Agrégateur de flux

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

La Cour de Strabourg revient sur les critères résultant de l’article 2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme en matière de recours à la force meurtrière par les agents de l’État, qu’il s’agisse du volet procédural ou du volet matériel. Elle retient la non-violation de la Convention concernant l’absence de poursuites de l’agent qui, par un tir sans sommation, a rendu paraplégique le requérant, malgré les lenteurs des investigations. 

en lire plus

Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property Agenda

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

 

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

Join Zoom Meeting:

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

Meeting ID: 874 2489 1864 Password: 574150

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Observatory on Legislation and Regulations

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

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

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

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

 

Observatory on Practices

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

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

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

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

 

Conference Proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Chronicles

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

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

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

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

 

Finally, this issue features the following Book Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

Project description:

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in participating?

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

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

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

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

Academic outcomes

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

Contact and coordination

This study is coordinated by Benedikt Schmitz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information can be found in the full call.

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

The author has kindly provided the following summary:

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 Conference Theme: New Dimensions in Private International Law

Original research that addresses the following themes is welcome:

• Commercial Activities and Private International Law

Moderators: Prof Justin Borg Barthet and Prof Burcu Yüksel Ripley

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

• Family life and Private International Law

Moderators: Prof Katarina Trimmings and Mr Le Xuan Tung

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

• Private International Law in the Digital Age

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

• Maritime Law and Private International Law

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

• Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility

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

 

Eligibility requirement

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

Submission Guidelines

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

The deadline for submissions is 20 March 2025.

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

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

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

The CJEU held earlier this morning in C‑393/23 Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA (no language versions available at the time of posting than Dutch and French).

My post on Kokott AG’s Opinion is here. The AG all in all supported a ready acceptance of forum connexitatis in competition law cases – in the case at issue a follow-on damages claim, filed in the mother corporation’s domicile, jointly against the daughter against whom a national competition authority had found a competition law infringement.

The Court is somewhat more cautious.

[26] The finding in CDC that A8(1)’s requirement of ‘same situation of law and fact’ is presumed to be met when various corporations have been held by a Decision of the European Commission to have violated competition law and are now pursued in the A4 court of one of them, also applies [27] when a mother and daughter corporation are pursued on the assumption they are part of one and the same economic unity. Once that unity established, it leads to joint and several liability in EU competition law [29].

[30-31] The risk of irreconcilable judgments  increases in the event of bifurcation of claims against the mother corporation and related undertakings when it is not the EC but rather a national competition authority which has found an infringement seeing [32] as the Damages Directive 2014/104 only instructs national authorities to take a finding of infringement by another Member State as prima facie, not binding evidence of such infringement on their own territory.

[39] ff the economic unit theory in competition law can and ought to be extended to follow-on damages claims so as to preserve the effet utile of EU competition law.

[41] ff focusing then on Brussels Ia, the national court’s jurisdictional assessment in the context of A8(1) is not one of intense engagement with the facts let alone the merits of the claim. [43] The claims by the defendant must be given proper attention however the court seized can presume that the information furnished by the claimant as to the alleged tort, is correct.

[45] all in all, the room for manoeuvre for the court seized in the context of an A8(1) claim aimed at joint and several liability, is limited to assessing whether decisive influence by the mother corporation on the related corporation, is excluded. Hence [46] the defendant corporations must be given the opportunity, at the jurisdictional level, to show only that

either the mother corporation neither directly nor indirectly holds all or almost all of the capital of the related undertaking, or

that it did not hold decisive influence despite holding all or almost all of the capital.

In summary therefore while the court seized in a claim for joint and several liability will not be able to hold a mini trial on the alleged tort, it must engage with the corporations’ arguments on capital control and /or decisive influence.  That is not a large window for extensive delay and argumentation yet neither is it the kind of swift A8(1) check which in my view the AG had in mind in her opinion.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.516.

 

Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab Afdeling Schackenborgvænge
Principes du droit communautaire
Avocate générale Ćapeta : la législation danoise en matière de logement public dans les zones en transformation constitue une discrimination directe fondée sur un critère ethnique

Alchaster II
Mandats d’arrêt émis au titre de l’ACC avec le Royaume-Uni : selon l’avocat général Spielmann, les modifications apportées aux règles relatives à la libération conditionnelle ne relèvent pas, en principe, de la notion de « peine plus forte » au sens de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne

Lexitor
Environnement et consommateurs
Contrats de crédit à la consommation : en cas de non-respect de l’obligation d’information, une banque peut être privée de son droit aux intérêts

A webinar of the International Law Association (ILA) Committee on Conflict of Laws Issues in International Arbitration will take place on 18 February 2025. The webinar will be held in two sessions with identical content, to accommodate participants around the world. Here are the zoom links: Session 1 (8 AM London, 9 AM Berlin, 4 PM […]

With the trend of globalization, legal exchange and cooperation, even competition and conflict between nations have become the norm. The demand for legal services in cross-border investment, international trade, and transnational dispute resolution is also sharply on the rise. As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s legal system is playing an increasingly significant role in cross-border legal services. However, the international legal community generally does not have much understanding of China’s foreign-related legal system and practice. There is a need for a platform that can, systematically and timely, provide information for the Chinese foreign-related legal development including updating China’s foreign-related legal policy, explaining the making and amending of relevant Chinese laws and reporting Chinese foreign-related cases etc.

