The third edition of the EAPIL Winter School will take place in Como between 2 and 6 February 2026. The upcoming edition’s general topic is Values in Private International Law.

Day 1 will be about the protection of weaker contractual parties. The concerns surrounding torts will be dealt with in Day 2. Day 3, on “vulnerable people”, will address the current challenges the arise in relation with children and with adults who are unable to protect their interests. Day 4 will revolve around the relationships between the values underlying EU texts and those inspiring developments in other regions and worldwide. On Day 5 the focus will shift to a selection of specific fields, such as poverty, and issues at the crossroads of business and human rights.

Registrations are open until 20 January 2026. Detailed information about the program, the registration process and the fees can be found here.

For further inquiries: eapilws@gmail.com.

The Seminar: A Report

Silvia Marino, the Coordinator of the School, made a general presentation of the initiative.

Gilles Cuniberti (Methods in Private International Law: Protecting People and Values) introduced a provocative scene, where the traditional neutrality of private international law will be confronted with the more recent trends of colouring it with new values.

Javier Carrascosa González and Maria Asunción Cebrian Salvat (Consumer) distinguished between ‘traditional’ consumer contracts and ‘new consumers’, including so-called ‘professional consumers’, that represents a challenge to the traditional protective approach.

For Erik Sinander (Worker and Collective Rights) the differences in national laws question the potential role of private international law in the fragmentation and on its methods and advanced possible litigation strategies in industrial actions, where the harm is not accidental, but on purpose.

Anna Wysocka-Bar (Passenger) recalled the high number of legal acts regulating the right of the passengers, and their diverse natures, the consequential difficulties in coordination and in the identification of the role of the Rome I regulation.

Thomas Kadner Graziano (Torts Victims as Vulnerable Parties? and Product Liability) spoke about the protection of the victims of torts. Challenging the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union of Article 7 point 2 of the Brussels I bis regulation, in personality rights the identification of the person and the right to be protected is not immediate, thus weakening the traditional views of tortfeasors and victims. Under the products liability, he disclosed the discussion of real cases related to the role of consumer protection in Article 7 point 2 of the regulation.

Eva-Maria Kieninger (Environmental Claims) shed some light on the importance of choice of law in environmental claims due to the different liability (strict of by fault) that can be envisaged in national legislations and announced a discussion on the current practice in climate change litigation.

Cristina González Beilfuss (Vulnerable Adults) previewed a discussion of the EU proposals on the protection of vulnerable adults, in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities triggering a favourable approach to voluntary measures.

Sara De Vido (Women) proposed a critical conversation on private international law categories, making use of feminist and gender theories to imbalance the person. Discussing the very same term woman, she faces cross-border cases on violence.

For Laura Carpaneto (Children and Parenthood) the developing concept of parentage/parenthood/filiation questions its very foundations, starting from the principle that identity of the mother of a child is always certain. In the reproductive market, the risk of commodification of children is real.

Javier Carrascosa González (Mothers and Children in Surrogacy) followed this path, stressing that the legal protection that private international law shall offer mechanisms to prevent children from being treated as objects and the exploitation and deception of the women involved.

Hans van Loon (The EU in the HCCH) opened the presentation of Day 4, illustrating the main features of the impact of the EU private international law in the HCCH Conventions. After the accession of other non-European countries, more synergy and complementarity between global and regional are needed.

In a similar vein, Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (The EU and Third Countries) focussed on the conceptualisation of private international law in other regions, such as South America and Asia. The connections must be global and regional, so that the values discussed in other regional system can develop a global private international law shape.

A common point can be the legal treatment of immigrants and the quest for integration. Hans van Loon and Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Migrants and Integration) distinguished different kind of immigration, asylum seekers and refugees, protected by international conventions, and labours migrants, in need of a different system of protection.

Recalling the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, Johan Meeusen (Minorities: Equality through Private International Law) stressed the significance of equality for conflict of laws in a broad sense. In the lecture, he aims to analyse the inclusion of minority groups through adequate private international law instruments.

Geert van Calster (Business and Human Rights) discussed forum shopping and applicable law as a clear help in business and human rights litigation, as the recent English judgment in Municipio shows. At the same time, jurisdictional battles bleed claimants in human rights cases of scarce resources when they cannot have their claim funded.

Stefano Dominelli (The Right of Nature) showed new frontiers, related to the attribution to legal personality to the nature, or to some parts of it. The potential recognition of a legal status imposes original solutions in the cross-border protection of the environment, that can lead to extraterritoriality.

Finally, Cristina González Beilfuss showed a macro perspective to the topic of Poverty in Private International Law. She left us three questions for future discussion: whether the theme is present in the private international law-related aspects reflections; whether conflict of laws can fight poverties, for example with measures in cooperation with authorities; whether it is partly responsible for inequality and poverty.

— Attendees and lecturers of the second edition.

 

Still Unsure whether to Attend? See What a Past Attendee Thinks of His Experience!

Paul Lorenz Eichmüller, who took part in the 2025 edition, speaks of the EAPIL Winter School as an opportunity to meet an “enormous variety of speakers with their diverse expertise”, and “devote fully to private international law for an entire week”.

This is, he adds, an “experience which I can definitely recommend to everyone who wants to take their private international la skills to the next level”.

 

— Paul Lorenz Eichmüller and Fabian Pollitzer on the shores of Lake Como

The Institute of Justice in Warsaw will host on 9 December 2025 a one-day conference titled: EU Succession Regulation – A Decade in Application.

The first decade of the Regulation’s application, highlighting its impact and future challenges, will be comprehensively assessed. The event will bring together representative of legal professions and scholars from various parts of the European Union, to discuss key aspects of the Regulation.

More information, including the conference program, can be found here.

Live broadcast of the event (without registration) will be available at the main page of the Institute.

Participation in person (free-of-charge) for a limited number of interested guests is also possible. Please register by contacting the Institute at: konferencje@iws.gov.pl.

The procedure for obtaining a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 is the most recent of the uniform European procedures adopted by the EU. Its introduction followed the establishment of the European Small Claims Procedure under Regulation (EU) No 861/2007 and the procedure for a European Order for Payment in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006. Unlike the latter texts, the EAPO Regulaton contemplates a provisional measure allowing the attachment of the debtor’s bank accounts.

As scholars and practitioners working in this area know, the EAPO Regulaton leaves a number of aspects to national procedural rules. Depending on the circumstances, this occurs where the Regulation refers to the law of the forum and where the provisions of the Regulation simply fail to address certain aspects of the procedure. As a result, the procedure varies, to some extent, from one Member State to another. Additionally, for this reason, several  details concerning the way in which the EAPO Regulation is applied in a specific jurisdiction may not not be immediately visible to interested parties or practitioners in other countries.

Various EU studies and publications looked into the operation of the EAPO Regulation, These include the deliverables of the IC2BE project (Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement), which resulted in an insightful publication edited by Jan von Hein and Thalia Kruger, and the EFFORTS project (Towards more Effective Enforcement of Claims in Civil and Commercial Matters within the EU), focused national implementation and domestic case law. The Regulation also formed the object of various commentaries, such as those edited by Gilles Cuniberti and Sara Migliorini (here), Elena D’Alessandro and Fernando Gascón Inchausti (here), and by Nicolas Kyriakides, Heikki A. Huhtamäki and Nicholas Mouttotos (here), just to name those in English.

The latest publication on the EAPO Regulation is a book by Carlos Santaló Goris (Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Luxembourg) entitled The Application of the European Account Preservation Order in Germany, Luxembourg and Spain. A Comparative – Empirical Analysis.

The book is based on the author’s PhD and explores in great detail the integration and application of the EAPO within the domestic civil procedural system of three Member States: Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain.

The work, carried out with attention to detail, combines a theoretical perspective that examines how the procedure is embedded in the national procedural rules of the studied jurisdictions, while the empirical part focuses on the use and application of the European procedure by the national courts. These national pictures are then compared to highlight similarities and differences in the functioning of the EAPO across the studied Member States. Throughout the book, Carlos Santaló Goris also provides useful insights from the practices and data of other Member States than the main studied jurisdictions. This adds to the richness of the information available and the useful knowledge readers can find in one place.

Features and Interaction between the European and National Procedural Rules

Chapter 2 reflects not only on the process of adopting the EAPO, but also on its features and interaction with other European Private International instruments such as the Brussels I-bis and the Maintenance Regulation. The author looks into the way the EAPO was received within the national framework of the studied systems: the implementation legislation, other national instruments with a similar purpose of attaching the debtor’s bank account(s), where useful information can be found at the institutional level, how familiar various stakeholders are with the EAPO and where do they take their information about the EAPO. This type of information is helpful to understand certain practices and be aware of the institutional and legislative background. This initial part of the book is followed by a detailed analysis of the various stages of the EAPO procedure.

Chapters 2-8 offer a comparative perspective on the various steps and uses of the EAPO.

Looking at How EAPO Works and What it Can Offer

Chapter 3 focuses on the scope of the regulation and the areas included or excluded from its application. The analysis is a joy to go through because of the level of depth and detail that scholars and practitioners will find useful for their work in relation to the EAPO procedure. The author leaves no stone unturned; he considers scenarios, reflects on the practice of the national courts of the selected jurisdictions, the scholarly opinions and interpretations, the CJEU case law, and other national case law from other Member States (e.g Lithuania, Poland) that are of interest for the interpretation of a concept or provision, or simply adopts a different interpretation.

