Flux des sites DIP

I. Introduction

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the MENA region can sometimes be challenging, as it often involves navigating complex legal frameworks (domestic law v. conventions). In addition, case law in this field has encountered difficulties in articulating the applicable guiding principles and is sometimes ambiguous, inconsistent, or even contradictory. Two recent decisions rendered by the Egyptian Supreme Court highlight this issue, alhoutgh – it must be admitted – the Court did provide some welcome clarifications. In any event, the cases reported here highlight some key issues in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment and offer valuable insights into the evolving landscape of this area of law in Egypt.

 

II. The Cases

 

1. Case 1: Ruling No. 12196 of 22 November 2024

a. Facts

The first case concerns the enforcement of a court-approved settlement deed (saqq) issued by a Saudi court. While the underlying facts of the case are not entirely clear, it appears that the parties involved seem to be Egyptian nationals. The original case, initiated in Saudi Arabia, concerns a claim for maintenance to be paid by the husband, ‘Y’ (defendant/respondent), to his wife and children, ‘Xs’ (plaintiffs/appellants). Before the Saudi court, the parties reached a settlement, which was recorded in a court-issued deed (saqq). Under this agreement, Y was obligated to pay a monthly alimony to Xs, with payment to be made by way of bank transfer to the wife’s account from November 2009. However, as Y failed to make the payment and returned to Egypt, Xs filed an action before Egyptian courts in 2019 to enforce the Saudi court’s settlement deed in Egypt (however, it remains unclear when Y stopped making the alimony payment or when he returned to Egypt).

The Court of first instance ruled in favor of Xs. However, the decision was overturned on appeal. Xs then appealed to the Supreme Court. According to Xs, the court of appeal refused to enforce the Saudi court’s settlement deed on the grounds that it violated Islamic sharia and the Constitution. This was based on the fact that Xs continued to reside in Saudi Arabia, the children had obtained university degrees and were employed—along with their mother—in Saudi Arabia, while Y had left the country after his retirement. Xs argued that, in doing so, the Court of Appeal went beyond a formal examination of the enforcement requirements and instead engaged into re-examining the substantive merits of the case.

 

b. The Court’s Ruling (summary):

The Supreme Court accepted the arguments made by Xs on the following grounds:

First the Supreme Court recalled the general principles governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Egypt. It made a clear distinction between the “recognition” of foreign judgments and their “enforcement” and determined their respective legal regimes.

Regarding the enforcement of the Saudi court-approved settlement deed, the Supreme Court considered that the deed in question was “a final judicial decision rendered by a competent judicial authority, in the presence of both parties and after they were given the opportunity to present their defense”. Accordingly, such a judgment should be given effect in accordance with the conditions and procedures specified by Egyptian law (Arts. 296~298 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)). If these conditions are met, Egyptian courts are required to declare the foreign judgment enforceable; otherwise the courts’ role is limited to rejecting enforcement, without reassessing the substantive reasoning of the foreign judgment. The Court concluded that Court of appeal had gone beyond its authority by failing to adhere to the above principles and instead re-examined the judgment’s reasoning.

 

2. Case 2: Ruling No. 2871 of 5 December 2024

a. Facts

The second case concerns the enforcement of a Kuwaiti money judgment. Here, too, the underlying facts of the case are not entirely clear. However, it appears that the dispute involved a Kuwaiti company, ‘X’ (plaintiff/respondent), and an Egyptian national ‘Y’ (defendant/appellant).

X initiated a lawsuit against Y in Kuwait, seeking the payment of a certain amount of money. Based on the arguments submitted by Y, it seems that by the time the lawsuit was filed, Y had already left Kuwait to return to Egypt. X prevailed in the Kuwaiti lawsuit and then sought to enforce the Kuwaiti judgment in Egypt.

The court of first instance ruled in favor of X and this decision was upheld on appeal. Y then appealed to the Egyptian Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, Y contested the lower courts’ rulings on the ground that he was not properly summoned in the original Kuwaiti case, as the notification was served to the Public Prosecution in Kuwait, despite his having already left Kuwait before the lawsuit was filed.

 

b. The Court’s Ruling (summary):

The Supreme Court accepted Y’s argument on the following grounds:

The Court first recalled that proper notification of the parties is a fundamental requirement for recognizing and enforcing a foreign judgment, that is explicitly stated in Article 298(2) of the Egyptian CCP and Article 27(3) of the 2017 Judicial Cooperation Agreement between Egypt and Kuwait. The Court also referred to Article 22 of the Egyptian Civil Code (ECC), according to which procedural matters (including service of process) are governed by the law of the country where the proceedings take place.

The Court then observed that, although Y had already left Kuwait before the lawsuit was filed, the Court of Appeal ruled that the service was valid under Kuwaiti law. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Kuwaiti CCP, a summons must be served to the defendant’s last known address, workplace, or residence, whether in Kuwait or abroad. This law also addresses situations where the defendant has or has not a known domicile abroad. Since Y had left Kuwait, the lower court should have verified whether the notification complied with these requirements. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had incorrectly relied on notification via the Kuwaiti Public Prosecution without confirming whether this method met the requirements established by Kuwaiti law for notifying defendants abroad.

 

III. Comments

The reading of the two cases leaves a mixed impression.