For this purpose, we, Everwin Law Firm, the first legal firm in China appointed by the Ministry of Justice as “one with special focus on foreign-related economic and trade legal affairs”, take the responsibility to launch this English Bulletin titled “Chinese International Lawyers”, which is hopefully to be further developed as a legal journal in the future.

We are committed to the mission of “Telling China’s Foreign-related Legal Story, Sharing China’s Foreign-related Legal Wisdom and Promoting Global Legal Exchange.” By providing accurate and timely updates, high-quality analytical reviews, in-depth case studies and forward-looking insights, we aim at offering the international legal community a panorama on the distinctive feature and practical achievements of China’s foreign-related legal affairs.

We sincerely invite researchers and practitioners working in the field of foreign-related laws, from China and abroad, to submit their work to us and your contribution is highly appreciated.

We look forward to working together with you!

I. Main Contents to Be Covered

Generally, this Bulletin will cover the contents as listed below with the possible addition of other relevant interesting materials:

1.Analytical Readings of China’s Foreign-Related Legal Policies;

2. Introduction and Comments on China’s Latest Foreign-Related Legislations, Regulations and Their Amendments;

3. Reports on Typical Chinese Foreign-related Cases and Professional Practices;

4. Chinese Perspectives on Topical International Legal Issues;

5. Presentations on Legal Cooperation between China and Other Countries including Those along the Line of “Belt and Road Initiative”.

II. Submission Guidelines

As mentioned, we welcome submissions from scholars and practitioners working in the field of foreign-related laws including researchers from universities, think tanks and research institutes and judges, lawyers, notaries and government officers etc.

Submissions can be made in English or Chinese but must be written in clear, precise and professional language. Chinese submissions will be translated into English by us with due recognition of the author’s and translator’s copyright.

The word limit for each submission shall be within 15,000 words in English (including footnotes) and 25,000 words in Chinese (including footnotes) and shall comply with the general standard format. For English submissions, please refer to the Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA); for Chinese submissions, please refer to the general standard published by the China Law Society.

Please submit your manuscript via email to CIL@everwinlawyer.cn with a cover letter containing a brief biography and contact details of the author.

Editorial Board
Chinese International Lawyers Bulletin

Albausy (Case C-187/23 issued on January 25, 2025) evolves around the question of competence to submit a request for preliminary ruling under the Succession Regulation (Regulation 650/2012 on matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession).

Although the CJEU finds that the request in that case is inadmissible, the decision is noteworthy because it confirms the system of the Succession Regulation. Within the regulation, the competence to submit questions for preliminary ruling is reserved for national courts that act as judicial bodies and are seized with a claim over which they have jurisdiction based on Succession Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction.

The opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona is available here.

Essence

Under the Succession Regulation, national courts resolve disputes by issuing a decision; the decisions circulate in the EU following the regulation’s Chapter IV rules on enforcement. Meanwhile, a broader number of national authorities apply the regulation and may have the competence to issue issue a European Certificate of Succession (see primarily Recitals 20 and 70). A European Certificate of Succession circulates in the EU based on the regulation’s Chapter VI. It has primarily an evidential authority as one of an authentic act.

In Albausy, the CJEU confirms that if a national court’s task in a specific case is confined to issuing a European Certificate of Succession, this court (within this task) has no competence to submit questions for preliminary ruling to the CJEU. This is so even if the court has doubts relating to the regulation’s interpretation, and this is so despite the fact that a court is, in principle, part of a Member State’s judicial system in the sense of art. 267 TFEU.

Facts

The facts of this case are as follows. A French national, last domiciled in Germany, died in 2021. The surviving spouse applied for a European Certificate of Succession. The deceased’s son and grandchildren challenged the validity of the will. They questioned the testamentary capacity of the deceased and the authenticity of their signature. The referring German court (Amtsgericht Lörrach) found these challenges unfounded.

However, given the challenges raised, the court had doubts about the way proceed. It has submitted four questions to CJEU. The questions have remained unanswered, because the CJEU considered the request inadmissible. Still, several points regarding the Court’s considerations are noteworthy.