Chapter 4 of the book focuses on the application of the EAPO and contains a very comprehensive discussion concerning the concepts of periculum in mora and fumus boni iuris, how the courts approach it in Germany, Luxembourg and Spain, the evidence used for proving such situations, and the matter of security payment. This is music for practitioners’ ears, especially those seeking to use or apply these provisions. They can find in one place information that is scarce elsewhere or difficult to find.

Another aspect that is useful to know more about is the practice of the courts and in which circumstances the applications for EAPOs have led to successful requests to obtain information about the debtor’s bank accounts. Chapter 5, which discusses this part, is a rich source of information as to the position of the German, Luxembourgish and Spanish courts, but also of those in other Member States receiving such requests from the studied jurisdictions (e.g. Italy, France) or from other Member States (e.g. Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia). The chapter also contains interesting statistics on the EAPO requests received by information authorities, the storage of transferred information, and the notification to the debtor of the disclosure.

Chapter 6 is dedicated to the examination of the EAPO application by the court. The chapter meticulously goes through all the relevant aspects of the court assessment. This information is relevant to both the parties and the courts. Very useful analysis concerns the matter of establishing international jurisdiction and the practice of the courts in this respect, the relevant elements in the examination of the application, the payment of court fees, maintaining the inaudita aleta parte character of the order, the use of representation, the deadline for issuing a decision on the EAPO, the way the EAPO is issued based on the outcome of the procedure, and the appeal against the decision to reject the EAPO applications. The last part of the analysis is dedicated to the statistics of the use of the EAPO before national courts in the three jurisdictions.

Chapter 7 focuses on the next step of the procedure, the enforcement of the issue EAPO and its subsequent service on the debtor. The research carried out shows that most EAPO enforcement is carried out abroad, and this entails certain steps for the transmission of the order to the competent enforcement authority, which seem not always to be known in practice. This means that errors are registered at this stage. A good part of the chapter focuses on the implementation of the EAPO and the actual process of attachment of funds, the rank of the EAPO, the preservation of funds, exceeding and exempted amounts, the information of the debtor over the EAPO and attachment of his or her accounts, as well as the service procedure when this has to be notified abroad in another EU Member State or in a third country. These are all very useful matters to consider and be familiar with when using the EAPO.

The last part of the analysis – Chapter 8 – focuses on the specific mechanism the debtor has to challenge the order or ask for alternative security, and the liability of the creditor for damages the debtor might suffer. Here, valuable references to national case law can be found, as well as statistics related to such requests to revoke, terminate or limit the enforcement of such orders. The last part of the chapter is dedicated to the liability of the creditor and how this is handled through the lens of the German, Luxembourgish, and Spanish law.

The concluding part is a reflection on all the valuable research and insights the book brings to the forefront for anyone interested in understanding the EAPO, using the procedure, or applying it. It also contains relevant thoughts about policymaking paths and aspects that can be improved from a practice, organisational and/or legislative perspective.

Roundtable on The Application of the EAPO Regulation in Luxembourg: 7 Years On

On 27 November 2025, the University of Luxembourg will be hosting a hybrid event to discuss the work of Carlos Santaló Goris and the application of the EAPO in Luxembourg. The event will run from 5 to 7 pm CET, The following practitioners from Luxembourg will be aming the speakers: Ottavio Covolo (Senior Associate at NautaDulilh), Magedeline Mounir (Counsel at Arendt & Medernach), and Alexandra Thépaut (Jurist at Étude CALVO & Associés).

The event will be carried out in French. For those interested in attending in person or online, registration is available here.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law will host a hybrid conference on the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on 11 December 2025 in The Hague. The conference is organised on the occasion of the publication of a new commentary of the Convention and the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention.

Opening remarks: Christophe Bernasconi | Secretary General, HCCH

Panel 1 Introduction to the Commentary

Moderator | Melissa Ford | Secretary, HCCH

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court AgreementsThe manifest injustice and public policy exception in Article 6: novel, misconceived, or unremarkable?

Brooke Marshall | Associate Professor of Law, University of Oxford and Fellow of St Edmund Hall

Stefanie Francq | Professor and Chair of European Law, Catholic University of Louvain

 

Declarations under Article 21 and 22 and accommodating multiple legal systems

Louise Ellen Teitz | Professor of Law, Roger Williams University Law School

Fausto Pocar |   Professor Emeritus of International Law, University of Milan and former judge to international tribunals

 

Law applicable to the issue of consent to choice of court agreements

Gilles Cuniberti | Professor of Comparative and Private International Law, University of Luxembourg and President of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL)

Adrian Briggs KC | Emeritus Professor of Private International Law, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of St Edmund Hall

 

Panel 2 Operation of the Convention – Views from Singapore

Moderator | Melissa Ford | Secretary, HCCH

 

Delphia Lim | Director, International Legal Division, Ministry of Law, Singapore

Colin Seow | Founder, Colin Seow Chambers LLC

Anselmo Reyes | Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court

 

Date: Thursday 11 December 2025
Time: 1.30 p.m. – 4.45 p.m. (CET)
Cocktail: 4.45 p.m. (CET)
Venue: International Development Law Office, Hofweg 9-E, The Hague

Attendance, whether in person or online, is free, but registration is required.

A conference on ‘the concentration of cross-border litigation’ (La concentration des contentieux transfrontières) will take place on 13 and 14 November 2025 at the University Toulouse Capitole.

Background

The event is jointly organised by the DANTE Research Centre (Univ. Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Paris-Saclay) and the Institut de Recherche en Droit Européen, International et Comparé (IRDEIC) of the University Toulouse Capitole, under the scientific coordination of Sandrine Clavel and Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Univ. Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines / Paris-Saclay, and Estelle Gallant (Univ. Toulouse Capitole).

The concentration of cross-border litigation has become a key issue in contemporary dispute resolution, raising questions about judicial efficiency, procedural economy, and the protection of fundamental rights.The conference will explore the phenomenon from a variety of perspectives –  legal, strategic, and institutional – addressing how parties and courts manage the consolidation of complex, multi-jurisdictional proceedings.

Themes and Speakers 

The discussions will take place over two days. Thursday 13 November will focus on the challenges and tools of concentrating cross-border litigation. Friday 14 November will turn to the concentration of cross-border economic litigation.

Among the topics to be addressed are strategic concentration of litigation in transnational contexts, family and economic disputes with cross-border dimensions, the role of arbitration, collective actions and jurisdictional clauses, derived competences, third-party participation, and fundamental rights implications.

The list of speakers and moderators includes Hugues Kenfack, Matthieu Poumarede, Hélène Gaudin, Fabienne Jault‑Seseke, Sandrine Clavel, Claudia Cavicchioli, Marcelin Jehl, Olivier Furtak, Estelle Gallant, Samuel Fulli‑Lemaire, Alexandre Boiché, Estelle Fohrer‑Dedeurwaerder, Olivera Boskovic, Natalie Joubert, Jérémy Jourdan‑Marques, Marie Nioche, Ludovic Pailler, Marie‑Elodie Ancel, Philippine Blajan, Maximin de Fontmichel, Maria‑José Azar‑Baud, Rafael Amaro, Laurence Idot and Lukas Rass-Masson.

The conference will be held in French. The full programme is available here.

Registration is required here.

On 19 November 2025, from 2 to 3 pm UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Kirsten Henckel (University of Groningen) on The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law.

The webinar will explore how digitalisation has transformed property and inheritance, raising new challenges for the legal treatment of digital assets such as social media accounts, cryptocurrencies and cloud-based content.

Kirsten Henckel will explore the emerging field of digital succession from a private international law perspective, focusing on key cross-border issues of jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of rights.

Registration is available here; for further information: michiel.poesen@abdn.ac.uk.

After two successful editions (here and here), the new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is scheduled to held on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 2 to 6 February 2026.

It is organised by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como, in cooperation with the University of Murcia and the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

The general topic of the 2026 edition is Values in Private International Law. The full programme can be found here.

Early-bird registration fees are offered to those enrolling before 10 December 2025.

PhD students, young scholars, young practitioners and EU private international lovers, generally, are encouraged to apply.

Want to know what former participants think of their time in Como?

Wojciech Wydmański, Lawyer and PhD Student at the Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego in Warsaw, participant in 2025, says that the School is “a unique course that allows you to explore various aspects of private international law”.

He appreciated the opportunity to discuss his research with experts, “which was very helpful in furthering my doctoral work”. The connections with other participants, he said, were remarkable: “during the course, I was able to meet colleagues with similar interests, with whom I remain in contact to this day”.

For Ranegül Camiz, Post-Doctoral Researcher at Erciyes University, Kayseri, “the discussions throughout the sessions were remarkably engaging. The questions raised and contributions made by attendees enriched the debates and reflected a shared enthusiasm for understanding how international family law continues to evolve in response to social change”.

The Winter School, she added, “was a perfect blend of academic excellence, cross-cultural exchange, and personal growth: tt strengthened my passion for Private International Law and motivated me to further explore the complexities of personal status and family relationships in cross-border contexts”.

For further information on the Winter School, write to Silvia Marino, the director of the School, at eapilws@gmail.com.

On 19 and 20 November 2025, the 35th Conference on Private International Law, entitled The Role of Judicial Actors in Shaping Private International Law: A Comparative Perspective” will take place at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law in Lausanne.

This year’s edition will focus on the vital role of judicial actors — including judges, lawyers, and litigants — in shaping the development and direction of private international law, both nationally and internationally, through court decisions, litigation strategies, and legal practice.

Topics include: landmark decisions in private international law; strategic use of PIL in litigation; national courts and international legal frameworks.

