narratives for animals’ rights are emerging as well. This work wishes to contribute to current debates transposing in the field of conflict of laws reflections surrounding non-human legal capacity by addressing legal problems a national (Italian) court might face should a non-human-based entity start proceedings in Italy. The main issues explored are those related to the possibility of said entity to exist as an autonomous rights-holder and thus to start legal proceedings; to the search for the proper conflict-of-laws provisions as well as to the conceptual limits surrounding connecting factors developed for ‘humans’. Furthermore, public policy limits in the recognition of non-human-derived autonomous rights-holders will be explored. The investigation will conclude by highlighting the possible role of private international law in promoting societal and legal changes if foreign legal personality to the environment is recognised in the forum.

Sara Bernasconi, Researcher at the University of Milan, Il ruolo del diritto internazionale privato e processuale nell’attuazione del «pacchetto sui mercati e servizi digitali» (DMA&DSA) [The Role of Private International and Procedural Law in the Implementation of the ‘Digital Markets and Services Package’ (DMA&DSA); in Italian]

In line with the goal to achieve a fair and competitive economy, Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) and Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) – composing the so called Digital Services Act Package – aim at introducing a uniform legal framework for digital services provided in the Union, mainly protecting EU-based recipients, companies and the whole society from new risks and challenges stemming from new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and online platforms. Namely, the ambition of the abovementioned regulations is, on the one hand, to regulate, with an ex ante approach, platform activities so to reduce side-effects of the platform economy and therefore ensure contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and, on the other hand, to introduce EU uniform to grant a safe, predictable and trustworthy online environment for recipients (e.g. liability of providers of intermediary services for illegal contents and on obligations on transparency, online interface design and organization, online advertising). Despite expressly recognising the inherently cross-border nature of the Internet, which is generally used to provide digital services, DMA and DSA do not contain any private international law rule or provide for any provision on the relationship between the two sectors, but only state that their rules do not prejudice EU rules on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. Therefore, the present article will discuss the role of private international law rules in the daily application of DMA and DSA to cross-border situations. Accordingly, after having ascertained the so called extraterritorial effects of the new rule on digital markets and digital services and assessed their overriding mandatory nature, the author first investigates the role that conflict-of-laws provisions could possibly play in the application of DMA and DSA, by integrating such regimes, and then suggests a possible role also for rules on jurisdiction in a private enforcement perspective, highlighting potential scenarios and possible difficulties arising from the need to coordinate two different set of rules (i.e. substantive provisions on digital markets and digital services, on the one hand, and private international rules, on the other hand).

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Gabriella Venturini, former Professor at the University of Milan: INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, 150 ans de contributions au développement du droit international: Livre du sesquicentenaire de l’Institut de Droit international (1873-2023)/150 Years of Contributing to the Development of International Law: Sesquicentenary Book of the Institute of International Law (1873-2023), Justitia et Pace, edited by Kohen, van der Heijden, Paris, Editions A. Pedone, 2023, p. 1053.

 

The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law (Volume 20, Issue 3) is a special issue in honour of Professor Trevor C Hartley. It features an introduction, Professor Hartley’s bibliography and 11 articles: Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Grušić and Manuel Penades Fons, Introduction to the special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley, 501-508 […]

The next meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is scheduled to take place on 4-7 March 2025. According to the meeting’s draft agenda, the CGAP will deal, among other things, with the project on Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs), following last year’s meeting, […]

This post has been written by Michiel Poesen, lecturer in private international law at the University of Aberdeen. The author asks the question whether the territorial scope of the European AI Act and the Revised Product Liability Directive are consistent. Both instruments are intended to work in tandem. While the former sets out the obligations […]

The European Law Institute (ELI) Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project is organising its dissemination conference in Vienna on 14 February. At this all-day event (9.00 to 18.00) experts will present their country reports, comparative findings and policy recommendations, in order to discuss these with the audience.

The project investigated the phenomenon that family and succession law matters are increasingly submitted to other authorities than courts. It seeks a to establish a harmonised concept of “courts” in the EU, taking into account the CJEU case law.