‘Challenge’

In the motivation part of the ruling, the CJEU addresses the concept of ‘challenge’ under art. 67(1) of the Succession Regulation. The CJEU defines it broadly. It can be a challenge raised during the procedure for issuing a European Certificate of Succession. It can also be a challenge raised in other proceedings. The concept includes even challenges that ‘appear to be unfounded or unsubstantiated’, as was the case in the view of the referring court. The court warned in particular against frivolous challenges that might impede legal certainty in the application of the regulation.

According to the CJEU, any challenge to the requirements for issuing a European Certificate of Succession raised during the procedure for issuing it precludes the issuance of that certificate. In the event of such a challenge, the authority must not decide on their substance. Instead, the authority should refuse to issue the certificate

Meanwhile, the CJEU reminds that the concept of ‘challenge’ within the meaning of art. 67(1) of the Succession Regulation does not cover those that have already been rejected by a final decision given by a judicial authority in (other) court proceedings. If and when a decision to reject a challenge becomes final (in proceedings other than the issuing of a European Certificate of Succession), this challenge does not preclude the issuing of a European Certificate of Succession.

Redress

The CJEU elaborates on one option available in the situation where the issuing of the certificate is refused because of a challenge. One can use the redress procedure provided for in Article 72 of the Succession Regulation. It allows to dispute the refusal of the issuing authority before a judicial authority in the Member State of the issuing authority. Within the redress procedure, the judicial authority handling the redress procedure may examine the merits of the challenges that prevented the certificate from being issued. If the challenge is rejected through this redress procedure, and the decision becomes final, it no longer precludes the issuance of the European Certificate of Succession.

The ruling and earlier case law

In Albausy, the CJEU follows the line of its earlier case law. This is namely not the first time the CJEU has dealt with cognate questions, as reported inter alia here. The Court has already clarified that although various authorities in Member States apply the Succession Regulation, not any authority may submit a question for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of the regulation. For instance, a notary public may in most cases not submit questions for preliminary ruling. Notaries are not part of the judicial system in most Member States within the meaning of the art. 267 TFEU (possible complications or deviations admitted by the Succession Regulation being addressed in Recital 20 of the Succession Regulation).

The Court’s reasoning in Albausy confirms that this bar also covers requests for preliminary rulings from national courts that act only as ‘authority,’ not as judicial body in the regulation’s application. Thus, a double test is to be performed: the test of the Succession Regulation’s system and definitions (authority or judicial body, without forgetting the Recitals 20 and 70, still somewhat puzzling in this context) and the test of art. 267 TFEU.

On 11 February 2025, the European Commission adopted its 2025 work programme, titled Moving forward together: A Bolder, Simpler, Faster Union. Consistent with the political priorities set out last year for the period 2024-2029, the programme contemplates measures aimed, inter alia, at strengthening economic competitiveness, responding to geopolitical instability, addressing migration and climate change and safeguarding European […]

This post was written by Lukas Petschning, University of Vienna.

Conflict of laws is one of the most complex and disputed subject areas in international arbitration. An abundance of academic works has examined the issue and proposed widely diverging solutions. Yet, these studies frequently focus on isolated issues and lack overall consistency. Equally, they are often overly theoretical, lacking practical guidance useful to the average arbitrator or judge.

Forging a path toward more legal certainty, the International Law Association has established a new Committee on Conflict-of-Laws Issues in International Arbitration. It is chaired by Dr Nikolaus Pitkowitz and Ms Wendy Lin, with Professor Matthias Lehmann and Dr Mariel Dimsey acting as co-rapporteurs.

The Committee plans to exercise its mandate in three phases from 2025 to 2030. Initially, a general methodology for the resolution of conflict-of-laws issues faced by arbitrators and supervisory courts will be developed. In the second phase, the Committee will transform this methodology into draft principles, which shall provide a harmonious approach to all or most conflict-of-laws issues which may arise in the context of international arbitration. The principles will be sufficiently precise to enable their citation as soft law by arbitral tribunals or courts on specific subject matters. In a third phase, the Committee will explore the advisability of developing hard law rules, e.g. in the form of treaties, model laws, or amendments to existing institutional rules.

The Committee is excited to announce its first webinar, introducing its mandate, the envisaged timeline of the Committee’s work, and the principal issues likely to be discussed. All interested individuals are expressly encouraged to participate via the following Zoom links; prior registration is not necessary.

The webinar will be held in two sessions on 18 February 2025, to enable participation from most time zones:

Session 1 (Asia, Oceania, EMEA): 8am (London) / 4pm (Hong Kong) / 7pm (Sydney)
Session 2 (Americas, EMEA): 8am (US Pacific) / 11am (US Eastern) / 4pm (London)

The Committee can be reached via email at ILA-CLC-Committee@pitkowitz.com.

More information on the Committee’s work can be found here.