Conflictoflaws

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:

• Pacta Sunt Servanda’s Soliloquy Amidst Sanctions: The Impact of EU Sanctions on Contractual Performance in Arbitration Proceedings
  Helmut Ortner, Veronika Korom and Marion on the Impact of EU Sanctions on Contractual Performance in Arbitration Proceedings: EU sanctions against Russia and Russia’s countermeasures have significantly disrupted trade, supply chains, and contractual relations, sparking disputes frequently resolved through arbitration. European legal systems provide a range of mechanisms—including force majeure, impossibility, frustration, and hardship—to address sanctions-related performance impediments. Despite doctrinal divergences, these frameworks tend to converge on practical outcomes. To mitigate risks and increase legal certainty, parties are well-advised to incorporate tailored clauses in their contracts.
• Eigentumsvorbehalte in grenzüberschreitenden Warenkaufverträgen mit englischen Käufern
  Insa Stephanie Jarass on retention of title clauses in contracts with English buyers: In PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC v OW Bunker Malta Ltd (The Res Cogitans) [2016] UKSC 23, the Supreme Court held that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 no longer applies to certain con-tracts containing retention of title clauses which had previously always been categorised as contracts for the sale of goods. This article analyses the legal implications of this decision for contracts for the supply of goods to Eng-land. In addition to the legal uncertainties that have always surrounded the validity in rem of retention of title clauses under English law, the decision adds a new level of complex-ity at the contractual level that requires par-ticular attention when drafting international contracts.
• Die europäische vis attractiva concursus – Altbekanntes, Neues und Ungeklärtes zu Reichweite, Kompetenzkonflikten und materieller Sperrwirkung
  Fabian Kratzlmeier comments on the decision by the ECJ in C-394/22, addressing the law applicable in the context of insolvency proceedings.

 

by Patrick Ostendorf (HTW Berlin)

In the recent and interesting case of LLC Eurochem v Société Generale S.A. et al [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), the English High Court (Commercial Court) considered the extent to which economic sanctions enacted by a foreign jurisdiction (EU law in this instance) can impact the enforcement of contractual payment claims (governed by English law) in English courts. More broadly, the decision also highlights the somewhat diminishing role of the Rome I Regulation (and its interpretation by the European Court of Justice) in the English legal system, and probably that of conflict of laws rules in general.

The underlying facts

A Russian company, respectively its Swiss parent (the assignee of the claimed proceeds of the drawdown), both of which are ultimately controlled by a Russian oligarch, claimed €212 million from two banks (one French and one Dutch, the latter operating through its Italian branch) out of six on-demand bonds governed by English law, based on corresponding exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of English courts. The performance bonds had been issued by the defendant banks to secure the proper performance of a contract for the construction of a fertiliser plant in Russia, which was terminated as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. When the Russian company called on the bonds to recover advance payments made under the construction contract, the banks refused to pay, arguing that doing so would violate applicable EU sanctions.

The Commercial Court agreed with the banks that payment under the bonds would indeed breach both Art. 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and Art. 11 of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. However, even though the ultimate owner of the claimant was also subject to UK sanctions, UK sanctions did not apply in this case, as payment under the bonds would not have involved any acts in the UK or by UK companies or persons.

The key question

The key question was therefore this: Could the banks rely on the EU sanctions as a defence against the payment claim in an English court, given that their contractual performance would be illegal under foreign law? According to the Ralli Brothers principle (as established by the English Court of Appeal in Ralli Brothers v Companie Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287 and also serving as a blueprint for Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation), the answer would be yes if the contractual performance required an act to be carried out in a place where it would be unlawful to do so. However, was the place of performance in the EU in this case, despite the fact that, under English common law, the place of payment is generally where the creditor (here, the claimant, as the beneficiary) is located, unless otherwise agreed by the parties?

The court’s resolution

The resolution was straightforward in relation to the defendant Italian branch, as the corresponding bond incorporated the ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG) and Art. 20(c) of the URDG explicitly states that payment is to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor (para. 447). However, the Commercial Court also answered this question in the affirmative with regard to the payment claims against the French bank (the relevant five bonds had not incorporated the URDG). This was based on the general proposition that, in relation to on-demand instruments, the place of performance should generally be where the demand must be made — hence in this case in France rather than Russia or Switzerland (paras 449 ff.).

Public policy was the alternative reasoning offered by the Commercial Court

More interesting still is the alternative argument offered by the Commercial Court. The court explicitly agreed with the defendants that the bonds should not have been enforced, even if the place of performance were in Russia (in which case the Ralli Bros. principle could accordingly not apply). The court postulated that, even outside the Ralli Bros. rule, ‘a sufficiently serious breach of foreign law reflecting important policies of foreign states may be such that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce a contract’ (paras 466 et seq). According to the defendants (and as confirmed by the court), the principle of comity was engaged particularly strongly here, given that the defendants would have faced prosecution, significant fines and the risk of imprisonment for individuals acting on behalf of the banks in France and Italy if they had paid.

Comments

The alternative reasoning given by the Commercial Court for the unenforceability of the bonds based on public policy seems to have two flaws.

Firstly, the view that enforcing a contract may be contrary to public policy due to a sufficiently serious breach of foreign law even outside the Ralli Bros. rule cannot be based on a clear line of precedent. The Commercial Court only refers to two High Court decisions, the more recent of which is Haddad v Rostamani (2021) EWHC 1892, para. 88. These decisions are difficult to reconcile with the Court of Appeal’s finding in Celestial Aviation Services Limited v Unicredit Bank GmbH [2024] EWCA Civ 628, paras. 105 et seq and prior High Court precedents relied on in this judgment, in particular Banco San Juan Internacional Inc v Petróleos De Venezuela S.A. [2020] EWHC 2937 (Comm), para. 79, which states that, ‘the doctrine therefore offers a narrow gateway: the performance of the contract must necessarily involve the performance of an act illegal at the place of performance. Subject to the Foster v. Driscoll principle, […] it is no use if the illegal act has to be performed elsewhere’. In Banco San Juan, the High Court referred to the Foster v Driscoll principle as the only legitimate expansion of the Ralli Bros. rule. But this principle is not applicable in the present case: It is limited to contracts entered into by the parties with the intention of committing a criminal offence in a foreign state (Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, 519).

Secondly, it is somewhat ironic that, in order to give effect to EU sanctions law, the Commercial Court relies on English common law precedents that hardly align with Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation. This is because the ECJ has expressly taken the view that Art. 9 contains an exhaustive list of situations in which a court may apply foreign overriding mandatory provisions not merely as a matter of fact (see ECJ, 18 Oct 2016, Case C-135/15, Nikiforidis: ‘Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation must therefore be interpreted as precluding the court of the forum from applying, as legal rules, overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the State of the forum or of the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed’).

Although the Commercial Court does not mention the Rome I Regulation in this regard, it still forms part of English statutory law as ‘assimilated law’ (formerly ‘retained EU law’). The justification for ignoring the Regulation is probably the prevailing, though (against the background of the general function of private international law and the fact that Art. 9 of the Rome I Regulation explicitly and exhaustively deals with this very problem) unconvincing, view in England that the Ralli Bros principle, and consequently its potential expansion in the present case, is not a conflict of laws rule in the first place: Instead, it is considered a principle of domestic English contract law, therefore unaffected by the exhaustive nature of Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation (in favour of this view, for example, Chitty on Contracts, Vol. I General Principles, 35th edition (2023), para. 34-290, Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of Laws, Vol. 2, 16th edition (2022), para. 32-257 with further references. Contrary, A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (2014) para. 7.251, who rightly notes that such a characterisation ‘was only possible by being deaf to the language and tone in which the judgments were expressed, and it is a happy thing that the Rome I Regulation puts this seemly principle on a statutory footing’ and characterises the Ralli Bros principle accordingly as a ‘rule of common law conflict of laws’ (A. Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, 4th edition, 2019, p. 239). For a full discussion of the history and characterisation of the Ralli Bros rule, see W. Day (2020) 79 CLJ 64 ff.)

The need to rely both on a questionable characterisation and expansion of the Ralli Bros principle in this case may be due to English contract law (at least in its substantive core) being ill-equipped to address factual impediments caused by foreign illegality for the parties. Unlike civil law jurisdictions, which can rely on the doctrine of (temporary) impossibility to address such cases — the recent decision of the Court of Arbitration in CAS 2023/A/9669, West Ham United Football Club v PFC CSKA & FIFA (applying Swiss law), is a case in point — the doctrine of frustration is apparently too limited in scope to recognise factual impediments triggered by foreign illegality. Furthermore, the doctrine of frustration does not offer the necessary flexibility as it results in the termination of the contract rather than merely suspending it temporarily.

The following information was kindly shared with us by Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna).

At the University of Vienna, a Chair for Comparative Law and Private International Law will become vacant in 2026 (current holder: Professor Helmut Ofner).

The role will be to teach and research private international law and comparative law. Knowledge of the German language and the Austrian legal system is not a prerequisite; however, applicants should be willing to learn German and familiarise themselves with Austrian law. Familiarity with several legal systems is highly desirable. A specialisation in a particular area, such as international family law or international commercial law, is welcome; publications in the field of uniform law and European law are an advantage.

The successful candidate is expected to relocate to Vienna, which is consistently ranked as the most or second-most liveable city in the world (see Global Liveability Index). Initial appointments to a first professorship may be limited to six years, with the possibility of extending it to a permanent position.

More information on the position is available here. The application deadline is 17 September 2025.

The Hart Series “Studies in Private International Law – Asia” continues to deliver outstanding volumes, the latest being authored by Lemuel D. Lopez (lecturer of Law at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University), and titled “Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia”.

This marks the 13th volume in the series, which was launched only a few years ago in 2019, with many more volumes expected to follow.

The topic is of great significance, and this book provides a much-needed Asian perspective, shedding light on how forum selection clauses function within the region’s unique legal environment.

 

The book’s description reads as follows:

This book compares and explains the approaches taken by Asian courts when choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts are challenged in litigation.
It examines key common law jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia), civil law jurisdictions (China, Japan, and Indonesia), and hybrid jurisdictions (the Philippines).
With Asia’s ascent in cross-border trade and investment, alongside a corresponding increase in cross-border litigation, understanding how Asian courts address choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts has never been more critical. Employing a comparative law method, the book identifies and explains the relief and remedies used by Asian courts in enforcing choice of forum clauses, analysing how their classification as either contractual or procedural in nature shapes judicial approaches. It further distinguishes choice of forum clauses from arbitration agreements and explores their interaction with other contractual provisions. Party autonomy – as the parties’ freedom to determine the contents of the choice of forum clause and the freedom to control the flow of litigation – is also critically scrutinised.