 

i. On the hand, one can appreciate the general framework outlined by the Supreme Court in both decisions. Notably, in the first case, the distinction between recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is noteworthy, as Egyptian courts have reached divergent conclusions on whether the “recognition” of foreign judgments can operate independently from their “enforcement” (for the situation in the UAE, which has a similar legal framework, see here).

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the principle of prohibition of révision au fond is also commendable. Although the principle is generally accepted in Egyptian law, what sets this case apart is that the Court did not merely affirm a general principle, but it actively overturned the appealed decision for violating it.

In the second case, the Court’s correct reference to the applicable convention is particularly noteworthy, given that it has failed to do so in some previous cases (for a general overview, see my previous post here).

 

ii. On the other hand, the Court’s approach in both cases raise certain questions, and even doubts.

a) Regarding the first case, one may question the applicability of the Court’s general stance to the specific issue addressed. It should be noted that the case concerned the enforcement of a court-approved settlement deed, which is the equivalent to a “judicial settlement” (sulh qadha’i – transaction judiciaire) under Egyptian law. While foreign judicial settlements can be declared enforceable in Egypt (Article 300 of the CCP), they do not constitute – contrary to the Court’s affirmation – “final judgments” per se, and therefore, do not carry res judicata effect, which – if recognized – would preclude any review of the “merits”. The Court’s reasoning appears difficult to justify given the longstanding position of Egyptian courts that judicial settlements lack res judicata effect and that the fact that they are approved by the court has no implication on their characterisation as “settlements” (and not decisions). This is because, while judicial settlements involve the intervention of the court, the court’s involvement is not based on its adjudicative function but rather serve a probative purpose. The Court’s failure to acknowledge this distinction is particularly striking in light of the established case law.

It is also regrettable that the Supreme Court failed to apply the correct legal framework. Indeed, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are contracting states of the 1983 Riyadh Convention, and the case falls within its scope of application. This is particularly relevant given that the 1983 Riyadh Convention explicitly prohibits any review of the merits (Article 32), and – unlike, for example, the 2019 HCCH judgments Convention (Article 11) – allows for the “recognition” of judicial settlements (Article 35).

Finally, doubts remain as to whether the Supreme Court was justified in overturning the appealed decision for allegedly engaging in a prohibited révision au fond, or whether the Court of Appeal’s approach can be considered a review of the merits at all. It should be noted that the settlement was reached in 2009, while the enforcement lawsuit was filed as decade later. Moreover, Y argued that his children had already graduated from university and were employed in Saudi Arabia. Taking this significant change of circumstances into account should not necessarily be regarded as a “review of the merits”, but rather as a legitimate consideration in assessing whether enforcement remains appropriate. Therefore, such a change in circumstances could reasonably justify at least a partial refusal to enforce the Saudi court-approved settlement deed.

 

b) With respect to the second case, the Supreme Court’s stance to overturn the appealed decision on the ground that the court of appeal failed to confirm whether the service complied with the requirements established by Kuwaiti law for notifying defendants has a number of drawbacks. Two main issues arise from this position:

(1) One might question how Egyptian judges could be more qualified than Kuwaiti judges in applying their own procedural rules, especially if it is admitted that Kuwaiti procedural law is applicable (article 22 of the ECC).

(2) The Court overlooked that the 2017 Egyptian-Kuwaiti Convention, which it explicitly cited, contains a chapter specifically dealing with service of process (Chapter II). Therefore, the validity of the service should not be evaluated based on Kuwaiti procedural law, as the Court declared, but rather in accordance with the rules established by the Convention, as the Supreme Court itself had previously ruled (see the cases cited in my previous post here) . Given that this Convention is in force, there was no need to refer to domestic law, as – according to Egyptian law – when an international convention is applicable, its provisions take precedence over conflicting national laws (Article 301 of the CCP), a principle that has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court itself on numerous occasions.

by Faidon Varesis, University of Cambridge

Background

The dispute in the UniCredit v. RusChem saga arose from bonds issued by UniCredit to guarantee performance under contracts for Russian construction projects, where RusChem, after terminating the contracts due to EU sanctions, initiated Russian proceedings for payment in breach of an English-law governed arbitration agreement that mandates resolution in Paris under ICC rules.

UniCredit sought an anti-suit injunction in the UK to stop these Russian proceedings, arguing that the arbitration clause must be enforced under English law. Teare J at first instance held that the English court lacked jurisdiction—finding that the arbitration agreements were governed by French substantive rules and that England was not the appropriate forum—whereas the Court of Appeal reversed this decision by granting a final anti-suit injunction requiring RCA to terminate its Russian proceedings.

The November 2024 UK Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court addressed the sole issue of whether the English court had jurisdiction over UniCredit’s claim by examining (i) whether the arbitration agreements in the bonds were governed by English law (the Governing Law issue) and (ii) whether England and Wales was the proper place to bring the claim (the Proper Place issue). Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, reaffirming that the arbitration clause is governed by English law and that England is the proper forum to enforce the parties’ agreement, thereby confirming the English courts’ willingness to restrain foreign proceedings brought in breach of such arbitration agreements.

Importantly for the present note, the Supreme Court, in the last paragraphs of the November 2024 decision, also considered (as part of its discretion) the availability of similar relief from the arbitral tribunal or the French courts (as courts of the seat). The Court explained that arbitration awards lack the coercive force of court orders—they merely create contractual obligations without enforcement powers such as contempt sanctions—so relying on arbitration to restrain RusChem would be ineffective. Evidence at trial showed that French courts would not have the authority to enforce any arbitral order preventing RusChem from pursuing Russian proceedings. Furthermore, such an award would also be unenforceable in Russia. Consequently, the Court concluded that neither the French courts nor arbitration proceedings would provide an effective remedy, and that England and Wales is the proper forum to enforce UniCredit’s contractual rights through an anti-suit injunction.