More information and the registration form are available on the ELI website.

Monika Wałachowska (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń), Mariusz Fras (University of Silesia, Katowice) and Pierpaolo Marano (University of Malta) edited Insurance in Private International Law. Insurance and Reinsurance in Private International Law, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law with Springer. The book is part of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation. Structured into two […]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) will speak, in English, about the topic

“EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”

 

Multilateralism is in crisis. The role of world organisations in international politics and law-making is increasingly being questioned, as some key actors in the global arena no longer consider cooperation and collective action the best way to address common concerns. While multilateralism is not obsolete, let alone ‘dead’, as some claim, there is a growing consensus that current governance schemes need profound reconsideration. The EU, multilateralism’s staunchest defender, is especially exposed to these developments. While the evolution of multilateralism is set to affect all areas of international cooperation, each field has, arguably, its specificities. What features does cooperation in the field of private international law display in this regard? How can the crisis of multilateralism influence the way in which the EU deals with judicial cooperation, be it through its legislation, in the relations with its neighbours and at the global level? What structural changes are under way in global fora, such as the HCCH, and what is their impact on the EU’s own agenda and methods of work?

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

This post was written by Ottavia Cazzola, a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona Barcelona participating in Action Grant “Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (UniPAR)” (JUST-2023-JCOO; Project ID: 101137859). On 4 December 2024, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the recognition of a foreign judgment establishing filiation regarding the commissioning parents […]

A conference will take place on 14 February 2025 from 9 to 18 CET at the University of Vienna in connection with the project of the European Law Institute on Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters. The event will also be streamed online. With competences in family and succession matters increasingly […]

I have already reported on this blog that in 2024 the Law Commission of England and Wales published a call for evidence to help them identify the most challenging and prevalent issues of private international law that arise from the digital, online, and decentralised contexts in which modern digital assets and electronic trade documents are used. […]

In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from  “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.

Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:

Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.

A particularly valuable contribution is Buxbaum’s General Report. It identifies, inter alia, the following important trends: First, international law turns out as increasinlgy irrelevant as a direct constraint on the territorial reach of state law. Second, extraterritoriality to protect local interests is no longer a practice of dominant states alone, as it is more and more widespread. Thus, extraterritoriality can no longer be taken as a synonym for illegitimacy. Third, extraterritoriality more and more occurs to protect international interests or global goods, in particular in criminal law. Each of these findings is further explained and substantiated. The issue of private enforcement, an even more complex and fragmented area of “managing extraterritoriality” is dealt with (“involves the application of local procedural law which injects additional conflict into cases involving  foreign elements on matters including the extent of discovey, the availability of non-compensatory damages, and the use of representative actions, amongst others”) as well as topic of economic sanctions (“one of the most contentious forms of extraterritoriality”). Highly recommended!

Further information as well as a free sample of Part I: General Report will soon be available on the publisher’s website.

The table of contents includes the following contributions:

Part I: General Report

Extraterritoriality in Comparative Context: Defining the Scope of State Law in a Global Era

Hanna L. Buxbaum

Part II: National Reports

Australia

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Danielle Ireland-Piper

Brazil

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

André de Carvalho Ramos / Mariana Sebalhos Jorge

Canada

A Canadian Perspective

John C. Kleefeld

Québec

L’application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Frédérique Sabourin

People’s Republic of China

Extraterritoriality in China

Shiping Liao

Germany

Extraterritoriality in Germany

Sören Segger-Piening

Italy

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Alessandra Zanobetti

Japan

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Hisashi Harata

South Korea

The Extraterritorial Application of Korean Laws

Gyooho Lee

The Netherlands

The Extraterritorial Application of Dutch Statutes and Regulations

Lucas Roorda / Cedric Ryngaert / Timo Zandstra

Romania

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Sergiu Popovici

Taiwan

The Legislative Practice of Extraterritoriality in Statutes and Regulations of Taiwan

Rong-Chwan Chen

United Kingdom (UK)

The Extraterritoriality of Statutes and Regulations

Matteo Angelini

United States (USA)

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Franklin A. Gevurtz

Vietnam

L’Application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Quoc Chien Ngo / Duc Vinh Nguyen

Part III: Special Report

European Union

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Lena Hornkohl

Part IV: Appendix

Questionnaire

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Clifford Change v SocGen here. Soc Gen have unsuccessfully appealed, see Clifford Chance LLP & Anor v Societe Generale SA (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 14, with Phillips LJ not taking up much space to do so.