Furthermore, the book investigates the factors courts consider in resolving key choice of forum clause issues (ie, enforceability; specific relief to be granted; existence, validity, interpretation of choice of forum clauses; role of mandatory rules, public policy, and international interests) and explores the prospects for future development of this area of law in Asia.

Crucially, the book highlights the unique approaches of Asian courts, while underscoring the differences and similarities among common law, civil law, and hybrid jurisdictions.

 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Nature of Choice-of-Forum Clauses
3. Party Autonomy and Choice-of-Forum Clauses
4. The Enforcement of Choice-of-Forum Clauses: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
5. The Factors Considered in Granting Relief: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
6. Existence, Validity and Interpretation: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
7. Mandatory Rules, Public Policy and International Interests: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
8. Choice of Forum Clauses in Asian Civil Law Countries: China, Indonesia and Japan
9. Conclusions

I. Introduction

The question of the application of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries has triggered extensive discussions and debates regarding the consistency of Islamic law rules – whether codified in modern legislation or not – with the forum’s public policy. This issue has attracted particular attention in the field of family law, where various legal Islamic institutions (such as dower, polygamy, and early marriage) have sparked considerable controversy and posed significant challenges in both court practice and academic debate. This is particularly salient in the field of dissolution of marriage, as Islamic practices such as talaq and khul have often been the subject of intense discussions concerning their recognition and validity in non-Muslim jurisdictions.

The case presented here is another example of the complexity inherent in the reception of peculiar Islamic law institutions in private international law. Recently decided by the Nagoya High Court (second-instance court) in its ruling of 12 June 2025, it concerns a type of marital dissolution based on ila (an oath of sexual abstention). To the best of my knowledge, no comparable case involving ila has been decided before in any jurisdiction, which makes this ruling particularly important both in theory and in practice. This is especially so given that resorting to ila in this case appears to have been part of a litigation strategy, anticipating an unfavourable outcome if the case had been brought before the court as a talaq case (see infra V). As such, the case provides an opportunity to consider the nature of this unusual Islamic legal institution, its specific features, and the challenges it may raise when examined by foreign courts.

 

II. The Case:

The parties in this case are a Bangladeshi Muslim couple who married in accordance with Islamic law in Bangladesh and subsequently moved to Japan, where they had their children. All parties, including the children, are permanent residents of Japan.

The case concerns a divorce action filed by the husband (X) against his wife (Y), seeking dissolution of marriage primarily under Bangladeshi law, and alternatively under Japanese law. X argued that, in his complaint, he declared his intention “in the name of Allah” to abstain from sexual relations with his wife; and since four months had passed without any sexual relations with Y, a “talaq-divorce” had been effected and thereby completed in accordance with Bangladeshi law. The divorce action was filed as a result of continuous disagreement and disputes between the parties on various issues including property rights, management of the household finance, and alleged misbehaviour and even violence on the wife’s side. At the time the action was filed, X and Y had already been living separately for some time.

One of the main issues revolved around whether the application of Bangladeshi law, which provides for this form of marital dissolution (referred to in the judgment as “talaq-divorce”), should be excluded due to inconsistency with Japanese public policy under Article 42 of the Act on the General Rules of Application of Laws (AGRAL).

The court of first instance (Nagoya Family Court, judgment of 26 November 2024) held that the “talaq-divorce” (as referred to in the judgment) was valid under Bangladeshi law and that its recognition did not contravene Japanese public policy. Notably, the court emphasized that “any assessment of whether the legal rules applicable between spouses who share the same religious and cultural background violate Japanese public policy should be approached with a certain degree of restraint”, given the strong cultural and religious elements involved in the personal status of the parties, who are both originally Bangladeshi nationals and Muslims who were married in accordance with Islamic law, even if they had been living and residing in Japan for some time.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Y appealed before the High Court.

Y challenged the first instance judgment on various grounds. She basically argued – inter alia – that, given the strong ties the parties and their children have with Japan and their established life there, the mere fact that the parties are Bangladeshi nationals and Muslims should not justify a restrained implication of public policy, especially considering that the effects and consequences of the divorce would take place in Japan.

 

III. The Ruling

The Nagoya High Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, stating as follows (only a summary is provided here, with modifications and adjustments):

Under Bangladeshi law, which governs the present divorce, a husband may dissolve the marriage either through talaq (a unilateral declaration of divorce by the husband) or through other modes. There are several forms of talaq-divorce available to the husband, including ila. The latter entails the husband taking an oath in the name of Allah to abstain from sexual relations with his wife. If no intercourse occurs within four months following the oath, the divorce is considered to have taken effect.

In the present case, considering that Bangladeshi law is the applicable law, the talaq-divorce would be deemed valid, and would be recognized, since a period of four months had passed without any sexual contact between the parties after X made his declaration in the complaint.

Generally, when determining the applicability of Article 42 of the AGRAL, it is not the foreign law’s provisions themselves that should be assessed in abstracto. Rather, the application of the foreign law as the governing law may be excluded [only] where (1)its concrete application would result in a consequence that is contrary to public policy, and (2) the case has a close connection with Japan.

Regarding (1), the marital relationship between the parties had deteriorated over time, and various elements, when taken together, indicate that the parties had already reached a serious state of discord that could reasonably be seen as leading to separation or divorce. Consequently, considering all these circumstances, and taking into account the background of the case, the nature of the parties’ interactions, and the duration of their separation, it cannot be said that applying Bangladeshi law and recognizing the talaq-divorce in this case would be contrary to public policy.

With respect to (2), Y argued that, due to the strong connection between the case and Japan, the exclusion of the application of Bangladeshi in application of article 42 of the AGRAL should be admitted. However, as previously noted, the application of Bangladeshi law in this case does not result in a violation of public policy. Therefore, even considering the strong connection of the case to Japan, the application of Article 42 of the AGRAL cannot be justified.

 

IV. Comments

(*) Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Islamic law here are about classical Islamic law as developed by the orthodox Sunni schools, and not Islamic law as codified and/or practiced in modern Muslim countries.

 

1. Islamic law before Japanese Court

There are several cases in which Japanese courts have addressed the application of foreign laws influenced by or based on Islamic law. These cases have involved matters such as the establishment of filiation, annulment of marriage, parental authority, adoption, and divorce (whether based on the unilateral will of the husband or not). While in few instances the courts have applied the relevant foreign law without particular difficulties (for example, allowing a Japanese woman married to a Pakistani Muslim man to seek and obtain a divorce under Pakistani law), in most cases, the courts have refused to apply such laws on the grounds that they were contrary to Japanese public policy. The rules found incompatible with public policy include, among others, the non-recognition of out-of-wedlock filiation, the prohibition of interfaith marriage, the prohibition of adoption, the automatic attribution of parental authority to the father, and talaq-based divorce (triple talaq). The foreign laws at issue in these cases originate either from Muslim-majority countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Egypt, or from non-Muslim countries with Muslim minorities who are governed by their own personal status laws, such as Myanmar and the Philippines.

The case commented on here provides a new example of a Japanese court grappling with the application of foreign law grounded in Islamic legal principles.

 

2. Ila and dissolution of marriage

Like many other traditional – and in some views, “exotic” – Islamic legal institutions (such as zihar, li’an, khul, tamlik, tafwidh, mubara’a …… definitions are intentionally omitted), ila is often difficult to apprehend correctly, both in substance and in function.

 

a) What is ila?

Generally speaking, ila can be defined as “the swearing of an oath by a man that he will not have intercourse with his wife” for a period fixed in the Quran (chapter 2, verse 226) at four months (See Ibn Rushd (I. A. Khan Nyazee, trans.), The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer – Vol. II: Bidayat Al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat Al-Muqtasid (Garnet Publishing, 2000) 121).

It worth mentioning first that ila is not an Islamic invention but was practiced in pre-Islamic society. In that context, ila allowed the husband to place considerable pressure on his wife by placing her in a state of marital limbo, which can be for an indefinite period. This left the woman in a vulnerable and uncertain position, as she was neither fully married in practice, nor legally divorced.

Islamic Sharia addressed this practice and, while it did not abolish it – unlike some other pre-Islamic institutions and practices –, it attempted to alleviate its harmful effects, by introducing a period of four months, during which the husband is invited to reconsider his decision and either resume marital life (Quran chapter 2, verse 226)  or dissolve the marriage  (Quran chapter 2, verse 227).

 

b) Ila – Different Practices

However, regarding the actual operation of ila, the schools of Islamic religio-legal jurisprudence (fiqh) diverge significantly on several points (Ibn Rushd, op. cit.). Two issues are particularly relevant here:

i. The first concerns whether :

(i-a) the four-month period stated in the Quran represents a maximum period, at the end of which the marriage is dissolved; or

(i-b) the four-month period merely marks the threshold between an oath of abstention that does not lead to marital dissolution and one that does. According to this latter view, only an oath exceeding four months, or one made for an indefinite duration, qualifies as ila that may result in the dissolution of marriage.

 

ii. The second issue concerns whether

(ii-a) the marriage is automatically dissolved once the four-month period has elapsed, if the husband does take the necessary actions to resume the marital life, that is after performing an act of expiation (kaffara) in accordance with the Quranic prescriptions (notably Chapter 5, verse 89); or

(ii-b), upon expiry of the term, the wife may petition a qadhi (Muslim judge), requesting that her husband either end the marriage by pronouncing talaq, or resume marital relations after performing an act of expiation (Chapter 5, verse 89). In such a case, the qadhi would then grant the husband a specified period to decide. If the husband fails to take either course of action, the qadhi may pronounce the dissolution of the marriage on account of his inaction. Depending on the legal opinion, this dissolution may be categorized either as a talaq issued on behalf of the husband, or as a judicial annulment (faskh).

Traditionally, the Hanafi school, prevalent in Bangladesh, follows positions (1-a) and (2-a), while the other major schools adopt views (1-b) and (2-b).