Parallel Proceedings in Russia and the Grant of an Anti Anti-Suit Injunction

The English anti-suit injunction was instigated by proceedings brought by RusChem against UniCredit in the Russian courts, seeking €448 million under the bonds. The jurisdiction of the Russian courts was established despite the French-seated arbitration clause, as Russia had enacted a law that confers exclusive jurisdiction on Russian Courts over disputes arising from foreign sanctions. In November 2023, the Russian courts dismissed UniCredit’s application to dismiss the claim, ruling that the dispute falls under the exclusive competence of the Russian courts, though the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the anti-suit proceedings in England.

Later in 2024, RusChem was successful in getting the Russian courts to seize assets, accounts, and property, as well as shares in two subsidiaries of UniCredit in Russia amounting to €462 million.

RusChem had initially committed to being bound by the final injunctive relief of the English court and to respecting its orders, but following the UK Supreme Court’s decision of November 2024, RusChem secured a ruling from the Russian courts on 28 December 2024. This ruling—effectively an anti anti-suit order—restricted UniCredit from initiating arbitrations or court proceedings against RusChem over the bonds outside the Russian courts, and prevented any ongoing proceedings or judgment enforcement outside of Russia, while also mandating that UniCredit take all necessary steps to cancel the effects of the English court’s order within two weeks of the ruling coming into force, failing which UniCredit would have faced a court-imposed penalty of €250 million.

The February 2025 Court of Appeals Decision

UniCredit applied to the English courts, seeking a variation of the order it had finally secured just a few months earlier. The Court of Appeal considered that UniCredit faced a real risk of incurring a substantial financial penalty if the English injunction remained in force, given the Russian court’s ruling that could impose a €250 million penalty. In addition, the Court of Appeal examined whether UniCredit had been effectively coerced into making the application by RCA’s actions in obtaining a ruling in Russia, and whether that coercion should weigh against granting the application. The Court concluded that, while the declaratory parts affirming the English court’s jurisdiction should remain, the injunctive components should be varied. In fact, the Court of Appeals was very cautious in saying in the last paragraph of the decision [44]: ‘I have decided that I would vary, not discharge, the CA’s Order. It seems to me that it would be unsatisfactory to discharge the parts of the order that reflect the decisions on jurisdiction made by the Court of Appeal and the UKSC. There is no need to do so. Under English law, this court did indeed have jurisdiction to determine what it determined and its final order reflecting that decision must stand’.

Comment

This case underscores a critical point: the effectiveness of an anti-suit injunction can shift dramatically depending on the defendant’s asset base and geographic ties. When the Supreme Court decided to confirm the English courts’ jurisdiction in such cases, it considered whether an equivalent remedy from French courts or the arbitral tribunal would be effective (and ruled them ineffective), but it did not consider the effectiveness of the English remedy itself.

Anti-suit injunctions from English courts have long been hailed as a powerful weapon. However, where the defendant has no assets or connections with England, the practical effectiveness—the “bite”—of such remedies is extremely limited, rendering the injunction “toothless.” By contrast, when the English applicant has assets in another jurisdiction—especially one where local courts, such as the Russian courts, are prepared to issue countervailing anti anti-suit injunctions backed by substantial penalties—the balance can swiftly tilt, obliging the applicant to seek the revocation of the order it obtained in the first place.

In a broader sense, this dynamic highlights the interplay between different jurisdictions’ willingness to grant anti-suit injunctions, potentially leading to a spiralling effect of competing orders—so-called “injunction wars”—that impose significant strategic and economic burdens on litigants. Ultimately, it is clear that the location of assets and the readiness of local courts to enforce relief with penalties determines just how strong the bite of an anti-suit injunction truly is.

The upcoming edition of the Ravenna Summer School on Cross-Border Litigation and International Arbitration will be held between 13-19 July 2025 in Ravenna (Italy), hosted by the University of Bologna. The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who wish to develop a better knowledge of international […]

A quick note on Hugues Falys, FIAN, Greenpeace and Ligue des droits humains v Total Energies SE (domiciled at France), in which submissions are being exchanged and hearings are scheduled for 19 and 26 November 2025. A summary of the claim is reported here. In essence, the Belgian Farmer is seeking damages for harm done to the farming business due to climate change, and an injunction seeking to prohibit Total form further investing in fossil fuel operations.

The case has been lodged with the commercial court at  Doornik /Tournai, one assumes the territorially relevant court on argued locus damni grounds. Of interest is that an appeal will be heard at the Court of Appeal at Bergen /Mons, which has a specialised environmental chamber.

It is the kind of claim in which one can imagine the corporate defendant trying to outgun the claimant on the private international law issues, here: locus damni /locus delicti commissi jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia, and applicable law under lex ecologia – Article 7 Rome II, cq impact of Article 4 Rome II.

Re the jurisdictional issues see likely Total use of an argument which I flagged here: viz an emerging corporate strategy to deflect A7(2) forum damni jurisdiction, the argument that a causal link between the damage and the alleged shortcoming of the defendant needs to be shown in the claim form itself for it to ground jurisdiction.