The list of speakers and chairs includes Ezgi Fulya Akkus (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey), Harrith Al-Dabbagh (University of Montreal), Marie-Elodie Ancel (University Paris-Pantheon-Assas, France), Ross Anderson (Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh), Özlem Burdurlu Ahlat (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey), Isabela T.C. Dondone (Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil), Caterina D’Osualdo (European Commission), Laura Guercio (University of Perugia), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Michel Heinzmann (University of Fribourg), Frank Klinkhammer (German Federal Supreme Court), Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Aygun Mammadzada (Swansea Law School), Valesca R.B. Moschen (Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil), Asya Ostroukh (University of the West Indies, Barbados), Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Henrik Saummandsgaard Øe (Gorrissen Federspiel, Denmark), Franz Werro (University of Fribourg and Georgetown University), Nadjma Yassari (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law).

The conference will be held in English and French. The full programme is available here.

Registration is free but mandatory: events.isdc@unil.ch.

For any information: marie-laure.lauria@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch.

The use of videoconferencing in cross-border civil and commercial court proceedings has its challenges in the EU, although the use of videoconferencing is supported by a number of regulations such as the Taking of Evidence Recast Regulation, the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation, the European Account Preservation Order Regulation, the Digitalisation of Judicial Cooperation Regulation.

A few weeks ago, the EAPIL blog announced a conference entitled Simplifying Cross-Border Judicial Videoconferencing in Europe, part of the European SimpliVi Project outcomes. The conference brought together legal scholars from Europe and beyond, legal professionals, IT-specialists, European and national policymakers to discuss their own national and international experiences, developments, key aspects and considerations in the use of videoconferencing from a legal, technical, and organisational perspective, as well as thoughts and initiatives to move forward to support the use of videoconferencing in national and cross-border proceedings and the interaction between national system.

Besides the rich discussions that the people attending the conference in person or online could engage in, the SimpliVi project made available a number of documents that provide valuable information from empirical research about the use of videoconferencing in court hearings after the period of COVID-19 pandemic. The research was carried out with judges, court staff, representatives of public authorities, legal practitioners and IT support staff in 14 Member States – Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Brazil, Canada, and Norway. The summary of the empirical findings are available in an Annex to the SimpliVi Analysis and Design Consolidation document available here.

The richness of the field data the SimpliVI project gathered led to the creation of a document that reflects on best practices and recommendations for judicial videoconferencing with a focus on cross-border cases. The considerations made integrate both organisational, legal, and technological perspectives. The document is available for consultation here.

Although, the outcomes of the SimpliVi project do not immediately solve the challenges of videoconferencing in cross-border situations, they provide useful information about national experiences, solutions chosen, considerations that need to be made when establishing such national infrastructures, points of attention, challenges, and elements that can be part of the national or European solutions that can facilitate European interoperability in the future. There is a lot of space to learn from each other, become more aware of the systems available in various countries,  understand what they are capable of, and possibly choose to rely on for direct taking of evidence or for participating in the taking of evidence by a requested authority. Information can inspire change, improvement, and better understanding when choosing to adopt videoconferencing functions and integrating such functionalities within e-justice systems.

The last stage of the project that is forthcoming will also provide insights into an e-CODEX Implementation perspective as a means to facilitate communication between participants in a judicial cross-border videoconference setting. This will be made available here.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2026.

The course will be opened by Maria Chiara Malaguti (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) with a lecture on Unification of Law: Overcoming Geography without Overcoming Diversity.

The general course, titled Unity and Diversity in Contemporary Private International Law, will be given by Dário Moura Vicente (University of Lisbon).

The special courses will be as follows: Paul Arrighi (Member of the Institute of Private International Law of the University of the Republic Uruguay), Contract Interpretation in International Commercial Arbitration; Stavros Brekoulakis (Michael & Laura Hwang Professor at the National University of Singapore), Intellectual Evolution of International Arbitration; Laura Carballo Piñeiro (University of Vigo), The Private Side of International Organizations; Richard Frimpong Oppong (Osgoode Hall Law School York University), Internationalism in Anglophone Africa’s Commercial Conflict of Laws; Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin), Protection of Human Rights in Global Supply Chains; Laurence Usunier (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Private International Law Faced with Changes in the Sources of Law.

The directors of studies will be Roxana Banu (University of Oxford) for the English-speaking section, María Mercedes Albornoz (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas) for the French-speaking session.

Applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee, scholarship, doctoral scholarship and Directed Studies applicants is between 1 November 2025 and 31 January 2026.

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

A conference will take place in Barcelona on 11 and 12 November 2025, on the review of Regulation No 650/2012 on matters of succession, after ten years of application.

The event is organised by the University Rovira I Virgili of Tarragona and the University of Lleida (UdL) in cooperation with the Notarial Association of Catalonia, and is part of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

The organisers encourage anybody interested in making a short presentation at the conference to submit a proposal to that effect by 29 September 2025.

Further details on both the conference and the call can be found here.

image description

The Faculty of Law at the University of Rijeka will be hosting its 2025 Doctoral Conference RIDOC on 12 December 2025.

The event is designed for doctoral candidates who want to present and evaluate their preliminary research findings in front of academics, practicing lawyers, and engage in discussions with peers on an international scale.

Eligible participants are those who are enrolled in a doctoral program or doctoral school by the application deadline. The subject of their dissertation must be in the field of law, private international law included, or a closely related area.

The working language is English.

The deadline for applications is 22 September 2025.

For further details, see here.

As already announced on this blog, the next edition of the Winter School of the European Association of Private International Law will take place in Como from 2 to 6 February 2026. The general topic of the upcoming edition is Values in Private International Law.

The teaching staff will consist of Laura Carpaneto (University of Genoa), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Maria Asunción Cebrian Salvat (University of Murcia), Gilles Cuniberti (EAPIL President, University of Luxembourg), Sara De Vido (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice), Stefano Dominelli (University of Genova), Cristina González Beilfuss (University of Barcelona), Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva), Eva Maria Kieninger (University of Würzburg), Silvia Marino (University of Insubria and coordinator of the Winter School), Johan Meeusen (University of Antwerp), Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, Attorney at law), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Erik Sinander (Stockholm University), Sara Tonolo (University of Padua), Geert van Calster (KU Leuven), Hans van Loon (HCCH Former Secretary General), and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków).

The University of Insubria will host the 2026 edition, as it did in 2024 and 2025 (see here and here), in cooperation with University of Murcia and the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

Those interested in attending the Winter School must apply by 20 January 2026 by completing the online form available here.

For more information see here.

On 24 October 2025, a conference titled Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty will be held at the Asser Institute in The Hague.

The conference will begin with a welcome by Machiko Kanetake (Asser Institute) and the opening remarks by Vesna Lazić (Asser Institute and Utrecht University), followed by a keynote address from Hans van Loon (IDI member and Former Secretary-General of the HCCH).

The event will feature three panels.

The first panel – Private International Law in the Digital Age – will explore how digital technologies are challenging traditional legal frameworks, with presentations by Marion Ho-Dac (Artois University), Louwrens Kiestra (HCCH) and Marco Giacalone (VUB Brussels), under the moderation of Xandra Kramer (IDI member, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Utrecht University).

The second panel – Uncertain Times, Unequal Burdens: Rethinking Protection for Weaker Parties – will turn to whether weaker parties are being protected in cross-border disputes. Vesna Lazić will moderate the conversation with Geert van Calster (KU Leuven), Veerle Van Den Eeckhout (Court of Justice of the European Union and University of Antwerp) and Uglješa Grušić (University College London).

The third panel – Emerging Voices in Private International Law – will give the floor to Marco Pasqua (LIUC University, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) and Agatha Brandão de Oliveira (University of Lucerne), two early career researchers selected through a competitive call for abstracts already announced on this blog. The discussion will be chaired by Steven Stuij (VU Amsterdam).

The event is part of the Asser Institute’s 60 Years Series and connects to the research strand Transnational public interests: constituting public interest beyond and below the state.

For the programme and registration, see respectively here and here.

A conference will take place in Wrocław, on 17-18 September 2025, under the title Simplifying Cross-Border Judicial Videoconferencing in Europe.

The event, part of the SimpliVi Project, is organized by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice (Project Coordinator) in collaboration with Court of Appeal Wrocław (Project Partner and Conference Host). Those interested in attending the event can do so in person or online.

The conference with take a look on the SimpliVi project outcomes but also explore paths beyond it. The event will provide an overview of the European legal basis for judicial cross-border videoconferencing and several experience reports from European Member States and organizations. The discussion aims to cover legal, organizational, and technical aspects on the matter of judicial videoconferencing.

The conference is structured in several sessions.

On the first day, Session 1 will set the scene and explain the legal basis for cross-border videoconferences and the academic view on the topic. Session 2 will focus the discussion on whether national legal systems are already in a position to provide a proper legal basis for videoconferencing. Member State representatives will offer their national views on the topic.

The afternoon of the first day will focus on organisational and technical aspects.

Session 3 will analyse the national perspectives on the state of developments in their jurisdictions regarding judicial videoconferencing, the challenges faced, and how can these challenges be addressed. Session 4 shifts the perspective onto international aspects and how can we master judicial cross-border videoconferencing.

The second day conference focuses on the SimpliVi project outcomes.