 

3. Ila and talaq – what’s the difference?

It is not uncommon for ila to be described as “a form of talaq.” This appears to be the position of the High Court, seemingly based on the arguments presented by X’s representative during the trial. It is true that both ila and talaq are prerogatives reserved exclusively for men; women do not have equivalent right (except, in the case of talaq, where the husband may contractually delegate this right to his wife at the time of the marriage). It is also true that both ila and talaq may lead to the dissolution of marriage based on the unilateral intention of the husband. However, describing ila as a “form of talaq” is not – technically speaking – entirely accurate.

i. Under the majority of schools of fiqh – except for the Hanafi –, the distinction is quite clear. This is because unlike talaq, ila, by itself, does not lead to dissolution of marriage. A judicial intervention is required upon the wife’s request for the marriage to be dissolved (which is not required for talaq).

 ii. Under the Hanafi school, however, the distinction between ila and talaq may be blurred due to their substantial and functional similarities. In both cases, a qualified verbal formula places the marriage in a suspended state(*) for a specified period (the waiting period (iddah) in the case of talaq, and the four-month period in the case of ila). If the husband fails to retract his declaration within this period, the marriage is dissolved.

(*) However, this does not apply in the case of a talaq that immediately dissolves the marriage: that is, a talaq occurring for the third time after two previous ones (whether or not those resulted in the dissolution of the marriage), or in the case of the so-called triple talaq, where the husband pronounces three talaqs in a single formula with the intention of producing the effect of three successive talaqs.

 

Nevertheless, a number of important distinctions remain between the two, even within the Hanafi doctrine.

a. The first concerns the frequency with which talaq and ila may be resorted to. Similar to ila, talaq does not necessarily lead to the dissolution of the marriage if the husband retracts during the wife’s waiting period (iddah). However, its use – even if followed by retraction – is limited to two occurrences (Chapter 2, verse 229). A third pronouncement of talaq results in immediate and irrevocable dissolution of the marriage, and creates a temporary impediment to remarriage. This impediment can only be lifted if the woman marries another man and that subsequent marriage is irrevocably dissolved (Quran, Chapter 2, verse 230). By contrast, ila, does not have such limitation and can be repeated without restriction (in terms of frequency), provided that the husband retracts by performing the act of expiation each time.

 b. The second concerns the form of retraction. In the case of talaq, the husband can resume conjugal life at will. No particular formality is required; and retraction can be explicit or implied. In the case of ila, however, retraction must take the form of an act of expiation (kaffara) in accordance with the Quranic prescriptions (Chapter 5, verse 89) before marital relations may resume.

 

4. Ila and public policy

a) Ila – some inherent aspects

As previously noted, ila has traditionally been used as a means for a husband to exert pressure or express discontent within the marriage by vowing abstinence from sexual relations. Under Islamic Sharia, this practice is preserved: husbands – even without making any formal oath of abstinence (ila) – are allowed to “discipline their wives” in cases of marital discord by abstaining from sharing the marital (hajr) as a corrective measure (Quran, Chapter 4, verse 34). Indeed, it is not uncommon that Muslim scholars justify the “rationale” behind this practice by stating that “a man may resort to ila…when he sees no other option but to abstain from sharing the marital bed as a means of disciplining and correcting his wife (italic added)…. In this case, his abstention during this period serves as a warning to deter her from repeating such behavior” (O. A. Abd Al-Hamid Lillu, ‘Mirath al-mutallaqa bi-al-‘ila – Dirasa fiqhiyya muqarana ma’a ba’dh al-tashri’at al-‘arabiyya [The Inheritance Rights of a Woman Divorced by Ila’: A Comparative Jurisprudential Study with Selected Arab Legislations]’ (2020) 4(3) Journal of the Faculty of Islamic and Arabic Studies for Women 630). It is therefore not surprising that some would view ila as “troubling” due to its perceived “sexism” and the fact that wives may find themselves at their husbands’ “mercy” with little thing to do (Raj Bhala, Understanding Islamic Law (Shar’ia) (Carolina Academic Press, 2023) 803).

These aspects, in addition with inherent gender asymmetry in the rights involved, calls into question the compatibility of ila with the public policy of the forum.

 

b) The position of the Nagoya High Court

As the Nagoya High Court rightly indicated, the exclusion of foreign law under the public policy exception does not depend on the content of the foreign law itself, assessed in abstracto. On the contrary, as it is generally accepted in Japanese private international law, public policy may be invoked based on two elements: (1) the result of applying the foreign law in a concrete case is found unacceptable in the eyes of Japanese law, and (2) there is a strong connection between the case and the forum (see K. Nishioka & Y. Nishitani, Japanese Private International Law (Hart, 2019) 22).

The Nagoya High Court’s explicit adherence to this framework, notably by engaging in an in concreto examination of the foreign law and avoiding invoking public policy solely on the ground of its content as some earlier court decisions suggest (see e.g. Tokyo Family Court judgment of 17 January 2019; see my English translation in 63 (2020) Japanese Yearbook of International Law 373), is noteworthy and should be welcomed.

That said, the Court’s overall approach raises some questions. The impression conveyed by the Court’s reasoning is that it focused primarily on the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship and the period of separation to conclude that there was no violation of public policy. In other words, since the marital relationship had reached a dead end, dissolving the marriage on the basis of objective grounds or on the basis of ila does not alter the outcome.

Although this approach is understandable, it would have been more convincing if the Court had carefully considered the nature of ila and its specific implications in this case, and eventually explicitly state that such elements were not established. These aspects appear to have been largely overlooked by the High Court, seemingly due to its unfamiliarity with Islamic legal institutions. It would have been advisable for the Court to address these aspects, at least to demonstrate its concerns regarding the potential abusive use of ila.

 

V. Concluding Remarks: Ila as a litigation strategy?

One may wonder why the husband in this case chose to resort to ila to end his marriage. One possible explanation is that Japanese courts have previously ruled that a talaq divorce in the form of triple talaq is inconsistent with public policy (Tokyo Family Court judgment of 17 January 2019, op. cit.). It appears that, anticipating a similar outcome, the husband in this case was advised to take a “safer approach” by relying on ila rather than resorting to triple talaq (see the comment by the law firm representing the husband in this case, available here – in Japanese only).  To be sure, associating talaq solely with its most contested form (i.e., triple talaq) is not entirely accurate. That said, considering how the case under discussion was decided, it is now open to question whether it would have been simpler for the husband to perform a single talaq and then abstain from retracting during his wife’s waiting period (iddah). At least in this way, the aspect of “disciplining the wife” inherent in ila would not be an issue that the courts would need to address

In Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27 (available here) the Supreme Court of Canada has, by 5-4 decision, held that the Ontario court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims by Ontario residents against three Italian defendants in respect of a tort in Italy.  The Sinclair family members were injured in a gondola collision in Venice that they alleged was caused by the Italian defendants.  But there were several connections to Ontario.  The trip to Italy had been booked by Mr Sinclair using a premium credit card’s concierge and travel agency service [4, 156] and the gondola ride had been arranged through that service [15, 160].  The card was with Amex Canada and one or more contracts connected to the gondola ride had been made in Ontario.  The Sinclairs were also suing Amex Canada and the travel service for carelessness in making the arrangements with the Italian defendants, and those defendants attorned in Ontario [167, 172].  A core overall issue, then, was whether the plaintiffs would be able to pursue all of their claims arising from the gondola collision, against various defendants, in one legal proceeding in Ontario.

For assumed jurisdiction, Canadian common law requires that the plaintiff establish a presumed connecting factor (PCF) in respect of each defendant.  Once established, the defendant can rebut the PCF by showing that it does not point to a real relationship, or only a weak relationship, with the plaintiff’s chosen forum [7, 49, 202, 216].  It is well established that damage sustained by the plaintiff abroad, and continuing to be suffered in the forum, is not a PCF.  While less clear, the better view of the law is that the defendant’s being a “proper party” to a proceeding advanced against a local defendant is not a PCF.  So neither of these routes to jurisdiction, familiar in some legal systems, was available despite their fitting the facts.

Canadian courts have held that the fact that a contract connected with a tort was made in the forum is a PCF.  This is controversial because many have questioned the strength of this connection, based as it is on the place of making a contract, but it has been repeatedly endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Sinclair turned on whether this PCF had been established and if so rebutted [1, 51, 146].  The majority (decision written by Justice Cote) found the defendants had rebutted the PCF; the dissent (decision written by Justice Jamal) found not.

The reasons are a challenging read.  The majority and dissent disagree on many discrete points (including the standard of review and the standard of proof).  Many of these are essentially factual.  Because they do not see the facts the same way, it is hard to compare the legal analysis.  A key example is on the issue of what contract(s) had been made in Ontario.  The majority is not overly satisfied that any contract had been, but is prepared to accept that Mr Sinclair’s cardmember agreement was made in Ontario [102-103].  That contract is in a loose sense connected with the tort in Italy, but it is easy to see how one might think this is at best a very weak link [9].  In contrast, the dissent has no issue with the cardmember agreement having been made in Ontario [253, 259] and finds an additional contract also made in Ontario in respect of arranging the specific gondola ride [268].  That second contract is more closely linked to the tort and so the rebuttal analysis would be expected to differ from that relating to the cardmember agreement.  The majority does not find any such second contract at all: it sees this as a reservation made to arrange that the gondola be available, which is not a separate contract but rather a part of the way Amex Canada performs its service obligations under the cardmember agreement [105-107].

The result of the appeal is highly fact-specific.  But some useful general points can be extracted from the reasons.  First, the decision may add to our understanding of the test for when a contract made in the forum is “connected” to the tort.  In Lapointe (available here) the court had said that this is satisfied if “a defendant’s conduct brings him or her within the scope of the contractual relationship” AND “the events that give rise to the claim flow from the relationship created by the contract” [58, 215].  I confess to having had trouble understanding what the former aspect means.  What is it to be brought within the scope of the contractual relationship?  Is this a factual or legal question?  In what way would the Italian defendants be brought within the scope of the cardmember agreement (this does not seem possible) or even the second contract between Amex Canada and Carey International to arrange a gondola?  Do they get brought within the scope just because they end up being the relevant gondola providers?  Anyway, in this case, both the majority and the dissent seem to focus all of their analysis of whether the contract is connected to the tort on the second aspect: whether the tort “flows” from the earlier contract (a pretty easy test to meet here for all contracts involved) [128, 246].