Geert.

 

On 12 December 2024 the University of Milan hosted a conference on The Enforcement of the ESG Principles in a Transnational Dimension: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, under the scientific direction of Stefania Bariatti, Luigi Fumagalli, Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, Michele Grassi, Anna Liebman.

I was asked to address jurisdictional issues for environmental law claims, and promised to upload my speaking notes the next day. Err, that turned out to be a bit later for I entirely forgot – and have now remembered. Here are the notes.

Geert.

 

The EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law has been working for almost four years on a draft instrument on the applicable law to property rights in tangible assets. It has held regular meetings, including six in person meetings in various parts of Europe. The Working Group will next meet in Antwerp in May 2025 […]

The Spanish publisher Marcial Pons has published in 2024 a collection of essays edited by Maria Font-Mas (Universitat Rovira i Virgili) titled Private International Law on Rights in rem in the European Union. Some of the contributions are in Spanish, others in English. Free online access to the whole book is provided here. The essays collected […]

Katharina Boele-Woelki (Bucerius Law School, Hamburg), has posted The next step in the unification of private international law in Europe: should it be codification? on SSRN. The abstract of the paper, a homage to Symeon Symeonides, reads as follows. This contribution reflects on some issues of European private international law. More than a quarter of a […]

The first issue of the Journal du droit international (JDI, Clunet) for 2025 has been released. It contains one article and several case notes relating to private international law issues. In her contribution, Sandrine Clavel (University of Paris-Saclay) analyses the recently adopted Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (“CS3D”) through the lens of European economic […]

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert, Assistant Professor of Private International Law at Maastricht University. It builds on an article titled ‘The Anti-SLAPP Directive in the Context of EU and Dutch Private International Law: Improvements and (Remaining) Challenges to Protect SLAPP targets’, featured in issued 4 of 2024 of Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht. Apart from providing […]

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 second 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 […]

Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property Agenda

2025.2.28, UTC 8:00 – 12:15 (London Time)

 

 8:00 – 8:05 Opening Remarks Zheng Tang professor of Law, editor in chief, Chinese Journal of Transnational Law; Associate Dean, Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance 8:05 – 8:45 Keynote Address Christa Roodt Senior Lecturer of History of Art, University of Glasgow Zhengxin Huo Professor of Law, China University of Political Science and Law Panel 1: Legal Mechanisms of Cross-Border Cultural Property Protection 8:45 – 9:00 Elena Moustaira The contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the cross-border protection of Indigenous cultural heritage 9:00 – 9:15 Yehya Badr Restitution of stolen foreign cultural property and hurdles in choice of law 9:15 – 9:30 Maggie Fleming Cacot Forfeiture and freezing orders in transborder cultural property litigation 9:30 – 9:50 Commentary and Discussion Panel 2: Regional Practices and Challenges in Cultural Property Restitution 9:50 – 10:05 Andrzej’s Jakubowski Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland 10:05 – 10:20 Miroslaw Michal Sadowski From freedom to restitution (with special focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone community) 10:20 – 10:35 Ekin Omeroglu The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Turkiye 10:35 – 10:50 Ruida Chen Restitution of cultural property in China: In search of a new paradigm for cross-border cultural property claims 10:50 – 11:10 Commentary and Discussion Panel 3: Looking to the Past and the Future 11:10 – 11:25 Dabbie De Girolamo The Relevance of ADR for transnational cultural property disputes: A Survey and Analysis of China’s experience 11:25 – 11:40 Andreas Giorgallis Restitution of cultural objects unethically acquired during the colonial era: The intersection of Public and Private International Law 11:40 – 11:55 Evelien Campfens Evolving Legal Models of Restitution 11:55 – 12:15 Commentary and Discussion

Join Zoom Meeting:

https://zoom.us/j/87424891864?pwd=8rHX72dmzi7FCDWWnm7F2n1OLIOFaC.1

Meeting ID: 874 2489 1864 Password: 574150

The second issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:

Tommaso dalla Massara (Professor at Università Roma Tre), Per un’ermeneutica della certezza nel processo civile romano: tra regula iuris e determinazione pecuniaria (For a Hermeneutics of Certainty in the Roman Civil Process: Between Regula Iuris and Pecuniary Determination; in Italian).

This contribution offers a reflection on procedural certainty, starting from the Roman classical process. In particular, crucial is the idea that, in this procedural system, certainty is to be related to the rule of ‘condemnatio pecuniaria’. Thus, certainty is translated into the determinacy of the pecuniary sentence. What emerges is a peculiar way of understanding judicial activity, which is characterised by the alternativeness between the groundedness and groundlessness of the claim (si paret/si non paret oriented to a certum), as opposed to the hypothesis in which the assessment is left entirely to the judge.

Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), L’acquisizione di informazioni e «prove» nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava (The Acquisition of Information and ‘Evidence’ in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle; in Italian).

The recent reform of ‘negoziazione assistita’ (attorney-assisted negotiation procedure) introduces within the procedure a so-called out-of-court instruction, through the acquisition of statements from third parties on facts relevant to the subject of the dispute and the request to the other party to declare in writing the truth of facts unfavorable and favorable to the requesting party. This is a striking innovation that opens up new scenarios in the establishment of facts also for the purpose of the possible future judgment in case of an unsuccessful negotiation. The absolute protagonists of the proceedings are the attorneys, on the unfailing prerequisite of the duties of good faith and loyalty incumbent on them to amicably resolve their clients’ dispute. The main purpose of the new rules is to enable them to acquire all the information that can lead, in the best way, to the settlement of the dispute.