Session 5 will discuss the SimpliVi Recommendations and Best Practises with regard to videoconferencing. The session will also give participants the possibility to discuss the findings with the authors. Session 6 will bring e-CODEX on the table. As most European judicial communication has to or will be soon done electronically via e-CODEX, the communications regarding judicial videoconferencing in a cross-border setting should also be done this way. The SimpliVi project developed approaches on how e-CODEX could integrate the communication about videoconferences into existing use cases.

Member State representatives, judicial practitioners, representatives of international and professional organisations and the academic community are invited to participate (upon registration) and get involved in the discussions about judicial cross-border videoconferencing.

As the readers of this blog will recall, the Lindemann Fellowship for Private International Law was established in 2024 to provide early-career researchers with the opportunity to build a network with academics from all over Europe.

Fellows are accepted for a three-year period, with new Fellows joining each year, as existing Fellows complete their tenure.

The core of the Fellowship is an annual, fully-funded meeting of the Fellows and coordinators, lasting two days, where Fellows present their current research and exchange with both the coordinators and their peers. The written version of their presentations are later published in collected volumes.

The Fellowship is now entering its second application round.  An online event will introduce the Fellowship, featuring presentations from two current Fellows and a Q&A with the coordinators about the Fellowship and application process.

The event will be held on 17 September 2025 at 11 AM (CET) via Zoom. Further information about the event can be found here.

See here, instead, for general information about the Fellowship, including as regards the current Fellows and the team of coordinators, lead by Konrad Duden.

On 18 September 2025, the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana will be hosting a conference on the occasion of the annual meeting of GEDIP, the European Group of Private International Law, due to take place in the following days (the latter meeting is only open the Group’s members).

The event consists of two half-day sessions. The morning session will be held in Slovenian, with presentations by Lea Burjan, Filip Dougan, Nataša Erjavec, Aleš Galič, Aleksander Jakobčič, Jerca Kramberger Škerl, Špelca Mežnar, Nataša Pipan Nahtigal, Nadja Podobnik Oblak, Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc, and Katja Rejec Longar.

The afternoon session, in English, will feature presentations by Giuditta Cordero-Moss (The Interplay between Private International Law and Comparative Law in International Contracts and Arbitration), Catherine Kessedjian (Corporate Sustainability in European Private International Law), Patrick Kinsch (Private International Law and Human Rights), Pia Lindholm (The Anti-SLAPP Directive and its Links to Jurisdiction and Applicable Law), Johan Meeusen (The Recognition of Status in the CJEU Case-Law), Etienne Pataut (Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Family Matters), Marta Pertegas Sender (The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention) and Fausto Pocar (Private International Law and Global Public Interests).

The full programme and all relevant practical information, including as regards fees, can be found here.

Registrations are open until 12 September 2025.

On 20 August 2025, from 11 to 12 am UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Caroline Rapatz (Kiel University) on Beyond State Borders, Beyond the Situs Rule? Private International Law Issues of Resource Extraction in Antarctica, the Deep Seabed, and Outer Space.

The webinar will explore how the traditional connecting factors of lex rei sitae in international property law and lex loci damni / lex loci delicti commissi in international torts law run into difficulties when applied to resource exploitation in extraterritorial regions such as Antarctica, the deep seabed and outer space.

Caroline Rapatz will address the urgent need for special conflict-of-laws rules suitable for these contexts – rules that could form part of a broader framework for internationally administered exploitation licenses, ensuring both sustainability and allocative fairness. The topic is particularly timely, given that international treaty law has so far largely overlooked the private international law dimensions of resource exploitation beyond state borders.

Registration is available here; for further information: michiel.poesen@abdn.ac.uk.

The registrations for the Hague Academy Centre for Studies and Research of 2026 are open.

The 2026 edition of the Centre will focus on Cyberspace and International Law. The Directors of Research will be Mohamed S. Helal (Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law) for the English-speaking section, and Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse) for the French-speaking session.

Cyberspace plays a central role in contemporary society. Today, many aspects of daily life rely on digital infrastructure. As a result, maintaining the safety, security, accessibility and stability of cyberspace contributes to international peace and security, the protection of human rights and the pursuit of sustainable development and economic progress. At the same time, the structure and functioning of cyberspace raise questions for established principles, rules and regimes within both public and private international law. Still, international law remains a relevant and effective framework for addressing issues related to cyberspace governance.

The 2026 Centre for Studies and Research of The Hague Academy of International Law will explore how international law – both public and private – may need to be reconsidered in light of developments in cyberspace.

Selected researchers will explore, under the guidance of the Directors of Research, the following topics: Cyberspace as an International Legal Order?; A Primer on Cyberoperations and Cybercrime: The Technology and the Threat Landscape; How is Artificial Intelligence Changing Cyberoperations?; Sea, Space, Cyber: Exploring Interactions, Gaps, and Overlaps of Legal Regimes; Sovereignty and Territoriality in Cyberspace; Due Diligence in Cyberspace; Public and Private Governance of Cyberspace; Cyberespionage: Lawful, Unlawful, Unregulated?; Pushing the Envelope of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: What is “Force” in Cyberspace; The Application of International Humanitarian Law in Cyberspace: Proportionality, Distinction, and the Definition of “Attacks” and “Objects”; Information Operations in War and in Peacetime; Attribution of Conduct in Cyberspace: Anonymity, Burdens of Proof, and Threshold of Control over Private Actors; Collective Countermeasures in Cyberspace: Questions of Law and Policy; Jurisdiction in and over Cyberspace; Rule of Law and Due Process in Cyberspace; International Contracts in Cyberspace; Dispute Resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution in and through Cyberspace; Judicial Cooperation and Cyberspace; Competition in the Cyberspace Market; Protecting International Data and Personality Rights in Cyberspace; Human Rights in Cyberspace (Access to the Internet, Freedom of Information, Freedom of Speech, Privacy, Right to be Forgotten etc.); Human Rights Obligations of Big-Tech; Content Moderation and Corporate Due Process? Assessing Meta’s Oversight Board Track Record; The Right to Development and Bridging Digital Divides.

Registration is free of charge. Interested candidates must be researchers and preferably hold an advanced degree (PhD or Doctorate degree). The registration period is from 1 July to 15 October 2025.

The programme of Hague Academy Centre for Studies and Research of 2026 is available here.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

Building on the success of the two previous editions (here and here), the third edition of the EAPIL Winter School is currently being organised by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como, in cooperation with the Law Faculty of the University of Murcia and the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

The Winter School will once again be held on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio.

It will run from 2 to 6 February 2026. Three additional lectures will be offered on-line on 9, 17  and 24 February 2024.

The general topic of the third edition will be Values in Private International Law.

The various facets of the subject will be discussed by a rich list of speakers. Some of them are mentioned below; others will be presented in the future previews, which will also appear on the EAPIL blog.

Erik Sinander (Stockholm University) will give two lectures: The Protection of the Worker and the Collective Rights in Work. The protection of consumers and passengers will form the object of lectures by Javier Carrascosa González and Maria Asunción Cebrian (University of Murcia) and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków),.

Sara de Vido (University of Venice) and Nadia Rusinova (attorney at law) will share their expertise on the International Protection of Women and on The Best Interests of the Child in International Proceedings, respectively.

Geert van Calster (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) will discuss Human Rights and Business, while Johan Meeusen (University of Antwerp) will speak about Minorities: Equality through Private International Law.

Stefano Dominelli (University of Genoa) will conclude the week with a final Workshop on the Rights of the Nature and case studies.

The Winter School is aimed at PhD students, young scholars, young practitioners and EU private international lovers, generally!

Want to know what former participants think of their time in Como? Georgios Kotlidas, Attorney at Law and LL.M. in International & EU Law attended the 2025 edition. He appreciated the “combination of top quality lectures and workshops (…) and networking opportunities to meet highly educated and driven colleagues from all over Europe. This was a profoundly successful academic week”.

Registrations will open around 20 September 2025.

Requests for further information can be submitter to Silvia Marino, the director of the School, at eapilws@gmail.com.

 

The T.M.C. Asser Institute has launched a call for abstracts for the panel Emerging Voices in Private International Law, which will take place as part of Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty – Asser Institute 60 Years Series Conference, to be held on 24 October 2025 in The Hague.

PhD candidates and postdoctoral researchers (within five years of completing their PhD) are invited to submit abstracts on any topic within the field of private international law. Submissions will be selected based on potential, originality and clarity.

Abstracts (max. 400 words) should be sent by 15 August 2025 to e.silva.de.freitas@asser.nl.

Selected presenters will be invited to contribute a chapter to a forthcoming volume in the Short Studies in Private International Law series.

The call for abstracts, including suggested topics and submission requirements, is available here.

Inquiries can be addressed to Eduardo Silva de Freitas at e.silva.de.freitas@asser.nl or Vesna Lazic at v.lazic@asser.nl.

Two years have passed since the European Commission published two proposals on the protection of adults in international situations, namely a proposal for a Council Decision that would authorise all EU Member States to become parties of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the international protection of adults “in the interest of the European Union”, and a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council that would complement the Convention in the relations between the Member States.

The latter proposal has been extensively discussed within the Council of the European Union. An agreement for a partial general approach has been reached in this context in late May 2025 on the provisions in Chapters I to V, regarding respectively  the scope of the future Regulation and the rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures of protection and authentic instruments.

The Presidency of the Council expressed the view that the text resulting from the agreed general approach “is stable and represents a finely balanced compromise reflecting the wide range of positions by Member States”, while noting that “more time is needed to explore the rest of the text further”, in particular concerning the establishment and interconnection of registers of powers of representation and cooperation in the event of the placement of an adult in an establishment or other place where protection can be provided, in another Member State.