Second, the judges engage in a lively debate about the standard of establishing a PCF.  This is understandable given the extent to which they disagree about the facts.  But their debate ends up being inconclusive.  For the majority see [59] to [62] and the conclusion that this is not an appropriate case to develop the law on this point (so these paragraphs, then, are markers for arguments parties might make in future cases in which the law might be developed).  For the dissent see [224] to [236] and the conclusion that what it considers the status quo on the issue remains the law (yet this is in dissent).  There may be common ground, since in both discussions care is taken, at least in places, to refer specifically to the distinction between disputes about facts and disputes about the application of the law to those facts.  A standard of proof, whether a balance of probabilities or a good arguable case, must be about facts and not law.  It does not make sense to talk about the standard of proof for establishing a point of law or satisfying a legal test.

Third, few Canadian cases have provided a detailed analysis of how the rebuttal of a PCF works, so this case is most welcome on that specific issue.  The majority offers some general considerations that feed into the analysis [67-72].  It also rejects the contention that rebuttal is a “heavy” burden on the defendant [74].  It calls the rebuttal “a shift in burden and perspective, not a shift in difficulty” [74, quoting the intervener BC Chamber of Commerce].  This language is likely be repeated quoted in subsequent decisions.  The majority also says that the PCF and rebuttal stages work in tandem and are complementary [74-75].  This reflects the idea that if the PCF is broad, there should be more scope for rebuttal, and if the PCF is narrow, less so.  The dissent does not disagree with this stated approach to the rebuttal analysis [see 217].  However, the judges disagree about whether the defendant’s reasonable expectations of where it might be sued can be considered as part of the rebuttal analysis.  The dissent says no [218, 291].  The majority says yes [71-72].

Finally, on the broader question of how willing courts should be to take jurisdiction over a defendant on grounds of efficiency, access to justice and avoidance of multiple proceedings, most comments from the judges are indirect.  The majority stresses the importance of “fairness” to defendants [45].  It rejects “bootstrapping” and insists that a PCF must be shown for each defendant [63].  It cautions against a jurisdiction analysis that considers “the factual and legal situation writ large” [63].  In contrast, the dissent sees the proceeding as one that “claims inseparable damages for these integrally related torts” [281] and rejects focusing on the collision as something separate from other facts and claims [249].  More directly, it states “[i]n a case alleging multiple torts, as in this case, or a case raising claims under multiple heads of liability, focussing on the dispute as a whole ensures that a court does not inappropriately hear only part of the case in the forum while leaving related claims to be heard in the extra-provincial or foreign court” [244].  In doing so it quotes the notorious para 99 of Club Resorts (available here), language that continues to trouble courts more than a decade later.  After Sinclair, are we closer to a principled answer for cases with related claims against multiple defendants?  By focusing on the narrow and specific questions raised by the particular PCF at issue, including identifying whether and where certain contracts were made, the broader debate is being conducted covertly rather than in the open.

 

The Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Branch of the International Law Association call for applications for the 2026 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship.

Awarded annually, the Nygh internship offers a postgraduate student or graduate of an Australian law school the exciting opportunity to undertake a 6-month internship with The Hague Conference on Private International Law, in the Netherlands.

The successful applicant will have the chance to work with some of the world’s leading private international law practitioners and will receive funding to assist with travel costs and living expenses.

Previous Nygh interns have worked on projects in fields including: family law; evidence and access to justice; cross border flow of personal data; migration; civil liability for trans-boundary harm and commercial dispute resolution. For many interns, the opportunity to observe the negotiation of an international convention first-hand has been a highlight of their internship, all whilst living and working in the Netherlands.

English, French and Spanish are the three working languages of the Hague Conference and Australian law graduates and final year law students with French and/or Spanish language skills are encouraged to apply for the internship.

The Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship was established in memory of the late Hon Dr Peter Nygh AM, a renowned international lawyer and former judge of the Family Court of Australia.

Applications for the 2026 Nygh Internship have been extended to close on 14 August 2025. For further information and application instructions visit: Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship – Australian Institute of International Affairs or email Nicola Nygh at nicola.nygh@rllawyers.com.au

The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke

Created with the support of LexisNexis, the Review Perspectives contentieuses internationales (PCI) is a biannual academic journal dedicated to the globalization of international litigation in both its public and private aspects. Each issue features a thematic dossier, complemented by several articles outside the main topic (Varia), as well as brief focus pieces addressing current events relevant to political or regulatory developments impacting international disputes (Focus).

The editorial committee, which ensures the scientific and operational direction of the Review, is composed of Sandrine Clavel, Patrick Jacob, and Fabienne Jault-Seseke (professors at Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ).

Three issues have already been published and are available open access.

Issue 3 was released a few weeks ago.

It features a dossier dedicated to the Real Madrid / Le Monde case, following the decisions of the Court of Justice and the French Court of Cassation. Articles in this dossier were written by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Julie Traullé, Marie Dugué and Laura Vitale, Ana Quinones, Olivera Boskovic, and Fabien Marchadier.

The issue also contains an article in English by Gilles Cuniberti on the international attractiveness of specialized commercial courts: “Assessing the International Attractiveness of Commercial Courts: Will Paris Eat London’s Lunch?”

A recent decision by the French Court of Cassation enabled Marylou Françoise to write a study devoted to the seising of the Judge in International Disputes.”

The issue concludes with presentations of:

• The Arbitration Act 2025, by Thomas Clay,
• The report on the application of the recast Brussels I Regulation: “To revise or not to revise?” by Sandrine Clavel,
• The order issued by the ICJ in the Sudan v. United Arab Emirates case: a brake on the Court’s openness, by Patrick Jacob.

A new volume coming out of the Programme in European Private Law for Postgraduates (PEPP) has just been published as part of the Scritti di diritto privato europeo ed internazionale series.

The table of contents can be found here; the full volume is available open access here.

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 July 2025:

• The 2019 Judgments Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom. At present, 33 HCCH Members are either bound by the 2019 Judgments Convention or a Contracting Party for which the Convention has not entered into force yet (Albania, Andorra, and Montenegro). More information is available here.
• The 1996 Child Protection Convention entered into force for El Salvador. The Convention currently has 57 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
• The 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Colombia. At present, 55 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.
• The 2005 Choice of Court Convention entered into force for Bahrain. At present, 37 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. More information is available here.

On 5 July 2025, the 1970 Evidence Convention entered into force for the Philippines. The Convention currently has 69 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

On 24 July 2025, the Republic of Moldova acceded to the 1970 Evidence Convention. The Convention currently has 69 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.

 

Publications

On 22 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau announced the publication of the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. Incorporating recent developments, court decisions, and practical examples provided by experts from around the world, as well as updates from the meeting of the Special Commission held in July 2024, the fifth editions of the Handbooks are essential resources for anyone involved in the implementation and operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 10 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH and the Asian Business Law Institute co-hosted the webinar “Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence”. More information is available here.

On 11 July 2025, the first meeting of the Working Group dedicated to the Model Forms for Chapter II of the 1970 Evidence Convention was held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

On 9 July 2025, the premises of the HCCH’s Regional Office for Africa, hosted by the Kingdom of Morocco, were officially opened in Rabat. More information is available here.

On 10 July 2025, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH announced several developments with regard to the HCCH’s International Child Abduction Database (INCADAT), including the launch of its new notification service. More information is 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.

We are delighted to announce that Wilson Lui will be joining our Editorial Board. Wilson holds degrees from the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong. He currently teaches at the University of Hong Kong while working towards his PhD at the University of Melbourne. His many publications include a comprehensive volume on the conflict of laws in Hong Kong,  Hong Kong Private International Law (Hart 2025; together with Anselmo Reyes).

At the same time, we are sad to see Samuel Fulli-Lemaire (Université de Strasbourg), David P. Stewart (Georgetown University), and Marlene Wethmar-Lemmer (University of South Africa) retire from the blog after years of service to this project – we are all the more grateful for their contributions and wish them all the best.

Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)

The second issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2025 has just been released. It contains four articles, seven case notes and numerous book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).

The issue opens with Dr. Delphine Porcheron’s (Université de Strasbourg) in-depth study of Les actions transnationales en réparation de crimes internationaux commis par un État : l’émergence d’un nouveau contentieux (Transnational reparation claims for international crimes committed by States: the emergence of a new form of litigation). At the crossroads of public and private international law, the contribution discusses the lessons learned from emblematic cases rendered across multiple jurisdictions. Its abstract reads as follows:

In light of the limited availability of international judicial remedies for individuals and the inadequacy of existing compensation schemes, victims of international crimes attributable to a State increasingly seek redress through domestic courts. These transnational claims for reparation are on the rise and have generated a new category of litigation, raising complex legal questions. An emerging trend in favor of the admissibility of such actions before national courts calls for a re-examination of the relationship between different branches of law and highlights the evolving role of private international law in this context.

The second article by Prof. Rebecca Legendre (Université Paris Nanterre) untangles recent controversies on Le droit international privé à l’épreuve de la gestation pour autrui (Private international law facing surrogacy). The treatment of foreign surrogacy in prohibitive legal orders such as France raises serious legal debates, recently fuelled by several important rulings by the French Supreme Court which the present contribution analyses:

For over fifteen years, surrogacy has posed a persistent challenge to private international law. The most recent case law from France’s Cour de Cassation underscores this tension with striking clarity. The decisions handed down in October and November 2024 introduce significant developments to the field: the weakening of a substantive international public policy which is stripped of its essence, a procedural public policy distorted in service of substantive aims, a softening of the principle prohibiting review of the merits of foreign judgments, and the neutralisation of sanctions for fraud. Yet, upon closer examination, private international law appears ill-equipped to provide satisfactory solutions. It is by moving beyond its traditional boundaries—drawing instead on the framework of fundamental rights, and particularly on the principle of proportionality—that more viable and equitable answers may be found in the future.

In the third contribution, Dr. Georgette Salamé (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne) and Dr. Guillaume Kessler (Université Savoie Mont Blanc) share thoughtful Réflexions sur l’accueil du sexe neutre en droit international privé (A propos de la décision du Tribunal fédéral suisse du 8 juin 2023) (Reflections on the Legal Recognition of a Third Sex Category in Private International Law (in light of the Swiss Supreme Federal Court’s decision of June 8, 2023)). Its abstract reads as follows:

The decision issued by the Swiss Supreme Federal Court on June 8, 2023, relates to the recognition of gender neutrality in binary legal systems. The Court ruled that a Swiss female citizen that had exercised in Germany the option to leave her gender designation blank in public registers, may not avail herself of such status to claim the same in Switzerland. The decision is remarkable considering the recent developments of private international law and therefore requires thorough assessment of its legal grounds. Moreover, it prompts a prospective study of the possible recognition in France of intersex individuals’ claims to a neutral gender registration in instances where such claims are based on a foreign judgment or foreign public document. It finally calls for an examination of considerations that argue for or against the recognition of a neutral gender in France from the standpoint of private international law; the analysis addresses the ongoing evolution of international public policy and the degree to which the legal categories of the forum can be reinterpreted and adapted.