Antonio Maria Marzocco (Associate Professor at the Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli), Tentativi obbligatori e facoltativi di conciliazione nell’ecosistema digitale regolato dall’AGCom (Mandatory and Optional Attempts at Conciliation in the Digital Ecosystem Regulated by AGCom; in Italian).

Technological developments have broadened the competences of the Communications Authority (AGCom) and the extent of its conciliatory function. This function is no longer limited to the electronic communications sector (in particular for disputes between users and operators), but extends to other sectors of the digital ecosystem, such as audiovisual media services and video-sharing platforms. The essay identifies the main sources that have assigned AGCom the task of regulating procedures for extrajudicial dispute resolution: the law establishing the AGCom (Law No. 249 of 1997), the electronic communications code (CCE) and the consolidated text on audiovisual media services (TUSMA). The Author points out that these sources represent the basis of several mandatory or voluntary conciliation attempts. Their regulatory discipline is converging in parallel with the technological convergence among the various sectors of the digital ecosystem.

Alessandro Fabbi (Associate Professor at the University of Catania), Contratto e processo nella nomina congiunta dell’esperto ex art. 473 bis.26 c.p.c. (Contract and Process for the Joint Appointment of an Expert Pursuant to Art. 473 bis (26)of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure; in Italian).

The article analyses the newly introduced joint-appointed expert, in the context of the proceedings for families and individuals, referred to in article 47 -bis(26) of the Italian Civil Procedure Code. The contribution deals with its operational aspects, particularly centered on the core of the agreement, as well as with – formulating proposals on – the dubious nature of the tool at issue, placed in the dynamical context of the civil process, but undoubtedly representing a private contract between the parties and the expert.

 

Observatory on Legislation and Regulations

Mauro Bove (Professor at the University of Perugia), La domanda di mediazione (The Petition for Mediation; in Italian).

The Author examines the content of the mediation request, comparing it with the content of the judicial application, to identify structural differences and differences in their legal ‘reading’. Starting from the exclusion of the paradigm of invalidity from the field of mediation, practical implications are drawn taking into account the different points of view that the crisis of cooperation entails: while mediation looks at the human relationship, seeking to mend its breakdown, judicial proceedings focus on the infringement of a substantive right and the respective ascertainment.

Edoardo Borselli (Research Fellow at the University of Florence), Mediazione e processo civile riformato: quando il giudice dispone l’invio? (Mediation and the Reformed Civil Procedure: When Does the Judge Order the Case to Be Sent to Mediation?; in Italian).

This article investigates the time frames in which a judge can order the referral to mediation, both when the parties have not satisfied the procedural condition required by law and when the judge intends to use court-ordered mediation. In particular, the article focuses on the possibility that such a referral takes place, within the procedure introduced by the Cartabia reform and amended by the Law No 164/2024, following the preliminary checks under Article 171-bis of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, when the judge finds that the procedural condition required by law has not been satisfied. The conclusion supports the admissibility of such a procedural approach, promoting a systematic and teleological interpretation of the introductory phase of the trial, in line with the decision No 96/2024 of the Constitutional Court, prevailing doctrinal orientations, and practices developed within judicial offices. Furthermore, the article analyzes the relationship between referral to mediation and opposition proceedings to injunction orders, and it concludes by discussing the stay of the trial during the extrajudicial process.

 

Observatory on Practices

Silvana Dalla Bontà (Professor at the University of Trento), Silvia Toniolo (Coordinator of German language courses at the University of Trento Language Centre) and Federica Simonelli (Accredited mediator at the Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano, JAMS Diversity Fellow), La mediazione come strumento di integrazione. Potenzialità e sfide dell’insegnamento interdisciplinare e bilingue della mediazione (Mediation as an Integration Tool. Potential and Challenges of Interdisciplinary and Bilingual Mediation Teaching; in Italian).

The paper focuses on the ADR teaching experience hosted at the Istituto di Diritto Italiano/Institut für Italienisches Recht (Institute for Italian Law) of the Universität Innsbruck. Offered in a unique context – i.e, in the context of the European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino, a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation with European legal personality – the course on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism, with a specific focus on Mediation, is bilingual (Italian and German). By adopting an interdisciplinary and practice-oriented approach, the two teachers of the course – one, a full professor of Civil Procedure; the other, a translator in Italian/German and expert in cross-culture communication – walked students through the complexity conflict management with a view to reaching a sustainable solution via mutual agreement. Against this background, on the one hand, knowledge of effective communication fundamentals and soft skills has proven essential to deal with multi-linguistic and multi-cultural disputes. On the other hand, mediation has proven to be an effective method to foster cohesion and resilience in a society which is increasingly complex, multi-faceted and, thus, challenging.

Alessandro Triolo (Doctoral Candidate at the Università di Roma Tor Vergata), Tra decisione algoritmica e mediazione robotica (Between Algorithmic Decision and Robotic Mediation; in Italian).