Some Member States, including Spain, Estonia (with a corrigendum), and Malta, have since made public their opinion on the topics under discussion.

A conference will take place in Milan, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, on 17 and 18 September 2025 to discuss the two Commission’s proposals and the developments that followed their publication.

The programme, which will be available soon, will feature, inter alia, presentations by Giacomo Biagioni, University of Cagliari; Patrizia De Luca (TBC), Senior Expert at the European Commission; Giovanni Freise, University of Hamburg; Cristina Gonzalez Beilfuss, University of Barcelona; Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg; Katja Karjalainen, University of Lapland; Thalia Kruger, University of Antwerp; Philippe Lortie, First Secretary of the Hague Conference on Private International Law; Francesca Maoli, University of Genova; Paolo Pasqualis, Notary; Geraldo Rocha Ribeiro, University of Coimbra; Rieneke Stelma-Roorda, VU Amsterdam; Chloé Terraube, Ministry of Justice of France

The working language will be English. Attendance is free and can be either in person or on-line. Prior registration, however, is required here.

The University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with the University of Osijek and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, will host a two-day webinar on Cross-Border Protection of Children under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention: Practical Perspectives from Contracting States.

The webinar will take place online on 30 June and 1 July 2025.

The webinar will provide an overview of how the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention is applied in practice in various countries.

For the programme and for further information and participation details, see respectively here and here.

On 11 and 12 June 2025, the Nordic Group on Private International Law (NGPIL) held a conference in Stockholm.

NGPIL is an informal group consisting of lawyers interested in the field of private international law. Founded in Uppsala in 2002, the group enhances the intelligibility of the Scandinavian languages as well as the common legal traditions of the Nordic countries primarily by hosting biannual meetings. As the last meeting was in Oslo in 2018, the Stockholm meeting was originally planned to be held in 2020. Due to the pandemic, the conference was rescheduled several times until it eventually was organized this year not to conflict with other events.

Politicization of Private International Law (Opening Address)

Michael Hellner (Stockholm University)

Starting with references to von Savigny’s views on private international law in the mid 19th Century, Hellner remarked that von Savigny’s view on community and substitutability of civil law regimes within “Christian nations” is outdated in a modern context. Continuing with analogies to his own experiences from the work in the Hague Conference over the last 25 years, Hellner noted that whereas the discussions in the Hague used to be relatively small gatherings for academics from Europe and North America, they are now much more well-attended and influenced by politicians, which can be seen as a trend in the politicization of private international law. Concluding that politicization comes with increased public interest to private international law and that there are interactions between politics and law that make law more political but also make law more juridical.

Economic Sanctions in Private International Law

Yuliya Chernykh (University of Inland) and Marie Nesvik (Wikborg Rein)

Yuliya Chernykh began the economic sanctions session with a presentation titled “Between Facts and Law”. She noted that disputes on economic sanctions primarily seem to be settled in arbitral awards, but that those need to be enforced with support from national courts. Whereas the arbitral procedures tend to handle economic sanctions as facts making it impossible to perform, national courts may still find it impossible to enforce the arbitral awards with reference to public policy. Holding that the treating of sanctions as facts can be seen as a depoliticization and that the eternal evolvement of national public policy can be seen as politicization, Chernykh concluded that economic sanctions in private international law still is an evolving feature.

Marie Nesvik followed Chernykh’s presentation with practical remarks on the treatment of economic sanctions in commercial disputes. Focusing particularly on the practical situation with conflicting judgments and arbitral awards, Nesvik noted i.a. that Sweden traditionally has been viewed as a neutral arbitral seat, but that there now is an increasing interest for choosing “new” neutral jurisdictions as arbitral seats, e.g. Abu Dhabi and Istanbul.

The Politicization of Private International Family Law

Laima Vaige (Uppsala University)

Laima Vaige presented on the politicization of private international family law. She argued that private international family law often is framed as neutral but that it in fact is shaped by culture, politics, emotion, and ideology. In today’s world of intensifying affective politics, private international family law must consciously engage with these forces rather than pretend to be neutral. Drawing on recent Swedish legal developments in recognition of foreign marriages, international parenthood and legal gender recognition, Vaige showed how private international law operates with lingering “shadows” like lex forism and animosity to the foreign, despite its proclaimed democratic spirit.

Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments

Johan Tufte Kristensen (University of Copenhagen)

Noting that Danish and Swedish private international law takes a very restrictive approach to foreign judgments, Tufte-Kristensen gave a historical background to the Danish ratio legis. The presentation showed how Denmark in the 1930’s adopted the restrictive approach to legal judgments that e.g. Sweden had had before. Back then, nationalist arguments that are again made popular motivated the legal shift by wanting to gain Danish business interests.  Tufte-Kristensen argued that the restrictive Danish approach to foreign judgments is out of sync with contemporary global trends based on comity and reciprocity.

The Relationship Between EU Law and Private International Law

Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe (Gorrisen Federspiel)

The last presentation of the first day was made by the former advocate general Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe. In his presentation, he examined how EU private international law is influenced and shaped by national legislation. Taking the characterization of the issue in Wikingerhof, C-59/19, EU:C:2020.950 as contractual or non-contractual as an example, Saugmandsgaard Øe made the point that the outcome of the case is influenced by French and Belgian procedural law that favours contractual obligations over tortious obligations. Further, he stressed the obligation of national courts to refer questions to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU and the consequences of failing to do so. Through cases such as Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158 and PL Holdings, C-109/20, EU:C:2021:875 Saugmandsgaard Øe showed that EU law restricts certain forms of arbitration between Member States to preserve legal coherence. Overall, he concluded that the autonomous interpretation of EU law limits private international law.

A round-table discussion where all of the presentations above were addressed concluded the first day of the conference.

Deficit of Social Values

Michael Bogdan (Lund University)

Noting that the politicization of law made by the communist regimes of eastern Europe in the 20th Century had difficulties in explaining a socialist rationale of private international law, Bogdan emphasised that private international law justice is something different from substantive law justice and that it is not necessarily as easy to dismantle. The speaker continued to analyse the traditional private international law value of having a law with a close relation to the facts applicable in contrast to a “better law approach”, where the law with the “best” substantial outcome is favoured.

International Climate Litigation

Jens Klinteskog (Uppsala University)

Jens Klinteskog presented on the politicization of private international law in relation to different climate procedures taking place in different jurisdictions all over the world. He argued that the trend with climate litigation politicizes private international law by reinforcing universalist ideals of shared global responsibility, challenging traditional notions of particularism and state sovereignty.

Young Researchers’ Session

After Klinteskog’s presentation a session with four shorter presentations by young, newly graduated lawyers took place. First, Klara Svensson presented her master thesis on custody decisions after foreign surrogacy arrangements under Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention. Second, Fredrik Lagergren presented his thesis on the reflexive effect of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Third, Mari Andersson presented a comparative approach to the treatment of foreign judgments in Sweden, the UK and Canada. Last in this session, Rikard Enskär presented on the role of private international law for ship collisions and maritime sabotage in the light of recent events occurring in the Baltic Sea.

Intangible Cultural Heritage over National Borders

Lydia Lundstedt (Stockholm University)

Lydia Lundstedt held the last presentation of the conference focusing on the protection of intangible cultural heritage. Taking off in the German-Italian Vitruvian Man case (for a blog post collecting links and explaining the relevance of the case, see here), Lundstedt compared the Italian protection mechanism to the equivalent mechanisms in Swedish and Danish law. Lundstedt questioned whether the protection mechanisms really could be considered subject to private international law.

Next NGPIL Conference and Anthology in English

During the last day the conference unanimously adhered to the proposal made by Peter Arnt Nielsen (Copenhagen Business School) to host the next NGPIL meeting in Copenhagen in mid-October 2027. The coming conference will mark the 25th anniversary of NGPIL.

Also, details on the volume of Scandinavian Studies in Law dedicated to the conference theme were announced on the last day. Scandinavian Studies in Law dates back to the 1950’s and is an initiative that aims to spread Nordic legal thinking to the English-speaking world. The coming volume will be the first in the series’ long history to be exclusively dedicated to private international law, even if several contributions in earlier volumes have dealt with the subject (for a list of private international law contributions in the series, see page 39 f. in this index). In addition to elaborated contributions of most of the conference speakers’ presentations, several other Nordic legal scholars in the field of private international law will contribute. The book is scheduled to be published in 2026.

The XVIII conference of ASADIP, the American Association of Private International Law, will take place from 7 to 9 August 2025 in Rio de Janeiro, under the titled Regional imaginaries, global resonance: Inter-American Private International Law and the world stage.

It will bring together 78 panelists from 20 countries.

The conference features, among other things, an inter-associations initiative involving ASADIP and EAPIL, as well as AAPrIL (the African Association of Private International Law) and APILA (the Asian Private International Law Academy).

Attendance, in person or online, requires prior registration here.

For the full programme, see here.

The French Cour de Cassation will host a conference on the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation on Monday, 23 June 2025, from 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm. The conference is organised by Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), following the 2023-2024 seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation.

The conference will be held in French and will also be broadcast live on the Cour de Cassation’s YouTube channel.

The conference presentation is as follows:

The Brussels I bis Regulation continues to give rise to a significant, and even growing, number of preliminary ruling requests. This situation calls both for clarifying its text and adapting it to new scenarios and policy challenges, as well as for reflecting more broadly on its objectives and on the role to be played by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this context.