The doctrinal part of the issue wraps up with Prof. Maxime Barba’s (Université Grenobles Alpes) essay on Les impératifs de concentration en matière d’exequatur des jugements (Concentration imperatives in matters of judgements’ exequatur). Tackling a major procedural issue that is playing an increasingly important role in transnational disputes, the contribution’s abstract reads as follows:

In a world where judgements circulate more and more freely, the exact place of concentration imperatives needs to be determined. Can a party initiate a new indirect proceeding by changing its pleas? Can a party assert, in the requested forum, pleas and claims omitted in the original forum? These are just some of the questions now facing French and European judges, who are taking their time, hesitating and, sometimes, contradicting each other. The aim of this contribution is to present the various solutions currently in force, and to suggest ways in which they might be developed – modified or generalized –, with a view to enabling jurisprudence to step up and improve its normative approach to these delicate issues.

The full table of contents will be available here.

Previous issues of the Revue Critique (from 2010 to 2022) are available on Cairn.

Written by Héloise Meur, Université Paris 8

In two rulings dated 28 May 2025, the French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) ruled on the issue of the law applicable to a sub-purchaser’s direct action in a chain of contracts transferring ownership, under European private international law. The issue is sensitive. The contractual classification under French law —an outlier in comparative law— had not been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to determine international jurisdiction under the Brussels system (CJEU, 17 June 1992, C-26/91, Jakob Handte). Despite CJEU’s position, the Cour de cassation had consistently refused to adopt a tort-based qualification to determine the applicable law (esp. Civ. 1st, 18 dec. 1990, n° 89-12.177 ; 10 oct. 1995, n° 93-17.359 ; 6 feb. 1996, n° 94-11.143 ; Civ. 3rd, 16 janv. 2019, n° 11-13.509. See also, Civ. 1st, 16 jan. 2019, n° 17-21.477), until these two rulings rendered under the Rome II Regulation.

The proceedings

In the first case (No. 23-13.687), a Luxembourgian company made available to a Belgian company certain equipment it had obtained through two lease contracts. The lessor had acquired the equipment from a French intermediate seller, who had purchased it from a French distributor, who had sourced it from a Belgian manufacturer (whose rights were ultimately transferred to a Czech company).

Following a fire that destroyed the equipment, the Dutch insurer — subrogated in the rights of the Luxembourgian policyholder — brought proceedings against the French companies before the French courts on the basis of latent defects. The manufacturer’s general terms and conditions included a choice-of-law clause in favour of Belgian law. The Belgian and Luxembourg companies sought various sums based on latent defects, lack of conformity, and breach of the selller’s duty to advise. The manufacturer voluntarily joined the proceedings.

Applying French law, the Court of Appeal held the insurer’s subrogated claims admissible and dismissed the French intermediary seller’s claims. The Court ordered the Czech manufacturer and French companies jointly and severally liable to compensate the Luxembourg company for its uninsured losses and to reimburse the French intermediary seller for the insured equipment. The manufacturer appealed to the Cour de cassation, and the French distributor lodged a cross appeal.

In the second case (No. 23-20.341), a French company was in charge of designing and building a photovoltaic power plant in Portugal. The French company purchased the solar panels from a German company. The sales contract included a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Leipzig and a choice-of-law clause in favour of German law. In 2018, the Portuguese company, as assignee of the original contract, brought proceedings against the French and German companies seeking avoidance of the successive sales and restitution of the purchase price. Alternatively, the Portuguese final purchaser invoked the contractual warranty granted by the German manufacturer and sought damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the purchaser’s claim under German law, which was applicable to the original contract. The Court of Appeal also declined jurisdiction over the French company’s claims against the German company due to the jurisdiction clause. The purchaser appealed to the Cour de cassation.

The legal question

Both appeals raised the question of the determination of the law applicable to the sub-purchaser’s direct action in a chain of contracts transferring ownership under European private international law, especially where a choice-of-law clause is included in the original contract.

The rulings of 28 May 2025

The Cour de cassation adopted the reasoning of the Jacob Handte judgment. The Court held that, in conflict of laws, the sub-purchaser’s action against the manufacturer does not qualify as a “contractual matter” but must be classified as “non-contractual” and therefore be governed by the Rome II Regulation (§§ 16 seq n° 23-13.687 ; §§ 18 seq n° 23-20.341).

The Court concluded that: “A choice-of-law clause stipulated in the original contract between the manufacturer and the first purchaser, to which the sub-purchaser is not a party and to which they have not consented, does not constitute a choice of law applicable to the non-contractual obligation within the meaning of Article 14(1) of that Regulation.” (§ 20, n° 23-13.687 ; § 22, n° 23-20.341).

This solution should be also supported by the Refcomp ruling (§ 18, n° 23-13.687 ; § 16, n° 23-20.341), in which the Court held that a jurisdiction clause is not enforceable against the sub-purchaser, “insofar as the sub-purchaser and the manufacturer must be regarded, for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation, as not being bound by a contractual relationship” (CJEU, 7 Feb. 2013, C-543/10, para. 33).

According to the Cour de cassation, the law applicable to sub-purchaser’s claims against the manufacturer is the law of the place where the damage occurred, pursuant to Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation.

Comments

Firstly, the rejection of the contractual classification does not necessarily entail a tortious classification. To do so, it must also be established that the action seeks the liability of the defendant, in accordance with the definition adopted in the Kalfelis judgment (ECJ, 27 Sept. 1988, Case 189/87). It was not the case here, where the claims were based on latent defects and avoidance of contract.

Secondly, the choice of a non-contractual classification appears contrary to the developments in CJEU’s recent case law (H. Meur, Les accords de distribution en droit international privé, Bruylant, 2024, pp. 325 seq.), For the CJEU, it is sufficient to establish that the action could not exist in the absence of a contractual link for it to qualify as a “contractual claim” under Brussels I Regulation (CJEU, 20 Apr. 2016, C-366/13, para. 55, Profit Investment). The European Court further held that the identity of the parties is irrelevant to determine whether the action falls within the scope of contractual matters ; only the cause of the action matters (CJEU, 7 Mar. 2018, Flightright, joined cases C-274/16, C-447/16, C-448/16; and CJEU, 4 Oct. 2018, Feniks, C-337/17). Thus, the Court has moved away from its Jacob Handte case law.

Thirdly, limiting the effect of the choice-of-law clause to the contracting parties alone is inappropriate, as it will lead to the applicable law to the contract to vary depending on who invokes it (H. Meur, Dalloz actualité, 16 June 2025). This solution is also contrary to the European regulations. It is in contradiction with Article 3.1 of the Rome I Regulation, which states that “a contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties.” It is also incompatible with Article 3.2 of the Regulation. This article provides that “any change in the law to be applied that is made after the conclusion of the contract shall not […] adversely affect the rights of third parties,” from which it must be inferred a contrario that the original choice-of-law clause is enforceable against third parties (see the report by Reporting Judge S. Corneloup, pp. 21 seq.; also see the Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, OJEC, C 282, 31 Oct. 1980, para. 7 under the commentary on Article 3). For the sake of consistency, this understanding of the principle of party autonomy should also apply to Article 14 of the Rome II Regulation. Finally, Article 12 of the Rome I Regulation confirms that it is for the law applicable to the contract to determine the persons entitled to invoke it and the conditions under which they may do so (by contrast, the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the Hague Convention do not apply to the question of the effect of the contract on third parties – see in particular Hague Convention, 1955, Art. 5.4; Civ. 1st, 12 July 2023, No. 21-22.843).

Thus, the law applicable to the sub-purchaser’s direct action should be the one chosen by the parties to the original contract (regardless of the claiming party), provided that this choice is intended to govern the contract. In the absence of a chosen law, the law of the habitual residence of the seller, as the debtor of the characteristic performance, should apply. If the designated law recognises, in principle, that a third party may invoke the rights available to the original contracting purchaser, the Vienna and Hague Conventions, which are applicable before the French courts, may regain their relevance in determining the content of those rights (see V. Heuzé, RCDIP, 2019, p. 534; E. Farnoux, AJ Contrat, 2020, p. 521).

Unfortunately, this is not the path taken by the Cour de cassation in its rulings of 28 May 2025. In practice, the original seller may be bound in respect of certain sub-purchasers, particularly those established in France, even though it may have had no knowledge of the successive sales. Such a solution increases legal uncertainty.

Any student of German private international law will take delight in the news that a new textbook has just been published by our co-editor Susanne Goessl together with Florian Kienle. The book covers questions of both the applicable law (internationales Privatrecht) and of jurisdiction and foreign judgments (internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht), with a certain focus on the former area. As one might expect from a new text, it puts the European instruments of private international law (and the areas governed by them) into the centre (pp. 16–144) – without neglecting the areas that remain governed by domestic law (pp. 145–282).

Readers looking to familiarize themselves with German PIL will appreciate the concise introduction to the field (pp. 1–15), the comprehensive coverage of fundamental questions (such as renvoi, characterisation, etc.; starting at p. 157), and the revision questions provided at the end of each chapter. Above all else, however, they will notice the many topical examples used by the authors to explain the material, ranging from climate change and human rights litigation to Covid, the Volkswagen emissions scandal, and the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction by the Ever Given. The wealth of these examples alone makes the book a great read even for those who may consider themselves already well acquainted with German PIL (not least if they need to teach it).

More information on the book is available here.

 

Originally sourced from Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law post on 22 July 2025, with slight amedments.

Make today matter! Under this motto, legal scholars from all over the world gathered at the University of Pretoria on July 8, 2025 to take part in the conference “Sustainable Development and Transnational Law in Africa”. The event was jointly organized by the Law Schools Global League and Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law with a view to fostering academic exchange across continents on today’s most pressing challenges.

“It was fantastic to see the breadth and depth of work done in and on Africa within the new field of sustainable development and private international law. Thanks are due also to our co-organizers at the Law Schools Global League ant the University of Pretoria; it is so important to hold conferences like this one outside of Europe,” says Max Planck Institute’s Director Ralf Michaels.