Viz the question whether Clifford Change LLP was bound, he holds [46] that the pleaded basis of the core of SocGen’s appeal on this aspect is that the Judge erred as a matter of interpretation (emphasis in the original) of the Framework Agreements, asserting that the Judge failed to give effect to the true intention of the parties (ditto) to those agreements that all Clifford Chance entities would be bound by their terms. [47] ‘However, it is entirely clear that the Judge did not decide the question of whether CC LLP was bound by the Framework Agreements as a matter of interpretation, but on the basis that SocGen did not have a good arguable case that CC LLP was, or became, a party to them.’

In other words SocGen’s appeal was held to be questioning the judge’s factual findings on authority to bind parties, findings which it was not allowed to challenge in the appeal. Entirely obiter, Phillips LJ does review those findings [57] ff, holding obiter [60] that SocGen has failed to demonstrate that that evaluation was plainly wrong.

On Clifford Chance Europe being bound, the grounds of appeal are as follows ([65-66]):

SocGen first challenges the Judge’s assumption that there is no substantive claim against CC Europe. SocGen points out that the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe asserted a claim on the basis that CC Europe was the “dominus litis”, a French law claim based on the concept that CC Europe had a supervisory role in relation to the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. SocGen further emphasises that the Judge did not have evidence of French law in that regard, and that in any event the pleadings in the French proceedings have not closed. SocGen contends that if CC Europe wishes to obtain a negative declaration in respect of its liability for such a claim, it is contractually obliged to do so in France, where proceedings on the same issue are already underway.

The second challenge is to the Judge’s concern that staying CC Europe’s claim in this jurisdiction would lead to a multiplicity and/or a fragmentation of proceedings. SocGen points out that there is already and will continue to be a multiplicity of proceedings, pointing out that (i) that position was caused by the respondents’ decision to seek negative declarations in England when proceedings were being brought in France; and (ii) such multiplicity was foreseeable by the parties when (contrary to SocGen’s case) CC LLP was implicitly retained separately and on different terms as to governing law than had been agreed between CC Europe and SocGen.

However Phillips LJ holds [67] that the Judge was right to find that there are strong reasons not to stay CC Europe’s claim in E&W:

There is no doubt that SocGen’s primary and substantive claim is against CC LLP, being the firm that was retained in relation to the Goldas Litigation and whose actions or inactions are now alleged to have been negligent. That is apparent from the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe, all the faults and negligence alleged being those in the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. The Judge determined that England is the appropriate forum for determination of that dispute. I accept that the Judge may have gone too far in concluding (at this stage and on the evidence before him) that SocGen does not have a genuine claim against CC Europe under French law. But even if there is some parasitic claim against CC Europe based on a “supervisory” role (SocGen having failed to adduce any evidence as to the existence of such a claim, let alone to explain its nature and effect), it is plainly desirable that it be determined in the same proceedings as the dispute between SocGen and CC LLP, namely, in these proceedings in the appropriate forum. There are strong reasons why CC Europe should not be debarred from seeking a declaration together with CC LLP in England, the effect of staying its claim being to require CC Europe to defend itself separately in France in respect of the very actions of CC LLP which will be the subject of these proceedings.

The first hearing in Soc Gen’s French proceedings took place in March 2024. [68] the Court of Appeal suggests a possible course of action for the French Proceedings, both on behalf of SocGen and the French court itself:

It is true that the French proceedings may continue notwithstanding the Judge’s order, and that may be a result of Clifford Chance entities having bifurcated their contractual relations with SocGen and having then initiated proceedings in this jurisdiction. But that is not a sufficient reason to fragment these proceedings before the plainly appropriate forum. There must be a realistic expectation that SocGen, and indeed the French court, will be reluctant to duplicate in France proceedings in England as to the alleged negligent conduct by English solicitors of Commercial Court proceedings in London.