On the occasion of a series of seven conferences held at the Cour de Cassation in 2023–2024, a reflection was launched on a number of cross-cutting and-specific issues which may need to be revisited in view of the forthcoming revision of the Regulation.

This conference aims to examine the reform options put forward by the European Commission and to identify those that may still be raised in the subsequent phases of the revision process.

Speakers include Laura Liubertaite (agent, DG Justice and Consumers, European Commission); Vanessa El Khoury-Moal (Head of the Mutual Assistance and Private and European International Law Department, DACS, French Ministry of Justice); Sylvain Bollée (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne); Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg); Marie-Laure Niboyet (University of Paris Nanterre); Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas).

Registration is available online here.

The author of this post is Nishat Hyder-Rahman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, MSCA Impact Fellowship Programme, Department of Private and Economic Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.  She is also a volunteer researcher at GlobalARRK and presented findings from the GlobalARRK report in panel 2 of the conference. The views expressed in this post are the author’s own, and not to be attributed to either GlobalARRK or the VUB.


On 2-4 April 2025, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the Embassy of Canada in Washington D.C., co-hosted a conference entitled 15 Years of the HCCH Washington Declaration: Progress and Perspectives on International Family Relocation, spotlighting the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation (hereinafter, the Washington Declaration, or simply ‘the Declaration’).

The event brought together legal professionals and academics, government and policy experts, and special interest groups to reflect on the impact of the Washington Declaration and contemporary issues in international family relocation more broadly.

The Washington Declaration

The Washington Declaration was adopted in 2010 as a result of discussions that took place at the International Judicial Conference on Cross-Border Family Relocation. The 2010 conference gathered judges and experts from around the world, many of whom were also present at the 2025 event. The Declaration itself is written in the HCCH’s trademark clear, concise style, containing only thirteen principles. It addresses the availability of relocation proceedings, the notice period, the factors that are relevant to a decision on international relocation, the interaction between cross-border relocation and the operation of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (HCCA) 1980 and the Hague Convention on International Child Protection (HCCP) 1996, out-of-court decisions on relocation, the enforcement of orders, modification of contact provisions, judicial communication and finally, a call for further research, development, and promotion of the principles.  The content of the principles is relatively neutral, reflecting, perhaps, the common ground found between delegates from different jurisdictions during the 2010 discussions. Although the Declaration is not a legally binding document, it is nonetheless valuable, offering a starting point for a consistent global approach to international relocation.

Establishing the Current Landscape in International Family Relocation

Turning then to the 2025 conference, the first panel set the scene.  The opening address, delivered by Diana Bryant, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, reflected on developments within international family law in the fifteen years since the Washington Declaration.  Professor Robert George KC gave an overview of legal scholarship in international family relocation, including recent statistics on relocation cases, and two psychological experts spoke about the impact of abduction and relocation on children.  The second panel continued setting the scene.  Philippe Lortie and Laura Martinez-Mora from the HCCH permanent bureau set out HCCH’s framework of relevant conventions (HCCA 1980, HCCP 1996, Child Support Convention 2007) and available tools, respectively.  The relatively new Canadian legislation that sets out a clear and detailed process specifically for relocation was highlighted, as was a recent study by the charity GlobalARRK, on the lived experience of parents applying for international relocation in order to return to their home country.

What Constitutes the Child’s Best Interests?

The central tension within the socio-legal discourse on relocation was apparent across the first two panels, albeit just below the surface of the conference proceedings.  Scholarship on how to approach international family relocation remains heavily polarised, due to variations in empirical results and fundamental doctrinal differences on how to determine the child’s best interests.

On the one hand are those who emphasise the importance of a child maintaining regular contact with both their parents, and the risk of parental alienation upon the left-behind parent.  This approach prejudices international relocation, which inevitably makes regular (in-person) contact much more challenging.  Both of the psychology-focused reports on panel 1, appeared to follow this approach.

On the other hand are those who emphasise the importance of the quality of time spent, rather than the frequency or amount of time spent with the left-behind parent.  Furthermore, proponents of this approach emphasise the interdependence between the welfare of the primary carer parent (who is applying for relocation) and the welfare of the child.  This approach supports facilitating international relocation, where the circumstances demand it, i.e. to protect the welfare of the child directly or via the primary carer. The GlobalARRK report aligned with this approach. (For a recent overview of this debate and the relevant literature see: R. Schuz, ‘International Child Relocation after Relationship Breakdown, in Research Handbook on International Family Law, edited by J.M. Carruthers and B.W.M. Lindsay, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, at p. 133 ff.).

Both these approaches place the child’s best interests at the centre – however they differ over what constitutes the child’s best interests.  Unfortunately, there was little scope within the conference to openly engage with this discussion, in the context of policy making and legal practice.  This was a missed opportunity given the depth and breadth of international expertise in the room.

Country Reports on Relocation Policy and Procedures

The following four panels, indeed the core of the conference, was dedicated to a series of country reports from legal practitioners and judges, outlining the policy and procedures for international relocation in their jurisdiction.  For those countries that were represented at the 2010 conference, this was also an opportunity to reflect on progress in the intervening years. The country reports revealed considerable variation in how states regulate relocation.  While a few countries have a specific statutory framework for relocation (e.g. Canada), other countries have developed their legal framework for relocation primarily through caselaw (e.g. England & Wales.).  Furthermore, some countries do not have any specific procedures for relocation, and the matter is instead addressed under the general legal framework pertaining to parental responsibilities (e.g. Hungary), custody (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) or child arrangements (e.g. Spain), to name a few examples.

The Impact and Influence of the Washington Declaration

Alignment between the relevant national laws on relocation and the content of the Declaration was evident in the country reports.  A common theme throughout all the country reports was the paramountcy of the child’s best interests, which is set out in Principle 3 of the Declaration.  Furthermore, the factors relevant to relocation decisions, set out Principle 4 of the Declaration, in whole or in part, were also common to most country reports.  However, this is most likely due to general, widespread evolutions within family law (for example, the strengthening of children’s rights and, therefore, the centrality of the best interests) rather than a conscious effort to incorporate or mirror the text of the Declaration itself.  While there is a certain degree of awareness of the Washington Declaration, there were only a few reported instances of direct reference to the Declaration by the courts.

Current and Future Research and Policy Perspectives

The penultimate panel considered current and future research and policy. The international NGO, International Social Service reported on its work, and AIJUDEFA (International Association of Spanish Speaking Family Law Jurists) shared the results of its recent survey on relocation procedures in thirteen jurisdictions.  The IAFL also shared the results of its extensive research comparing international relocation laws and procedures around the world.  Finally, Professor Marilyn Freeman and Professor Nicola Taylor, leading experts in the field of (international) family law and part of the 2010 conference delegation, reflected on the academic research landscape in international relocation.  They pointed to the lack of research undertaken on international relocation in recent years and indicated key future research directions, including the impact on the child’s (right to) identity in the context of relocation and abduction.   Furthermore, they indicated the need to consider more closely how the best interests of the child are determined in different jurisdictions in the context of research on child outcomes, and the possible links between the relocation jurisdiction and abduction.

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Support Services

The final panel of the conference focused on alternative dispute resolution and support services in international relocation.  Reunite International, a charity, presented on its work involving mediation in international relocation cases.  The Italian experience of introducing a pilot project on mediation training for cross-border family matters was shared, as was the experience of mediation in the American context.  Finally, GlobalARRK presented on its work as a charity supporting stuck parents around the world, and the services it offers.

Concluding Reflections

The conference was extremely informative; in particular, the country reports offered a unique, comparative insight into the operation of relocation law around the world.  Two elements would have arguably improved an otherwise excellent event.  Firstly, a lot of information was imparted over the three days, and although there was time for questions following each panel, it was not suitable for extended discussions.  Facilitating exchanges, in a roundtable or similar format, on key issues within international relocation would have allowed for deeper, more dynamic engagement with the matters at hand.  For example, despite acknowledgment of the gendered nature of relocation (most relocation applicants are mothers), and indeed abduction (most taking parents are mothers), the gender perspective and expertise was missing from conference proceedings.  Secondly, critically reflecting on the Washington Declaration itself, in particular, considering the expansion or detailing the principles would have propelled the discourse further.  Nevertheless, the conference was well-organised, well-attended, and a genuinely interesting gathering that will hopefully reignite much-needed research on international family relocation.

Finally, interested readers will be happy to know that many of the conference presentations are available via the HCCH website.  Furthermore, presentations will be written and published by the HCCH as a Special Issue of the Judge’s Newsletter (forthcoming).

The Ulrik Huber Institute for Private International Law will host on 23 June 2025 a one-day conference in English entitled: The Next 25 Years of Private International Law: What Does the World Need?

The event is held on the occasion of Mathijs ten Wolde’s 25-year tenure as a professor and director of the Institute and  will bring together former PhD students and colleagues of the honoree to reflect on the future direction of private international law.

Key Themes Include: the role of private international law in a changing world; Evolving cross-border legal frameworks (e.g. EU Regulations and HCCH Conventions); regional vs. global harmonisation efforts; The impact of digitalisation; new frontiers in family, commercial, IP, transport and procedural law.

More information, including the conference programme, is available here.

The 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law will take place at the Faculty of Laws of University College London between 11 and 13 September 2025.

The conference organizers, Ugljesa Grusic (UCL) and Alex Mills (UCL), and the editors of the Journal, Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), are pleased to announce that the conference programme is now available on the conference website.

The conference will include, in the customary manner, a mixture of parallel panel sessions (on Thursday afternoon and Saturday morning) and plenary sessions (on Friday).