The conference program consisted of four panel discussions (for a report, see ? here). The last two panels brought together five of the participants in a current project titled “Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Africa”**:

Solomon Okorley (University of Johannesburg) spoke about International Child Abduction Jurisprudence in South Africa; Grihobou Roland Nombré (Thomas SANKARA University School of Law) discussed the implications of the rise of Nuclear Energy in Africa for Private International Law; Michael K. Quartey (University of Johannesburg) and Theophilus Edwin Coleman (University at Buffalo School of Law & University of Johannesburg) addressed Product Liability Disputes in Ghana from the perspective of sustainable development, and Panji Chirwa (University of Pretoria) looked at the Impact of the EU Directive 2024/1760 on African Sustainability Frameworks.

** The project “Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Africa” forms the African component of the broader initiative “The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law” (see ? here), led globally by Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute),  Hans Van Loon (previously Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International), and Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh). The African initiative is spearheaded by Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli (University of Birmingham), in partnership with Eghosa Ekhator (University of Derby) and the Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (Afe Babalola University, Nigeria), and works closely with the global project leaders.

Publication of the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions

The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH is pleased to announce that the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions are now available for purchase in both paper and e-book format.

The 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions establish uniform frameworks of cooperation mechanisms to streamline, respectively, the transmission of documents for service abroad and the taking of evidence abroad. The Service and Evidence Handbooks are intended to assist users of the Conventions, including Central Authorities, government officials, courts, counsel and legal practitioners, by providing practical guidance on their implementation and operation.

The Practical Handbook on the 1965 Service Convention is designed first and foremost to assist users with the operation of the main and alternative channels of transmission and the provisions regarding adequate protection of the defendant. As for the Practical Handbook on the 1970 Evidence Convention, it is designed to assist users with the operation of the two systems of taking evidence that are provided by the Convention, namely (1) Letters of Request and (2) Consuls and Commissioners. The Practical Handbooks also explain how information technology is and may be used to further enhance the operation of the Conventions, including by incorporating, for the 1970 Evidence Convention, relevant information from the HCCH Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link.

Incorporating recent developments, court decisions, and practical examples provided by experts from around the world, as well as updates from the meeting of the Special Commission held in July 2024, the fifth editions of the Handbooks are essential resources for anyone involved in the implementation and operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions.

More information on how to purchase hard copies and/or e-book copies is available on the Publications section of the HCCH website (for the general public).  Specific instructions for HCCH National and Contact Organs and Member Central Authorities designated under the Service and Evidence Conventions are also provided on the Publications section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

We have recently shared the call for papers by the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) for its first issue of 2026. The deadline has now been moved to 20 July 2025.

For further information, we are again referring to the editors who can be reached at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.

Necla Ozturk (Editor of the Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal) has kindly shared the following call for papers with us:

On the occasion of the 90th birthday of distinguished legal scholar Professor Dr. Peter Hay, Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal is preparing a special issue to be published in 2025, dedicated to his outstanding contributions to Private International Law and Comparative Law.

Throughout his illustrious academic career, Professor Hay has profoundly influenced the field through his pioneering work on the relationships between American, German, and European Private Law systems. His publications, teaching, and international engagements have left a lasting mark on the legal world.

We would be honored to receive a contribution from you for this commemorative issue. We especially welcome articles that address topics aligned with Professor Hay’s areas of expertise or offer critical reflections inspired by his scholarly legacy.

Suggested Topics Include:
• Private International Law
• Comparative Law
• Convergence/Divergence of Legal Systems
• American And European Private Law
• Critical Assessments of Professor Hay’s Work

Submission Deadline: November 15, 2025
Languages Accepted: Turkish, English, German, French.
Submission Guidelines: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akdhfd/writing-rules

Please submit your article via https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akdhfd or hukukdergi@akdeniz.edu.tr by the deadline indicated above.

We look forward to your valuable contribution to this special issue that pays tribute to Professor Peter Hay’s scholarly achievements and influence.

Written by Dr. Nima Nasrollahi-Shahri (Sorbonne Law School) and Vincent Bassani-Winckler (PhD Candidate, Sorbonne Law School), both authors participated in the Working Group.

A few days ago, the Sorbonne Law School released the final report of a collective research project chaired by Professors Mathias Audit and Sylvain Bollée, entitled “Towards an EU Law on International Commercial Arbitration?”.

Conducted within the IRJS (Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne), and more specifically its research group on private international law, SERPI (Sorbonne – Étude des Relations Privées Internationales), this project sets out to examine whether and how to improve the relationship between commercial arbitration and EU law.

Aims of the project and content of the report

Rather than proposing a full-scale harmonisation, the group focused on identifying limited and concrete modifications, focused on procedural issues, that would improve clarity, consistency, and the mutual recognition of arbitration-related judgments across Member States. Most notably, the report contains a proposal to qualify the arbitration exclusion in the Brussels I recast regulation and to add several provisions granting jurisdiction to the court of the seat of the arbitration, giving priority to these courts to prevent forum shopping and allowing arbitration-related judgments to circulate automatically within the EU.

The report is divided into three main parts. The first part of the report maps out the fragmented legal landscape currently governing international commercial arbitration within the European Union. Although arbitration is expressly excluded from the scope of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Rome I regulation, it is not entirely isolated from EU law. For instance Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings refers to the effects of insolvency on pending arbitral proceedings, effects solely governed by the lex loci arbitri. By contrast, the jurisprudence of the CJEU has had a more substantial impact on arbitration-related matters, whether it is on application of EU public policy in arbitration (Mostaza Claro and Eco-Swiss) or of course investment arbitration between EU Member States (Achmea, Komstroy, and PL Holdings rulings). The CJEU has also shaped the scope of the arbitration exclusion in the Brussels I system. While early cases seemed fairly uncontroversial, West Tankers precluded Member States’ courts from issuing anti-suit injunctions relating to arbitration. Particularly controversial was the London Steamship Judgement, in which the Court limited the ability of a (then) Member State to refuse recognition of a judgment on the basis of a prior arbitration award – even where the award had already been confirmed by a court in that Member State (where the seat of arbitration was located).

The second part of the report lays out the rationale behind the working group’s proposals. It begins by acknowledging the political and legal constraints of a full-scale harmonisation, before arguing that targeted integration of arbitration-related rules into EU law – in particular the Brussels I Recast Regulation – would meaningfully enhance legal certainty, coherence, and the effectiveness of commercial arbitration within the Union. The report identifies a series of concrete legal issues where the current exclusion of arbitration from Brussels I Recast creates legal uncertainty or unfair outcomes. The first issue is certainly the risk of competing proceedings: the current framework does not give any priority, where the validity or applicability of an arbitration agreement is contested, to the judge of the seat of arbitration. Uncertainties remain, additionally, regarding the leeway of a judge of a Member State faced with a judgment rendered on the merits by the judge of another Member State after the latter has dismissed an arbitration agreement. Litigation concerning the constitution of the arbitral tribunal can also give rise to procedural conflicts. The circulation of decisions on the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and relating to the validity of the award are currently governed by a patchwork of national laws. Both could be ensured by a European recognition regime. In the wake of the London Steamship ruling the handling of conflicts between judgments and awards has never been more uncertain. In short, the current regime gives no clear priority to the court of the seat of arbitration, nor does it offer sufficient predictability to parties who rely on arbitration within the European judicial area.

In the final part of the report, the working group sets out a targeted reform plan for the Brussels I Recast Regulation. These proposed amendments are designed to strengthen the effectiveness of arbitration within the EU judicial area without harmonising the substance of arbitration law. Each provision responds to existing legal uncertainties or procedural inconsistencies and aims to enhance predictability, mutual trust, and party autonomy.

The proposed amendments to the Brussels I Recast Regulation

The amendments focus on six areas:

1.  Limited extension to arbitration of the scope of application of the Regulation (Article 1(2)(d))

Proposed provision (art. 1(2)(d)):

“This Regulation shall not apply to: (…) (d) arbitration, save as provided for in Articles 25 bis, 31 bis, 45 1. (d) and 45 3”

The first proposed amendment refines the current exclusion of arbitration from the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Presently, Article 1(2)(d) excludes arbitration entirely, which has led to interpretive tensions when arbitration-related issues intersect with judicial proceedings. The proposed reform retains the general exclusion but introduces narrowly defined exceptions – specifically for (proposed) Articles 25 bis, 31 bis, 45(1)(d), and 45(3).

This opening is not meant to harmonise arbitration law within the EU, but rather to create bridges where interaction with judicial mechanisms is unavoidable. It provides gateways for EU procedural law to engage with arbitration in discrete and functional ways, particularly around jurisdictional conflicts, enforcement of judgments, and safeguarding the role of the arbitral seat. Crucially, this shift does not introduce EU-wide arbitration rules. Instead, it merely extends the scope of the Regulation in a way that strengthens procedural consistency while continuing to respect the autonomy of Member States in substantive arbitration matters.

2. Recognition of Judgments Related to Arbitration (Article 2)

Proposed provision (art. 2):

“For the purposes of this Regulation: (a)(…) (…)

For the purposes of Chapter III, ‘judgment’ includes a judgment given by virtue of Article 25 bis paragraph 1 in the Member State where the seat of arbitration is located. It also includes a judgment given by virtue of Article 25 bis paragraph 1 (a) in another Member State, the court of which was expressly designated by the parties. It does not include a judgment issued by the court of another Member State on matters referred to in Article 25 bis paragraph 1; (…)”

This reform targets a critical gap in the existing system: the inability of arbitration-related court judgments (e.g. those concerning the annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards) to circulate within the EU under the automatic recognition regime of the Brussels I Recast.

The proposal amends Article 2 to include within the definition of “judgment” those decisions rendered either by the courts of the seat of arbitration (under Article 25 bis) or by courts expressly designated by the parties. Such judgments would now benefit from the mutual recognition mechanism of Chapter III. Conversely, judgments by other courts, not falling under these categories, would be excluded from automatic recognition.

This shift would enable decisions such as annulment or enforcement of awards issued by courts at the arbitral seat to circulate seamlessly across Member States. In effect, it creates a “European passport” for arbitration-related judicial decisions – enhancing legal certainty and mutual trust –  and preventing inconsistencies where one Member State’s court upholds an award and another ignores or contradicts it.

