Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP): Issue 4 of 2025

The fourth issue of 2025 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) is out.

In addition to recent case law and other materials, it features two contributions.

Christian Kohler, Loi de police ou ordre public? Interrogations critiques soulevées par l’arrêt C-86/23 Huk Coburg de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (Overriding Mandatory Provisions or Public Policy? Critical Questions Raised by the CJEU Judgment in Case C-86/23 Huk Coburg)

In Case C-86/23, HUK-Coburg, the Court of Justice of the European Union failed to properly identify the question referred by the Bulgarian court. In fact, that question did not actually concern the classification of Article 52 of the Bulgarian Law on Obligations and Contracts as an overriding mandatory provision (loi de police), but rather raised the issue of whether the application of German law, to which Article 4(1) of Regulation Rome II refers in the present case, would be manifestly incompatible with Bulgarian public policy (ordre public). As the wording of the question expressly pointed to Article 16 of Regulation Rome II, it is understandable that the Court considered the interpretation of that provision. However, if it had concluded that the Bulgarian provision could not be classified as an overriding mandatory rule, it could have made it clear to the referring court that the case in fact raised a question of public policy and provided guidance on how to answer that question on the basis of Article 26 of Regulation Rome II. It is regrettable that the Court did not take this approach and instead conflated the concepts of overriding mandatory rules and public policy, thereby making it more difficult to apply the provisions of European regulations on private international law.

Federica Sartori, Ontologia dell’ordine pubblico economico quale limite al riconoscimento di sentenze straniere nel contenzioso in materia di contratti derivati (The Ontology of Economic Public Policy as a Limit to the Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Derivatives Litigation)

This article examines the Italian Court of Cassation’s decree on the interpretation of the concept of public order, pursuant to art. 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation, as a criterion for the recognition in Italy of a foreign judgment concerning derivatives contracts entered into by a local authority. By analysing the scope of international public policy, including its descriptive economic component, the decree declares the preliminary reference to the Supreme Court inadmissible, as the definitional issue has already been resolved in previous decisions by the same Court under the general principles of private international law.