A limited number of non-speaker tickets and conference dinner tickets are available via the conference website, with early bird fees until 1 July 2025.

As previously noted on this blog, 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.

Registrations for the event are open. Further details are available here.

The online event will feature five thematic panels.

The first session, titled Commercial Activities and Private International Law, will explore novel challenges in international commerce and business transactions, including e-commerce, fintech and global supply chain governance. The panel will be moderated by Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) and will include expert contributions from Georgia Antonopoulou (Birmingham University) and Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven). The other panelists will be Jin Wang, Hosna Skejhatter, Jamie Vazquez Garcia and Michal Karolak.

The panel on Family Life and Private International Law will deal with international custody, adoption, marriage and succession. This session will be moderated by Katarina Trimmings and Le Xuan Tung (both University of Aberdeen), with expert commentary from Sharon Shakargy (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin). Panelists include Stefania Pia Perrino, Luis Pérez-Orozco, Isabela Tonon da Costa Dondon and Francisco Suarez.

In parallel, the Maritime Law and Private International Law panel will investigate issues in maritime governance. Moderated by Luci Carey (University of Aberdeen), the panel features as experts Stephen Girvin (National University of Singapore) and Paul Myburgh (Auckland University of Technology), with presentations by Ali Ulvi Sahin, Ilias Ioannou, Flora Gaspar da Silva and Özlem Burdurlu Ahlat.

The following panel on Private International Law in the Digital Age will examine how technological advances, including AI and digital platforms, are challenging existing legal frameworks. Moderators Patricia Zivkovic (University of Aberdeen) and Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) will be joined by Marion Ho-Dac (University of Artois) and Tobias Lutzi (Augsburg University). The panel will feature presentations by Timon Milan Solár, Yuxin Nie, Alina Rassokhina and Rosa Pla Almendros.

Finally, the session on Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility will evaluate the role of private international law in promoting sustainable development and cross-border corporate accountability. Moderated by Nevena Jevremovic (University of Aberdeen) and Francesca Farrington (University of Aberdeen), the session will include interventions by Hans Van Loon (University of Edinburgh) and Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute Hamburg), with contributions from Merve Ece Uyanık, Grazia Eleonora Vita and Rob Rooman.

Registrations are open for the 2025 edition of the Summer School on Transnational litigation organized by Michele Lupoi with Marco Farina.

The Summer School will run from 13 to 19 July 2025 at the Ravenna Campus of the University of Bologna. Online attendance is also possible.

The lectures will cover a broad range of topics in connection with  arbitration and litigation before State courts in cross-border matters. The full programme is here.

This year, the School’s Faculty includes Marie-Élodie Ancel, Cristina Antonello, Chiara Azzaroni, Ioana Maria Bratu, Letizia Ceccarelli, Giovanni Chiapponi, Maria Beatrice Deli, Francesca Ferrari, Franco Ferrari, Aleksandrs Fillers, Albert Henke, Nina Jankovic, Anastasia Kalantzi, Tatevik Karapetyan, Pasquale Mazza, Mark McLaughlin, Dominika Moravcova, Shamila Nair, Pietro Ortolani, Ilaria Pretelli, Catherine Rogers, Rinaldo Sali, Marco Torsello, Anna Wysocka-Bar, Stefaan Voet, Serena Zoghaib, and Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca.

Those wishing to attend the School are asked to complete the registration form available here by 30 June 2025.

Further information can be found here.

On 11–12 June 2025, a conference organized by the Nordic Group for Private International Law (NGPIL) will take place at the Stockholm University. The topic is the politicization of private international law.

NGPIL is a network that brings together the shared legal traditions of the Nordic countries, while also embracing the mutual intelligibility of the Scandinavian languages.

The keynote speaker will be Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, former Danish Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, who will address the interpretation of EU private international law. In addition, several distinguished Nordic scholars will present their research during the conference.

To promote academic careers among young legal professionals and researchers, a dedicated session will highlight doctoral projects and outstanding student essays.

The full conference program is available here.

Attendance is free of charge, and registration is still open. Those wishing to attend are invited to write to helene.fotiadis.forssjo@juridicum.su.se.

The conference theme will also be developed into a special volume of the book series Scandinavian Studies in Law, edited by Lydia Lundstedt, Erik Sinander (volume editors) and Jaan Paju (general editor), all from Stockholm University. The anthology will include selected conference presentations as well as contributions from other invited Nordic scholars.

In preparation of the University of Bologna (Ravenna Campus) Summer School on Transnational Litigation, already noted on this blog, a warm-up webinar will take place on 19 May 2025, from 6 to 7 pm CET.

The session will feature Marco Pasqua (PhD at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan) who will speak on Jurisdiction in Sanctions-Related Cases: EU View on Russian Developments.

The presentation will highlight a continuous shift in the understanding of adjudicative jurisdiction, where traditional state sovereignty meets the strategic demands of private actors in cross-border dispute resolution. Within this context, it will examine Russian Federation’s counter-sanctions regime — particularly Articles 2481 and 2482 of the Arbitration Procedure Code — which grants Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction in certain sanctions-related disputes and allow for anti-suit injunctions against foreign proceedings. These developments raise significant jurisdictional concerns, notably from the EU viewpoint. Case studies will illustrate their practical impact, including on parallel proceedings, strategic choice-of-court agreements, the underexplored potential of forum necessitatis and provisional measures in sanctions-related disputes.

Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna) will chair the session.

Attendance is free of charge. To receive the Microsoft Teams link to join the webinar, please send an email to Michele Angelo Lupoi at micheleangelo.lupoi@unibo.it.

A webinar is being jointly organized by the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) to be held on 10 July 2025 from 5:00 to 6:10 PM (Singapore time) / 11:00 AM to 12:10 PM (CEST). The session will focus on two crucial and evolving aspects of cross-border dispute resolution: the electronic service of documents and the remote taking of evidence.

The initiative follows the previous ABLI–HCCH collaborations in 2022 and 2023, respectively noted here and here on this blog, which explored the operation of the 1965 Service Convention and the 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions in international commercial litigation. Continuing along this trajectory, the 2025 edition reflects the growing need to address the digital dimension of private international law mechanisms.

Topics will cover the electronic transmission of requests under the Service Convention, such as the use of IT for communication among Central Authorities and other competent authorities, service by electronic means across different jurisdictions and remote taking of evidence by video-link and electronic evidence under the Evidence Convention.

Speakers include Melissa Ford (Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Lucinda Orr (Enyo Law LLP), Justice Anselmo Reyes (Singapore International Commercial Court) and Xu Guojian (SGLA Law Firm).

For further information and to register, see here and here. An early bird discount is available until 10 June 2025. For queries, please contact Catherine Shen Haoyu at abli_info@abli.asia.

In preparation of the University of Bologna (Ravenna Campus) Summer School on Transnational Litigation, already noted on this blog, a warm-up webinar will take place on 6 May 2025, from 5 to 6 pm CET.

The session will feature Ekaterina Aristova (Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law of the University of Oxford), who will speak on Enterprise Jurisdiction & Business and Human Rights Litigation. She will be joined by Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana University Bloomington’s Maurer School of Law).

Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna) will chair the session.

Attendance is free of charge. To receive the Microsoft Teams link to join the webinar, please send an email to Michele Angelo Lupoi at micheleangelo.lupoi@unibo.it.

The registrations for the Hague Academy Winter Course of 2026 will be open from 1 May 2025 to 1 October 2025 for full fee applicants, and from 1 May 2025 to 31 July 2025 for scholarship applicants.

The course will be opened by Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi (Former President of the International Criminal Court) with a lecture on The Emergence of a Judicial Ecosystem to Fight the Most Serious International Crimes.

The general course, titled The Contemporary International Legal Order will be given by Bing Bing Jia (Tsinghua University).

The special courses will be as follows: Catherine Amirfar (Debevoise & Plimpton LLP), Provisional Measures in International Law; Xavier Boucobza (University of Paris-Saclay), The Genesis of Lex Publica in International Trade Law; Caroline Foster (University of Auckland), Facilitative Compliance Mechanisms in Multilateral Treaties; Schuichi Furuya (Waseda University), Changing Aspects of Reparation for Victims of Armed Conflict; Yannick Radi (Université catholique de Louvain), Property and International Law; Antonios Tzanakopoulos (University of Oxford), International Law and Domestic Courts: Quantum Uncertainty.

The directors of studies will be Guy Fiti Sinclair (University of Auckland) for the English-speaking section, and Vaios Koutroulis (Université libre de Bruxelles) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Selected attendees of the Winter Courses will also be able to participate in the doctoral networking sessions, coordinated by Letizia Lo Giacco (Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies), additional afternoon lectures, embassy visits and social activities.

The programme of Hague Academy Winter Course of 2026 is available here.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

The Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is relaunching its Crossroads in Private International Law research seminar series.

The programme will open on 23 April 2025, at 14:00 (UK time), with a seminar on Consumer Protection and Justice in Israeli Private International Law by Sharon Shakargy (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). This session will be available both online and in person.

On 24 April 2025, at 14:00 (UK time), Luci Carey (University of Aberdeen) will present Collisions and Autonomous Ships: A Challenge for the Collision Convention 1910. This session will also be held both online and in person.

On 30 April 2025, at 12:00 (UK time), Uta Kohl (University of Southampton) will discuss A Skewed Bargain? Platforms Get the King’s Protection for Little or No Obedience or Allegiance. This seminar will be available exclusively online.