Importantly, this proposal, read in conjunction with article 25 bis, also ensures that parties retain freedom: they may still seek enforcement under national rules of jurisdiction if they prefer (art. 25, 3.). The reform merely introduces a uniform recognition track, based on mutual trust, building on the legitimacy of decisions from the arbitral seat.

3. Jurisdiction of the Courts of the Seat of Arbitration (Article 25 bis)

Proposed provision:

Article 25 bis:

“1. If the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed to settle their dispute by arbitration with its seat in the territory of a Member State, the courts of that Member State shall have jurisdiction over the following actions:

(a) Actions relating to the support for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the conduct of the arbitration procedure. This should be without prejudice to the jurisdiction of any other court expressly designated by the parties;

(b) Actions relating to the existence, validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement. This should be without prejudice to:

• provisions of the national law of that State Member empowering the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and, as the case may be, recognising it a priority in this respect; and
• article 31 bis paragraph2.

(c) Actions for annulment, recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award.

2. Actions referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) may not be brought before a court of a Member State on the basis of national rules of jurisdiction.

3. Paragraph 1 (c) should be without prejudice to the right for a party to seek recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award before a court of a Member State on the basis of its national rules of jurisdiction.

4. The provisions of this article are without pre judice to the application of a rule of national law of the Member State where the seat of arbitration is located enabling the parties to waive their right to bring an action for annulment.

5. The provision of this article do not apply in disputes concerning matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II.”

This core reform introduces a new jurisdictional rule under EU law that recognises the centrality of the seat of arbitration. Under the proposed Article 25 bis, when parties have agreed to seat their arbitration in the territory of a Member State, the courts of that State will have jurisdiction over three key types of actions:

• (a) Requests for judicial assistance, such as the appointment of arbitrators;
• (b) Challenges to the existence, validity, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement; and
• (c) Actions for annulment, recognition, or enforcement of the award.

However, this is not a rule of exclusive jurisdiction in all cases. While Article 25 bis bars recourse to national jurisdiction rules for actions falling under (a) and (b), paragraph 3 expressly preserves the right for parties to seek enforcement of arbitral awards before other Member State courts, under those States’ existing national jurisdiction rules. In other words, a party could still apply directly for enforcement in a Member State other than the seat — which remains particularly important in practice for seeking execution against assets wherever they are located.

What this rule achieves, then, is not exclusivity per say, but a harmonised baseline: it grants primary jurisdiction to the courts of the seat for core functions, while preserving flexibility where appropriate. It also enhances coherence and foreseeability, notably by ensuring that judgments rendered by the court of the seat (especially on annulment or validity of awards) will benefit from automatic circulation under Chapter III of the Brussels I Recast (which is the effect of the proposed addition to article 2 (a)) — effectively granting them a “European passport.”

In addition, the rule accommodates Member States’ domestic doctrines, such as competence-competence and its negative effect, and waiver of annulment actions, making it fully compatible with diverse national legal cultures.

4. Priority of the Seat’s Courts in Conflicting Proceedings (Article 31 bis)

Proposed provision:

Article 31 Bis:

“1. Where a court of a Member State is seized of an action and its jurisdiction is contested on the basis of an arbitration agreement establishing the seat of the arbitration in another Member State, it shall, on the application of the party seeking to rely upon the said agreement, stay the proceedings until the courts of this other Member State have ruled or may no longer rule on the existence, validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

2. However the court whose jurisdiction is contested continues the proceedings if:

(a) the arbitration agreement is manifestly inexistent, invalid or unenforceable under the law of the Member State where the seat is located; or

(b) the arbitral tribunal was seized and declined jurisdiction, and the arbitration agreement is inexistent, invalid or unenforceable under the law of the Member State where the seat is located.

For the purposes of this paragraph, reference to the law of the Member State where the seat is located encompasses conflict-of laws rules applicable in that Member State.

3. The provisions of this article are without prejudice of the application of a rule of national law of the Member State where the seat of arbitration is located empowering the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own juris diction and, as the case may be, recognizing it a priority in this respect.”

This reform introduces a stay mechanism to prevent jurisdictional races and forum shopping when disputes arise about the validity of an arbitration agreement.

When a court in one Member State is seized and the arbitration agreement designates a seat in another, the seized court must stay its proceedings until the courts of the seat have ruled — unless:

• The arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid, or
• The arbitral tribunal has already declined jurisdiction.

This reform addresses the recurring problem of inconsistent rulings and tactical litigation, where parties rush to court in jurisdictions likely to undermine arbitration. The proposed rule:

• Respects the primacy of the seat in deciding the validity of the arbitration agreement;
• Integrates negative effect competence-competence where national laws so provide (see para. 3);
• Ensures minimal interference by requiring only a prima facie validity to continue proceedings, thus filtering abusive challenges;
• Maintains consistency with the New York Convention, especially Article II(3), by offering a more favourable approach (per Article VII).

In practice, this rule harmonises procedural treatment of arbitration agreements across the EU and strengthens the parties’ contractual choices, giving effect to their selection of the arbitral seat as the appropriate forum for judicial review.

5. Clarification on Provisional Measures (Article 35)

Proposed provision:

Article 35: “Application may be made to the courts of a Member State for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that Member State, even if the courts of another Member State or an arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.”

This is a seemingly modest, but practically important clarification. Currently, Article 35 allows courts to grant provisional measures even if they lack jurisdiction on the merits — but it does not expressly mention arbitration.

The proposal amends this article to state that courts may issue such measures even if an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute. This codifies the approach taken by the ECJ in Van Uden.

6. Refusal of Recognition in Case of Conflict with Arbitral Awards (Article 45)

Proposed provision:

Article 45:

“1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused:

(…)

(d) if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State, or an arbitral award, involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment or arbitral award fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed; or (…)

3. Without prejudice to point (e) of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction, including the rules governing the existence, validity or enforceability of arbitral agreements.”

This reform targets one of the most pressing weaknesses exposed by the London Steamship case: under current law, an arbitral award cannot itself prevent the recognition of a conflicting court judgment within the Brussels I framework.

The proposed change adds arbitral awards to the list of prior decisions that can bar recognition of later inconsistent judgments, provided that:

1. The award was rendered before the judgment,
2. Both involve the same cause of action and parties, and
3. The award meets the conditions for recognition in the requested state.

This ensures that awards enjoy the same res judicata value as earlier judgments, preventing inconsistent decisions and protecting the authority of arbitration.

In addition, paragraph 3 of Article 45 is revised merely to extend the prohibition of the use of public policy exceptions to the rules relating to jurisdiction, even when the rules governing the existence, validity or enforceability of arbitral agreements are at stake.

Conclusion: A Coherent and Functional Reform

These proposals are carefully calibrated. They do not seek to harmonise the substance of arbitration law in the EU – something neither realistic nor desirable given the diversity of legal traditions. Rather, the proposals aim to:

• Close procedural loopholes in the Brussels I Recast Regulation;
• Ensure legal certainty in cross-border litigation involving arbitration;
• Support party autonomy and reward the choice of a Member State seat;
• Enhance the attractiveness of European arbitration venues, through mutual trust in court supervision and support for arbitration.

In short, the proposals promote integration without harmonisation. They offer a modest but meaningful step towards a more coherent and predictable European framework for arbitration—one that recognises both the autonomy of arbitration and the importance of judicial cooperation in the EU.

I. Introduction (*)

(*) For the sake of simplicity, reference will be made only to Federal Decree-Law No. 41/2022 of 2 October 2022 on Civil Personal Status. The Emirate of Abu Dhabi has enacted a separate law that addresses similar matters at the local level. For a comparison of the various applicable legal frameworks in family law in the UAE, see Béligh Elbalti, “The Personal Status Regimes in the UAE — What’s New and What Are the Implications for Private International Law? A Brief Critical Appraisal”.

 

There is no doubt that the introduction of the Civil Personal Status Law (CPSL) in the United Arab Emirates marks a significant turning point in the region’s legal landscape, particularly in areas traditionally governed by religious norms. The CPSL refers to the special law adopted at the federal level, which allows family law disputes involving non-Muslims (both foreigners and UAE citizens) to be resolved under a legal framework, that is intended to be modern, flexible, based on “rules of justice and fairness” and “the best international practices from comparative legal systems” (cf. article 19 of the Cabinet Resolution Concerning the Executive Regulation of Federal Decree-Law on the Civil Personal Status). However, the incorporation of the CPSL into the existing legal frameworks in the UAE has raised several issues. These include, among others, the articulation of the CPSL with the other applicable legal frameworks, and more importantly, the extent to which parties may opt out of this “modern” regime in favor of applying their own national laws (for a general overview, see Elbalti, op. cit.).

The question has so far remained the subject of legal speculation, as the available court decisions have not directly or explicitly addressed the issue (available court decisions have mainly been rendered by Abu Dhabi courts. However, as mentioned earlier, in Abu Dhabi, a different legal framework applies). Optimistic views rely on the wording of the law, which – in theory – allow for the application of foreign law when invoked by foreign non-Muslims (article 1 of the CPSL). Pessimistic views (including my own) are based on the almost consistent judicial practice in the UAE regarding the application of foreign law in general, and in personal status matters in particular. From this perspective, even when foreign law is invoked, its actual application remains extremely limited due to structural and systemic obstacles that render the use of foreign law nearly impossible in practice (although, this does not mean that foreign law is never applied, but rather that its application is particularly difficult).

The decision discussed here is not publicly available and is presented based on private access. Although it is very likely that the Dubai Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings applying the CPSL, such judgments (unlike those in civil and commercial matters) are generally not published on the official website managed by the Dubai Courts. For reasons of privacy, the case reference and the nationality of the parties will not be disclosed.

 

II. Facts

The case concerns divorce between a husband (X) and a wife (Y), both of whom are non-Muslim foreigners and share the same nationality. X and Y were married more than a decade ago in their home country (State A, a European country), where they also had children, before relocating to Dubai, where they eventually settled. The parties concluded a special agreement regarding matrimonial property, in which they expressly agreed that the law of State A would apply.