Geert.

 

The fourth issue of 2024 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) is out. Along with recent case law and materials, it features five contributions. Francesca C. Villata, On the Track of the Law Applicable to Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law Silenced, if not neglected, in (most) legislation and practice, […]

Today the Latin American and Caribbean Journal of International Law (LACJIL) was launched at the auditorium of the Hague Academy of the Peace Palace. Among the speakers were Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo, president of the curatorium of the Hague Academy, and H.E. Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant, judge of the International Court of Justice. In addition, a very interesting panel was moderated by the Ambassador of Guatemala to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Ana Cristina Rodríguez Pineda. The panel was composed of the judge of the International Criminal Court H.E Althea Alexis-Windsor, the Ambassador of Colombia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Carolina Olarte Bácares, the Ambassador of Argentina to the Kingdom of the Netherlands H.E. Mario J. A. Oyarzábal and the president of ASADIP Prof. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm. The purpose of the panel was to discuss the recent legal developments in Latin America and the Caribbean, which included the ASADIP principles on transnational access to Justice (TRANSJUS).

This Journal will deal with international law, including the intersection between public and private international law, arbitration and dispute settlement. This is a great initiative that will provide a new forum to this region, which has 33 States and at least 4 official languages. As indicated during this event, this region is not only receptive to ideas and legal theories but has also an active role in the creation of international law.

The minds behind this groundbreaking idea are H.E. Mario Oyarzábal and Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo. A balanced team of editors both in terms of geography and gender will be part of this project. Many congratulations!

The language of this publication will be English. The first number is expected to be published in 2026.

 

 

 

The seminar The Lex fori processualis principle at the interface with EU judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters will take place on 24 January 2025 at the University of Milan. The seminar is organized as part of the 4EU+ Visiting Professorships Call, supported by the 4EU+ European University Alliance and co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Hosted by the Department of International, Legal, Historical, and Political Studies of the University of Milan, the seminar will open with welcoming addresses (Antonella Baldi and Marco Pedrazzi) and an introduction (Francesca C. Villata). Bartosz Wolodkiewicz (University of Warsaw), currently a 4EU+ Visiting Professor at the University of Milan, will present the findings of his new book on foreign procedural law in civil judicial proceedings (Obce prawo procesowe w sadowym postepowaniu cywilnym, Wolters Kluwer 2024). Following this, a round table with international scholars will explore various aspects of the lex fori processualis principle, covering topics such as historical perspectives (Carlos Santaló Goris), legal standing (Lenka Válková), burden of proof (Martino Zulberti), ne bis in idem in EU judicial cooperation (Marco Buzzoni), and res judicata in international commercial arbitration (Michele Grassi). The seminar will conclude with a discussion and closing remarks by Elena D’Alessandro (University of Turin).

For more information on the 4EU+ Alliance, follow:
Facebook: 4EUplusAlliance
Instagram: 4euplus_alliance
LinkedIn: 4EUplus

#4EUplusAlliance #EuropeanUniversities #GrowingInMotion

With thanks for the tip-off to Dr Lenka Válková, University of Milan

This post has been written by Yiannis Bazinas, Managing Partner, Bazinas Law Firm, Athens, Greece. The effect of insolvency proceedings on assets located in different jurisdictions is perhaps the most typical issue one encounters in cross-border insolvency cases. Still, under English law, the rather fundamental question of what effect a foreign insolvency has on assets […]

In the wake of the CJEU’s controversial judgment in H Limited (Case C-568/22), which appeared to open a wide backdoor into the European Area of Justice through an English enforcement judgments (surprisingly considered a ‘judgment’ in the sense of Art. 2(a), 39 Brussels Ia by the Court), international law firms had been quick to celebrate the creation of ‘a new enforcement mechanism‘ for non-EU judgments.

As the UK had already completed its withdrawal from the European Union when the decision was rendered, the specific mechanism that the Court seemed to have sanctioned was, of course, short-lived. But crafty judgment creditors may quickly have started to look elsewhere.