By examining the theoretical applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in civil justice, in the two concepts of ‘artificially intelligent judgment’ and ‘intelligent organisation of judgment’, this paper assesses AI’s applicability to the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Starting with the hypothesis of a ‘robot mediator’ capable of facilitating conflict management among parties, the analysis leads to the irreconcilability of such a model with the typical function of mediation, thus highlighting the need for the re-humanization of dispute resolution methods. The potential extension of AI systems could be applied to evaluation tools, which, although currently underutilized in the Italian legal system, might – in a de iure condendo perspective – encourage parties to settle disputes extrajudicially based on a forecast of the dispute’s outcome, indirectly contributing to the deflation of litigation.

 

Conference Proceedings

Matteo Lupano (Associate Professor at the University of Turin), Il futuro della mediazione familiare (The Future of Family Mediation; in Italian).

This paper draws on the introductory remarks to the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024. The contribution highlights the effectiveness of family mediation in facilitating the consensual resolution of conflicts, particularly in cases of separation and divorce, by reducing conflict and safeguarding minors. The Author summarizes the key aspects of the debate on the mandatory nature of the process, emphasizing the need for proper training for lawyers and mediators and for ensuring the quality of the service.

Marc Juston (Magistrat honoraire; formateur et médiateur inscrit auprès des Cours d’Appel de Nîmes, Grenoble et Aix en Provence), La mediazione familiare in Francia: sullo slancio della giustizia del XXI secolo (Family Mediation in France: On the Momentum of 21st Century Justice; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, the paper analyses the importance and use of family mediation in France as part of 21st-century justice. It outlines the regulatory foundations of mediation, its voluntary nature, and, in some cases, its encouragement by the judge or obligatory implementation. The Author highlights the role of the Juge aux Affaires Familiales and the effectiveness of mediation in resolving family conflicts, reducing litigation, and promoting the well-being of children. The adoption of mediation is proposed as a fundamental step toward a more humane judicial system, focused on empowering the parties and promoting co-parenting.

Filippo Danovi (Professor at the University Milano Bicocca), Il presente e il futuro della mediazione familiare in Italia (The Present and Future of Family Mediation in Italy; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, the paper explores the present and future of family mediation in Italy, contextualising it within the framework of consensual justice. Following a legal analysis, including the measures introduced by the Cartabia reform, the Author highlights the role of mediation in resolving family disputes through interdisciplinary and dialogic approaches aimed at rebuilding strained relationships. The discussion delves into the limitations of mediation, such as its inadequacy in cases of domestic violence, and outlines prospects, emphasizing the need for structured training to ensure the effectiveness of this tool in family disputes.

Isabella Buzzi (Researcher in Psychology, Pedagogist, Consultant and Family Mediator), La mediazione familiare, come è diventata una professione (How Family Mediation Became a Profession; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia Reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, this paper traces family mediation’s evolution as a profession in Italy. It analyses historical roots and international influences, particularly from North America and Europe. It highlights the role of key regulations in defining training standards, ethics, and skills. The Author emphasizes its complexity, which requires legal knowledge, psychological skills, and practical abilities, as well as the importance of integrated and interdisciplinary training programs, so as to ensure the needed professional support to families, in a mindful and respectful management of their own conflicts.

 

Chronicles

Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca (Professor at the Alma Mater University of Bologna), Digitalisation of ADR: A New Category?

The paper analyses the impact of digitisation on alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It starts from the pre-existing fragmentation of the ADR category, highlighting the differences between autonomous and heteronomous methods. The advent of digital, initially seen as a category in its own right (ODR), is now seen as a cross-cutting element that modifies the use of ADR tools, but does not change their essence. New forms of ADR are then explored, such as blockchain-based ‘On-chain Dispute Resolution’, with its advantages and disadvantages, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the efficiency of ADR processes, while raising ethical and security issues. Finally, it concludes by reaffirming the importance of the human factor (‘Human Dispute Resolution’ or HDR) in dispute resolution, despite technological advancement.

Roberta Tiscini (Professor at the Università di Roma Sapienza), La dialettica verità/certezza alla prova della negozialità nel processo (The Truth/Certainty Dialectic Put to the Test of Negotiability in the Process; in Italian).

The Author addresses the objectives of the trial, in the perspective of the search for material truth, according to new (applicative and normative) experiences that increasingly place the negotiation in the dynamics of the trial itself. This happens not only in the framework of alternative dispute resolutions, but also through experiences, such as those of contractualised justice or differentiated jurisdictional protection, contexts in which it is not so much the achievement of the truth that constitutes the ultimate goal, but the pacification of the contenders.

 

Finally, this issue features the following Book Reviews

A book review by Antonia Menghini (Associate Professor at the University of Trento): Valentina BONINI (a cura di), La giustizia riparativa (d.lgs. n. 150/2022 – d.lgs. n. 31/2024), Giappichelli, Torino, 2024, I-XX, 1-335.

A book review by Rachele Beretta (Ph.D): William URY, Possible: How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict, Harper Business, New York, 2024, 1-368.

A book review by Pietro Ortolani (Professor at Radboud University): Elena D’ALESSANDRO and Davide CASTAGNO, Handbook on cross-border litigation, Wolters Kluwer, Milano, 2024, I-XXV 1-238.

Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen) has shared the following call for participants with us:

Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States

Project description:

The Rome I Regulation plays a crucial role in determining the applicable law in cross-border consumer contracts within the European Union. Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation allows parties to choose the governing law while ensuring that consumers do not lose the protection granted by mandatory provisions of the law that would apply in the absence of such a choice. Despite its significance, the interpretation of this provision varies across Member States, leading to questions about its practical coherence and effectiveness.