Later, X initiated divorce proceedings before the Dubai Court of First Instance, seeking the dissolution of marriage in accordance with the CPSL. Y, however, contested the application of the CPSL and argued that the law of State A should apply, requesting that X’s claim be dismissed on that basis. In support of her defense, Y submitted a certified and authenticated translation of the applicable law of State A.

i) Before the first instance court

The Court of First Instance, however, rejected the application of State A’s law on the grounds that the submitted translation was dated, poorly legible, and that no original copy of the law had been provided. As a result, the court concluded that the conditions for applying foreign law were not met and proceeded to dissolve the marriage under the CPSL, on no-fault divorce grounds, as requested by X.

ii) Before the Court of Appeal

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Y filed an appeal before the Dubai Court of Appeal, arguing that the law of State A should have been applied instead of the CPSL, given that both parties shared the same nationality and had expressly agreed to the application of that law in their matrimonial property arrangement. She further contended, among other things, that translating the entire law would have been prohibitively expensive, and that she had not been given an opportunity to submit an original copy of the law. The Court of Appeal, however, was unpersuaded by these arguments. It reaffirmed the principle that when a foreign law is applicable, the burden lies on the party invoking its application to submit an authenticated copy of the law. Moreover, if the original text is not in Arabic, the law must be translated by a translation office certified by the Ministry of Justice. This is because, according to the Court of Appeal, foreign law is treated as a question of fact, and its content must be duly established by the party relying on it.

Unhappy with the outcome, Y appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating the same arguments raised before the Court of Appeal.

 

III. The Ruling

Unsurprisingly, the Dubai Supreme Court rejected the appeal, holding as follows:

According to the established case law of this Court and pursuant to Article 1(1) of the CPSL, ‘the provisions of this Decree-Law shall apply to non-Muslim citizens of the United Arab Emirates and to foreign non-Muslim residents in the UAE, unless one of them invokes the application of his own law […]’

It is therefore well established that the burden of proving and submitting the foreign law lies with the party seeking its application. That party must submit a complete and unabridged copy of the foreign law, including all amendments, duly authenticated and officially certified. If the foreign law is not in Arabic, it must be translated by an officially certified translator. This is because foreign law is considered a matter of fact, and it lies with the party relying on it to prove its content and that it remains in force in its country of origin.

If none of the parties invokes or submits the foreign law, or if the law is invoked but not properly submitted, or is incomplete, irrelevant to the dispute, or lacks the applicable provisions, then domestic law must be applied. This remains the case even if the foreign law is submitted for the first time on appeal, as introducing it at that stage would undermine the principle of double-degree jurisdiction and deprive the opposing party of one level of litigation, which is a fundamental rule of judicial organization and part of public order.

It is also well established that the assessment of whether the provisions of the foreign law submitted are sufficiently relevant and complete for resolving the dispute is a legal issue subject to the Supreme Court’s control.

Given the above, and since the judgment of the court of first instance, as upheld by the judgment under appeal, complied with the above legal principles and ruled in accordance with the provisions of UAE [civil] personal status law, rejecting the application of [the law of State A] ……, based on sound and well-supported reasoning ….. the ground of appeal is therefore without merit.

 

IV. Comments

1. Foreign Law in the UAE

As noted by UAE lawyers themselves (albeit in the context of international transactions), “it is almost impossible to apply foreign law” in the UAE, and “[i]n most cases, the courts in the UAE will apply local law and will have little or no regard for the foreign law in the absence of evidence [of its] provisions” (Essam Al Tamimi, Practical Guide to Litigation and Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates (Kluwer Law International, 2003) 167).

Prior to 2005, UAE courts were inconsistent in their approach to family law disputes: whereas the Dubai Court of Cassation admitted the application of foreign law ex officio, the Federal Supreme Court treated foreign law as a matter of fact, even in family law cases. However, following the enactment of the Federal Personal Status Law in 2005, the Dubai Court of Cassation aligned its position with that of the Federal Supreme Court, treating foreign law as fact whose application depends on the party invoking it and proving its content. This shift reflects the general legislative intent, as expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum to Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 on Personal Status.

It is therefore not surprising to read that “[t]raditionally, the UAE courts have a reputation of applying foreign law only reluctantly.” This reluctance stems from the general principle that “[f]oreign law is treated as a matter of fact, and a provision of foreign law must be proven in the proceedings by the party that intends to rely on it.” Consequently, “[w]here the parties do not provide sufficient evidence, the Emirati court would apply Emirati law” (Kilian Bälz, “United Arab Emirates,” in D. Girsberger et al. (eds), Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (OUP, 2021) 691). For this reason, invoking foreign law has proven largely unsuccessful, as UAE courts impose very strict requirements for its acceptance. These hurdles become even more significant when the foreign law is not in Arabic. In such cases, the party relying on the foreign law must submit a certified translation of the entire relevant legal instrument (e.g., the Swiss Civil Code in its entirety), authenticated by the official authorities of the state of origin. Courts have routinely refused to apply foreign law when only selected provisions are submitted or when the original text (in its foreign language) is not provided. Any failure to meet these stringent requirements typically results in the exclusion of the foreign law and the application of the lex fori instead.

It is against this background that the adoption of the CPSL should be understood. In an attempt to address the challenges associated with the application of foreign law—and rather than facilitating its application—UAE local authorities opted for a radical alternative. Under the guise of modernity, progress, and alignment with the most advanced international practices in family law, they introduced a special legal framework: the CPSL. Indeed, although the CPSL formally leaves room for the application of foreign law (article 1 of the CPSL), it is actually designed to apply directly to all disputes falling within its scope, even in cases where foreign law would otherwise apply under the UAE’s choice-of-law rules, as set out in the Federal Law on Civil Transactions of 1985 (FLCT), arts. 10-28. (On the different approach under the Abu Dhabi Civil Marriage Law, and the issue of articulation between the choice-of-law rules provided in the 1985 FACT and article 1 of the CPSL, see Elbalti, op. cit.). For instance, a Filipino couple who got married in the Philippines and resides in the UAE could be granted a divorce based solely on the unilateral will of one spouse, even though divorce is not permitted under Philippine law, normally applicable here. Similarly, in countries such as Lebanon, where couples married under religious law cannot dissolve their marriage except through religious procedures, one spouse may still obtain a divorce in the UAE. This is more so knowing that jurisdictional rules in the UAE enable UAE courts to assert jurisdiction even in cases with minimal connection to the forum. (For an overview, see Béligh Elbalti, “The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court on the Law on Civil Marriage Applicability to Foreign Muslim and the Complex Issue of International Jurisdiction”).

 

2. Heads You Lose, Tails You Still Lose: The Litigant’s Dilemma

Faced with a family law dispute in the UAE, litigants (particularly defendants) may find themselves in an inextricable situation. While, in theory, foreign law may be applied if invoked by one of the parties, in practice this is rarely the case. According to testimonies shared on various social media platforms, as well as accounts personally gathered by the author, local lawyers often advise their clients not to engage in a legal battle whose outcome appears predetermined.

However, when such advice is followed, courts typically state: “Since neither party holds the nationality of the UAE, and neither of them invoked the application of any foreign law, the applicable law shall be the laws of the UAE.” (see e.g. Dubai Court of First Instance, Case No. 542 of 14 February 2024 [divorce and custody case], Dubai Court of Appeal, Appeal No14 April 2025 [custody case]). Yet, even when a party does invoke the application of foreign law – as in the case discussed here – the result is often the same: the foreign law is excluded, and UAE law is applied regardless, even when the party has made every effort to comply with procedural requirements.

The obligation to submit the full text of foreign law (an entire civil code!), translated into Arabic by a sworn translator and certified by the state of origin’s authorities, renders the task nearly impossible (especially when the competent authorities in the State of origine often content themselves to refer the parties to available online databases and unofficial translations). This cumbersome process renders the attempt to apply foreign law a Sisyphean effort, ultimately providing the court a convenient justification to revert to the lex fori—when, according to the UAE’s own rules of choice of law, foreign law should have been applied.

 

3. A Potential Recognition Problem Abroad?

What happens when divorces such as the one in the present case are submitted for recognition abroad?

There is, to be sure, no straightforward answer, as this would depend on the legal system concerned. However, precisely for such basic reasons, the UAE should exercise caution in its approach to family law disputes involving foreign parties. To return to the examples mentioned above: a divorce involving a Filipino couple or a Christian Lebanese couple is highly unlikely to be recognized in the Philippines or Lebanon. In the Philippines, foreign divorces between Filipino nationals are not recognized as valid (see Elizabeth H. Aguiling-Pangalangan, “Philippines,” in A. Reyes et al. (eds.), Choice of Law and Recognition in Asian Family Law (Hart, 2023), pp. 273–274). Similarly, in Lebanon, civil divorce judgments rendered abroad have often been refused recognition on public policy grounds, particularly when the marriage was celebrated under religious law involving at least one Lebanese national (see Marie-Claude Najm Kobeh, “Lebanon,” in J. Basedow et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Vol. III (Edward Elgar, 2017), p. 2275).

Moreover, certain international treaties concluded by the UAE explicitly require a control of the law applied by the rendering court. Notably, the 1991 Franco-Emirati Bilateral Convention on Judicial Assistance and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments provides in Article 13(1)(b) that a foreign judgment shall be recognized and enforced only if “the law applied to the dispute is the one designated by the conflict-of-law rules accepted in the territory of the requested State.” It is worth noting that the French Cour de cassation relied specifically on this provision in its refusal to enforce a divorce judgment rendered in Abu Dhabi (Ruling No. 15-14.908 of 22 June 2016; see comments by Christelle Chalas, Revue critique, 2017(1), p. 82).

Last but not least, in cases similar to the one discussed here, where a party relying on foreign law appears to be effectively prevented from making her case due to the excessively stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by UAE courts, such proceedings may be found incompatible with procedural public policy. This is particularly true where the losing party was not afforded a fair opportunity to present her arguments, raising serious concerns regarding due process and access to justice.

 

4. Epilogue

Since the emergence of private international law as a legal discipline, debates over the justification for applying foreign law have occupied scholars. Regardless of the theoretical foundations advanced, it is now widely accepted that, the application of foreign law constitutes “a requirement of justice” (O. Kahn-Freund, “General Problems of Private International Law,” 143 Collected Courses (1974), p. 469).

Therefore, while the stated objective of the CPSL is to provide expatriates with a modern and flexible family law based on principles that are in line with the best international practices may be understandable and even commendable, UAE authorities should not lose sight of the fact that the application of foreign law is “an object directed by considerations of justice, convenience, [and] the necessity of international intercourse between individuals” (International Court of Justice, Judgment of 28 November 1958, ICJ Reports 1958, p. 94).