In a paper that has just been published in a special issue of the Journal of Private International Law dedicated to the work of Trevor Hartley, I try to identify the jurisdictions to which they might look.

In essence, I make two arguments:

First, I believe that the CJEU’s unfortunate decision can best be explained by the particular way in which foreign decision are enforced in England, i.e. through a new action on the judgment debt. Unlike continental exequatur proceedings, this action actually creates a new, enforceable domestic judgment, albeit through proceedings that closely resemble the former. It follows, I argue, that only judgments that result from a new action based on the judgment debt (rather than a mere request to confirm the enforceability of the foreign judgment) can be considered ‘judgments’ in the sense of Art. 2(a) and the Court’s decision H Limited (which also requires the decision to result from ‘adversarial proceedings’). Among many reasons, I find such a limited reading easier to reconcile with the Court’s earlier decision in Owens Bank (Case C-129/92) than a wider understanding of the decision.

Second, I believe that several European jurisdictions still offer enforcement mechanisms through which third-state judgments could realistically be transformed into European judgments (clearing both the requirement of creating a new judgment and resulting from adversarial proceedings). This applies to Ireland and Cyprus (but not Malta) as well as to the Netherlands (through its so-called verkapte exequatur) and Sweden.

The full paper is available here; a preprint can also be found on SSRN.

The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law features a special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley.

It provides as follows (with other research articles):

Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Introduction to the special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley”

Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Professor Trevor C Hartley’s Bibliography”

Jacco Bomhoff,  “Law made for man: Trevor Hartley and the making of a “modern approach” in European and private international law”

This article offers an overview and an interpretation of Trevor Hartley’s scholarship in the fields of private international law and EU law. It argues that Hartley’s work, beginning in the mid-1960s and spanning almost six decades, shows striking affinities with two broader outlooks and genres of legal discourse that have roots in this same period. These can be found, firstly, in the approach of senior English judges committed to “internationalising” the conflict of laws in the post-war era; and, secondly, in the so-called “legal process” current of scholarship that was especially influential in American law schools from the late 1950s onwards. Reading Hartley’s writings against these backgrounds can help illuminate, and perhaps to some small extent complicate, two labels he himself has given to his own work: of a “modern approach”, in which “law is made for man, not man for the law”.

Adrian Briggs, “What remains of the Brussels I Regulation in the English conflict of laws?”

The paper argues that whether we are concerned with retained or assimilated EU laws, or with rules of UK law made as close copies of EU laws, initial encouragement to interpret them as though they were still rules of EU law is coming to be, and should be, replaced by a cooler realisation that, as they no longer function in English law as cogs in a great European legal construction, they should be reassessed and repurposed to serve the purposes of domestic law. That will mean, for good or ill, that the tangible and intangible effect of the Brussels I Regulation on English law is less, and will come to be much less, than some had supposed.

Hans van Loon, “A view from the Hague”

This article highlights the crucial role of Trevor Hartley as the principal author of the Explanatory Report of the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. His exhaustive and crystal-clear explanations, for example on the Convention’s sophisticated rules on intellectual property and its relation to the Brussels I Regulation, are a lasting, indispensable help to its correct interpretation and application. They even shed light on some aspects of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The article also recalls Trevor Hartley’s essential role in the European Group for Private International Law, of which he has been an original member since 1991, most of the time as the only representative of a common-law legal system. Lastly, this contribution praises Trevor Hartley’s exceptional scholarly and pedagogical qualities, as evidenced notably by his widely used International Commercial Litigation.

Linda Silberman, “Trevor Hartley: champion for the Hague Choice of Court Convention”

This article, in tribute to Professor Trevor Hartley, discusses the debate between Gary Born and Professor Hartley about whether countries should ratify the Hague Choice of Court Convention. It also explains how that debate contributed to the conclusions reached by a New York City Bar Committee that was asked by the United States State Department for its views on ratification of the Convention.