Existing research on Dutch and German law suggests diverging approaches in legal scholarship. In the Netherlands, academic literature strongly relies on the protection principle approach, which means that the non-derogable rules of the consumer’s habitual place of residence apply at all times – regardless of their content. German scholars, by contrast, follow the preferential law approach that requires a comparison between the chosen law and the consumer’s home law to determine the most protective outcome. The non-derogable rules of the consumer’s habitual place of residence only apply in so far as they protect the consumer better than the chosen law. However, it remains unclear whether these trends are unique to these jurisdictions or reflect broader tendencies across the EU.

This preliminary phase of a potentially larger study aims to map how Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation is understood in academic literature across all EU Member States. Through a structured review of national legal scholarship, it will identify prevailing interpretations, key theoretical arguments, and the extent to which doctrinal debates align or diverge across jurisdictions. The main research questions include:

• How do scholars across the EU interpret Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation?
• Is there a dominant academic preference for the preferential law approach, the protection principle approach, or another framework?

If the findings indicate that Member States follow different approaches, the study will be expanded to include an in-depth examination of national case law.

Interested in participating?

Legal scholars across the EU are invited to contribute from their respective jurisdictions. The results of this preliminary phase will provide a foundation for potential further collaborative research which may then result in a joint publication and/or workshop examining the role and future of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation.

At this preliminary phase of the study, actual time commitments are limited. Participants will be provided a questionnaire (click here) with three questions:

• How does national scholarship interpret Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation?
• Please list at least five national scholarly works supporting your previous answer.
• Do divergent scholarly opinions exist? If so, please explain and provide references.

Please contact the coordinator of this study directly to express interest in participating (see below).

Academic outcomes

As mentioned previously, this preliminary phase merely aims at mapping the current national legal landscape around Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation. If the submitted results differ to an appreciable extent, the goal is to work on a joint report on all EU MS, including a review of national literature and national case law.

Contact and coordination

This study is coordinated by Benedikt Schmitz.

If you have any questions about the study or want to participate by providing a country report, please contact him directly.

• Benedikt Schmitz, LL.M., Assistant Professor of Private International Law, University of Groningen
• Email address: schmitz@rug.nl

We are happy to share the following call for papers by the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JMLI):

The JLMI invites contributions on the subject of “Regulatory Initiatives on Ecodesign and Sustainable Products”, to explore the legal frameworks, challenges, and opportunities related to ecodesign, with the goal of fostering an in-depth understanding of how it can influence economic growth and how it will be integrated in the current legal framework. This Special Section invites scholarly contributions examining the role of emerging sustainability initiatives, introducing new sustainability requirements and responsibilities, particularly in the EU regulatory framework.

The concept of ecodesign is defined by Regulation 1781/2024 as “the integration of environmental sustainability considerations into the characteristics of a product and the processes taking place throughout the product’s value chain”.

Regulation 1781/2024 is one of the pillars of the new European legislation to improve the sustainability of the economy and is part of the EU Strategy for sustainable products. It includes product policy principles and provides a Digital Product Passport, performance and information requirements, producer responsibility for sustainability with impact assessment, mandatory sustainability labelling and technical standards for sustainability. It complements the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which impose transparency and due diligence obligations on corporate activities.

We welcome original articles that provide insights into the legal dimensions of ecodesign and explore, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• Contracts and Ecodesign: how ecodesign interferes with the creation and supply of products and regulatory challenges connected to this transformation.
• Legal Design and Legal Tech: analysis of the new Digital Product Passport and its role in the governance of information duties and supply chains.
• Sustainable Supply Chains and Global Trade: legal challenges in ensuring that ecodesign principles are upheld throughout global supply chains, particularly in light of international trade laws and cross-border environmental regulations.
• Product Liability and Environmental Impact: legal perspectives on product liability in the context of ecodesign, focusing on the implications of design decisions that determine a product’s environmental impact.
• Consumer Protection and Ecodesign: balance between consumer rights, safety, and environmental responsibility. How consumer protection laws can be adapted to support sustainable product design while ensuring consumer interests are met and the role played by extended producer liability.
• Intellectual Property and Ecodesign: how intellectual property law (patents, trademarks, and design rights) intersects with ecodesign. Considerations for protecting eco-friendly innovations and the challenges faced by businesses in this domain.
• Corporate Responsibility and Accountability: legal expectations for corporations in adhering to environmental standards and sustainable practices. An examination of laws regulating corporate reporting on environmental performance and the role of ecodesign in meeting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations.
• Case Studies: analysis of legal precedents, case studies, or legal battles related to ecodesign, illustrating how legal frameworks have been applied or challenged in the context of sustainable product design.

We welcome theoretical, empirical, and case-based approaches that provide a deeper understanding of ecodesign, its practical applications, its challenges and consequences for the economy and its implications within the current regulatory framework.

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

Prospective articles should be submitted in the form of abstracts (around 800 words) or draft articles (see below) to submissions.jlmi@iuse.it by 21 February 2025. Authors will be notified of the outcome of their submission by 3 March 2025.

Final articles shall be delivered by 3 June 2025 and should conform to the journal style guide that is based on OSCOLA.

Typically, the JLMI accepts contributions within the range of 10.000-15.000 words, including footnotes, but both shorter and longer articles will be considered. Submitted articles will undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. Prior to submission, prospective authors are invited to check the JLMI Authors’ guidelines (also with regard to simultaneous submission to other journals) and Code of Ethics. For further information, or for consultation on a potential submission, please email us at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.

Authors are required to disclose if they have submitted their article elsewhere, both in case of negative and pending reviews, and promptly update the editorial board of any changes in this regard, throughout the whole editorial process with the JLMI.

More information can be found in the full call.

An impressive Italian monograph of more than 400 pages on jurisdiction in internet cases (‘Il foro dell’obbligazione nata in internet’) has just been published.

The author has kindly provided the following summary:

The book addresses the topic of civil jurisdiction over disputes arising on the Internet, observing it from different perspectives. In the first chapter the Author delves into the United States case law on the so-called “Internet torts”, reaching the conclusion that solutions based on the targeting test could be usefully employed to draft an international convention with the aim of establishing rules in the current confusing scenario. In the second and third chapters the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the phenomenon of libel tourism are explored in-depth. The fourth chapter examines the main decisions issued by the CJEU concerning jurisdiction over contractual and extracontractual liability (including cases such as eDate, Bolagsupplysningen, Pammer, etc.), while the fifth chapter is focused solely on Italian procedural rules and case law. In the last two chapters, starting from the assumed need to ensure the effectiveness of judicial remedies, the problems of the extraterritorial scope of online content removal orders as well as important EU Regulations (mostly the Digital Services Act and the GDPR) are examined, with finally a part on the “Schrems saga” and the EU-US agreements on the transfer of personal data (including the EU-US Data Privacy Framework).

 

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here: https://rsw.beck.de/zeitschriften/zeup.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

• Globaler Klimaschutz und Internationales Privatrecht
  Meik Thöne on climate change and private international law: The consequences of climate change are perceptible worldwide and increasingly reflected in serious cases of damage. If the question is raised whether and how these cases should be compensated, the answer requires the determination of the applicable law but also to consider the relevance of permissions under public law and to determine the limits of private law solutions in order to thereby balance the affected individual rights and public welfare concerns.
• On the Run from the Danish Social Authorities – An Analysis of the Danish Regulations causing a Cross-Border Flight Phenomenon to Evade Social Services’ Interference in Family Life
  Anne Mørk and Hanne Hartoft on the situation in Denmark causing parents to cross borders to evade social services: Some pregnant women are fleeing Denmark to avoid their children being placed in foster care immediately after birth and possibly adopted without their consent. This raises the question of whether Danish legislation is too extreme and at odds with basic human rights principles. In this article, the Danish legislation is analysed in light of the case law from the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion is that the errors and shortcomings in the processing of cases give reason to be concerned.
• Gründungstheorie qua Niederlassungsfreiheit – eine sehr versteckte Kollisionsnorm? Urteil des EuGH vom 25. April 2024
  Maria-Teresa Kratzer comments on the decision by the ECJ in Edil Work 2, addressing the law applicable to companies.
• Konkludente bzw. fiktive Rechtswahl – Zu den Anforderungen nach Art. 22 II Alt. 2 EuErbVO bzw. Art. 83 IV EuErbVO
  Thomas Sagstetter discusses a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe on the choice of law in succession matters.

 

The Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is pleased to announce that it is now accepting submissions for the 3rd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law which will take place online on 6 June 2025.  

 Conference Theme: New Dimensions in Private International Law

Original research that addresses the following themes is welcome:

• Commercial Activities and Private International Law

Moderators: Prof Justin Borg Barthet and Prof Burcu Yüksel Ripley

Exploring novel private international law challenges in international commerce and business transactions, including (but not limited to) e-commerce, fintech, and global supply chain governance

• Family life and Private International Law

Moderators: Prof Katarina Trimmings and Mr Le Xuan Tung

Addressing the private international law dimension of family disputes, including (but not limited to) international child custody, adoption, marriage, and succession issues.

• Private International Law in the Digital Age

Moderators: Dr Patricia Zivkovic and Dr Michiel Poesen
Examining the private international law issues that result from advances in digital technology including (but not limited to) AI and digital platforms.

• Maritime Law and Private International Law

Moderator: Ms Luci Carey
Investigating the private international law dimension of maritime governance. 

• Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility

Moderators: Dr Nevena Jevremovic and Dr Francesca Farrington
Evaluating the role of private international law in advancing sustainable development, corporate accountability across borders, and sustainable consumption and production.

 

Eligibility requirement

 The Centre welcomes submissions by current postgraduate law students (LLM, PhD) and recent LLM or PhD graduates who have not yet undertaken postdoctoral studies.

Submission Guidelines

Submissions should be no longer than 500 words. Applicants should identify the panel they wish to apply to. There is no requirement to submit a paper, and we welcome scholars at the early stages of their research.

The deadline for submissions is 20 March 2025.

For more information and submission guidelines, please see the Centre’s website or contact Mr Le Xuan Tung lexuantung.22@abdn.ac.uk.

The French Journal du Droit International, also known as Clunet after the name of its founder, celebrates its 150th birthday. On this occasion, a celebratory volume will soon be published. It contains 16 articles which each comments on one of the groundbreaking articles published in the Journal in the past decades. In accordance with the […]

The Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen will host, on 6 June 2025, the third Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre, under the title New Dimensions in Private International Law. The event is an opportunity for early career scholars working in the private international law to come together […]