 

Alex Mills, “Assessing the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005”

Almost twenty years after the adoption of the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, it may be an appropriate moment to reflect on and assess its legacy to date. This article, part of an issue paying tribute to the work of Professor Trevor Hartley, notes a number of different ways in which the legacy of the Convention may be evaluated, particularly appreciating the important role of the Explanatory Report co-authored by Professor Hartley. It argues that the Convention should not be judged merely based on the (admittedly limited, but perhaps growing) number of state parties, but also taking into account its wider influence in a number of different respects which may cast a more positive light on its achievement. These include the importance of the Convention to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the soft power of the Convention, and the role of the Convention in preserving the enforceability of UK judgments based on exclusive jurisdiction agreements in European Union Member States notwithstanding Brexit.

 

Andrew Dickinson, “Anti-suit injunctions – beyond comity”

This short article considers a theme emerging from Trevor Hartley’s writing on the topic of anti-suit injunctions – the significance of the existence of an international treaty that regulates the circumstances in which the States concerned may or must assert, and may or must decline, jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of the dispute. It examines, in particular, recent case law extending the reach of the European Union’s prohibition on anti-suit injunctions within the Brussels I regime, and the place of anti-suit injunctions within the framework of the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, “Iconic asymmetries of our times: “super Highways” and “jungle tracks” in transnational access to justice”

Drawing from Hartley’s “Multinational Corporations and the Third World: A Conflict-of-Laws Analysis” where he exposes the “unequal fight” between powerful multinational corporations and the people and communities in “the third world”, suggesting that this is partly a consequence of the deficits of legal infrastructures therein, this brief contribution dwells on the global systemic impact of channelling legal proceedings justiciable in the Global South (GS) to courts in the Global North (GN). It takes a private international law and sustainable development perspective and draws attention to the rhetoric and narratives of interdependence between the “super highways” and the “jungle tracks”- the illustrations used by Hartley. The main argument taken forward in this paper is that to realise private international law’s contribution to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions) responsivity is necessary in jurisdictional decision making in this context to enhance access to justice for all in the GS.

 

 

Grace Underhill, “Masterstroke or misguided? Assessing the proposed parallel proceedings solution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the likelihood of its acceptance in Australia”

A dispute litigated simultaneously in two different jurisdictions wastes time and resources, and risks inconsistent judgments. In March 2024, the Hague Convention on Private International Law’s Working Group on matters related to civil and commercial jurisdiction released its third iteration of draft provisions on parallel proceedings. These provisions represent the groundwork (and one chapter) of a long-awaited international instrument that addresses the assumption and declining of jurisdiction. This article canvasses the proposal’s successes and failures in securing the continuance of litigation in a single forum. To assist, this article selects the example of Australia, against whose judicial practice the compatibility of the Working Group’s proposal is tested. This exercise identifies fundamental inconsistencies between the two schemes. Those (potentially insurmountable) concerns for judicial practice, alongside bureaucratic stagnation in Australia’s policy-making appetite in this area must, it is argued, be balanced against the strong normative influences for Australia’s accession to such an agreement. This invites concern for the acceptance of the proposal, and the broader future of the Jurisdiction Project as a whole.

 

 

Tobias Lutzi, “What remains of H Limited? Recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments after Brexit: Journal of Private International Law”

In its controversial decision in H Limited, the Court of Justice held that an English confirmation judgment, transforming two Jordanian judgments into an English one, constituted a judgment in the sense of Articles 2(a) and 39 Brussels Ia and, as such, qualified for automatic recognition and enforcement in all Member States. The decision has been heavily criticized for seemingly violating the rule against double exequatur and potentially opening a backdoor into the European Area of Justice. As the particular door in question has already been closed with the UK’s completed withdrawal from the EU, though, crafty judgment creditors will have to look to other Member States. This paper will make an attempt at identifying those jurisdictions to which they might look. For this purpose, it will first argue that for an enforcement decision to fall under Chapter III of the Regulation, two requirements must be fulfilled: It must be a new decision on the judgment debt (rather than a mere declaration of enforceability) and it must have come out of adversarial proceedings. The paper will then look in more detail at a selection of jurisdictions that might fulfil these two requirements.