The series continues on 7 May 2025, at 11:00 (UK time), with a seminar by Chukwuma Okoli (University of Birmingham) titled Should the Rules on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Be Harmonised in Africa? A Comparative and Empirical Assessment. This session will be conducted online only.

On 14 May 2025, at 14:00 (UK time), Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) will present Navigating Generative AI, Copyright Protection, and Private International Law in Europe. This session will be available both online and in person.

Finally, on 21 May 2025, at 10:00 (UK time), David Nelken (UCL) will hold a seminar on Platform Governance and Wikilegality together with the Aberdeen Centre for Constitutional and Public International Law. This discussion will be accessible both online and in person.

Online booking is available here.

Questions regarding the seminar series must be addressed to Michiel Poesen at michiel.poesen@abdn.ac.uk.

Within the framework of the Jean Monnet Module CoME CircLE, the University of Udine, in cooperation with a consortium of European universities, now including University of Essex , De Montfort University of Leicester, University of West Timisoara, East Anglia University, University of Belgrade, University of Rijeka and University of Szeged, organizes the 18th edition of the Summer School on Consumer and Market Law in the European Circular Economy, to be held 9-18 July 2025.

The Summer school is a blended intensive course (40 hours of lectures (9-11 July online / 14-18 July on site in Udine), a workshop and a moot court). It addresses theoretical and practical issues related to the legal protection of consumers and the market regulation in the European Circular Economy.

The call for application and the brochure are respectively available here and here.

The application deadline is 31 May 2025, 12 pm GMT. Applications received before 30 April 2025, 12:00 pm GMT, will benefit from the early-bird registration fee.

For further information: ip.europeanlaw.uniud@gmail.com.

The author of this report is Meltem Ece Oba (Koç University, Istanbul). The post is being published simultaneously on Conflictoflaws.net and on the EAPIL blog.


On 20-21 March 2025, a conference on “Characterisation in the Conflict of Laws” was convened at St Hilda’s College, Oxford. Under the auspices of the Institute of European and Comparative Law in the Law Faculty of the University of Oxford, the conference was jointly organised by Dr Johannes Ungerer (University of Oxford and Notre Dame University in England), Dr Caterina Benini (Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan) and PD Dr Felix Berner (University of Tübingen). The conference brought together scholars and practitioners from several jurisdictions around the world.

The conference’s topic, characterisation, is the process for identifying the nature or category of a particular cause of action (for instance contractual, tortious, proprietary, corporate, matrimonial), so that the correct connecting factor can be employed which then points to the applicable law or to the competent court. Characterisation poses difficulties where the action is domestically unknown or falls in-between two categories and could thus be potentially litigated in different fora or under different laws, leading to different outcomes. Different methods proposed for characterisation make this process even more complex. In this conference, participants explored characterisation from historical, methodological, critical, practical, and further perspectives with the aim to shed light on some of the most pressing and controversial issues of what arguably is the most crucial step for a court when determining its international jurisdiction and the applicable law.

Following the opening remarks by the three organisers, the first presentation addressed the history of characterisation. Professor Martin Gebauer (University of Tübingen) explored three main themes: striking parallels in time and content, strong contrasts, and finally the tensions in characterisation. Gebauer initially touched upon the ‘discovery’ of characterisation as ‘a child of the nineties of the 19th Century’ in the works of Franz Kahn and Etienne Bartin. This was followed by the examination of the internationalist approaches. This led him to discuss autonomous characterisation and functional comparative law approaches as the ‘third direction’ through the work of Scipione Gemma and the changed views of Franz Kahn. Gebauer highlighted that the doctrinal views in this decade reflected the ideological battles over the foundations of private international law. He further discussed the developments in characterisation in the 20th century, such as the developments in comparative law and Rabel’s approach to characterisation. Finally, Gebauer considered characterisation in transnational and European law and its contribution to the homogenous understanding of conflict-of-laws rules within the EU. In the discussion following his presentation, the challenges of comparative law methodology and the need to consider a range of perspectives on characterisation (instead of a single one) were debated amongst other aspects.

The following presentations were dedicated to the process and particular problems of characterisation. The paper given by Professor Andrew Dickinson (University of Oxford) raised the question of “Is there any magic in characterisation?” with a focus on the courts of England and Wales. He provided seven steps of dealing with how the courts must engage with characterisation. Using a metaphor, he compared the attempts of describing the characterisation process to an attempt of describing the elephant in the Indian parable of ‘blind men and an elephant’. In this regard, Dickinson underlined that one can only provide an informative tool kit and cannot describe a full process of characterisation. He emphasised that all parts of a given rule and most importantly its purpose must be taken into account when characterising it. In this regard, he explained that ‘substance’ should be valued higher than ‘form’ and that ‘labels’ should not play a major role. Dickinson considered characterisation as being more of a practical issue from the common law perspective, and a process of interpreting a rule or a particular subset of settings; he thus concluded that there is no ‘magic’ in characterisation. Participants used the subsequent discussion for instance to contrast the Common law position with the Civilian approaches and to question the role of the judge and the parties when characterising a claim.

The next presentation was delivered jointly by Associate Professors Brooke Marshall and Roxanna Banu (both University of Oxford) on characterisation’s role in the jurisdictional inquiry in English courts. They began with an overview of the instances where the choice of law questions are raised at the jurisdictional stage in the context of granting permission for service out of the jurisdiction, exploring the relevant gateways in the Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules. Marshall critically examined the UK Supreme Court decision in UniCredit Bank v RusChemAlliance, demonstrating how the choice of law matters affect the international jurisdiction of English courts. Banu, from a more theoretical point of view, then discussed the a priori application of the lex fori to jurisdictional matters and the importance of theorising characterisation to understand the reasons why jurisdiction and substance are to be distinguished. The presentation was followed by a fruitful discussion which, among other issues, highlighted the problematic circular reasoning employed at the intersection of choice of law and jurisdictional characterisation.

The last paper of this session was presented by Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan) on ‘renvoi de characterisation’, that is, characterisation for the purposes of renvoi. At the beginning, he set the scene with regard to the meaning of renvoi and characterisation as well as the distinction between primary and secondary characterisation. Franzina explained that where the private international law of the forum contemplates the possibility of renvoi, the conflict of laws conceptions of a foreign applicable law should also be appreciated. In that regard, Franzina demonstrated through examples how the ‘second characterisation’ should reflect the taxonomy of the designated legal system (and, in some instances, the taxonomy of the different system specified under the conflict-of-laws rules of the latter system). He explained that characterisation for the purposes of renvoi is not given as much attention today as it used to receive, especially due to the greater weight that substantive policy considerations have progressively gained in private international law. The subsequent discussion addressed concerns over consistency in the interpretation of connecting factors in jurisdictional and applicable law matters.

The next session of the conference consisted of four presentations on challenges of characterisation in specific areas. The first speaker, Assistant Professor Joanna Langille (University of Western Ontario), focused on the distinction between substance and procedure. In this regard, Langille critically examined the use of the traditional common law distinction of rights and remedies for characterisation purposes. She took a Kantian rights-based approach to explain that the idea of right and remedy essentially merged or ‘shaded into’ one another. Langille argued for an alternative distinction between substance and procedure based on the nature of private rights. The adjudication process through which that determination is made should be subjected to the lex fori as the law of the community. In that sense, she viewed procedural law as being about publicity or the capacity of the courts to make law for the community as a whole and hence operating on a vertical plane. On the other hand, where the court is faced with a question that relates only to the horizontal relationship and, thereby, the reciprocal rights and duties between the two parties, foreign substantive private law should apply. Accordingly, the ‘provisions that are determinative of the rights of both parties’ were considered as substantive, whilst ‘the machinery of the forum court’ as procedural. She exemplified her views by reference to statutes of limitation. Among the issues raised during the subsequent discussion were the role of procedural law and of the lex fori in light of state sovereignty as well as the transcending boundaries of substance and procedure in instances like limitation statutes.

The next paper was delivered by Professor Yip Man (Singapore Management University) on the characterisation of equitable doctrines. While characterisation might have to start from a domestic law understanding, she embraced a functional approach in characterisation and argued for the pursuit of uniformity with an internationalist spirit and therefore against being constrained by domestic law notions. In that regard, she emphasised the importance of understanding the function of equity in arriving at the appropriate category. The conceptual diversity and complexity of equitable doctrines in Common law systems both in conflict of laws and domestic laws were discussed. Yip Man highlighted the objective of identifying the predominant characteristic of a legal institution, which she illustrated by reference to both remedial and institutional features. The relationship between the parties underlying the equitable obligations and remedies were also discussed as possibly being the predominant features to be taken into account. Finally, Yip Man analysed two recent decisions, Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co v Eton Properties of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and Perry v Esculier of the Singapore Court of Appeal. The discussion addressed the challenge of characterising equitable doctrines in Civilian courts, possible advantages when differentiating between substance and procedure when characterising equitable concepts, and the ‘fusion’ approach.

Moving on to the insightful presentations by two academically distinguished practitioners, Dr Alex Critchley (Westwater Advocates, Edinburgh) spoke about the characterisation of contractual arrangements in the context of family law where some of the most challenging questions arise. Critchley focused on two main issues, namely the way family law agreements differ from other contracts (or as to whether they can be characterised as contracts at all) and the extent to which they relate to other fields of law such as company law. In this context, he explained the international framework for contracts in international family law by exploring the EU and HCCH rules. He then exemplified family law agreements and their different forms such as nuptial agreements, care arrangements for children or agreements addressing corporate or property relationships between family members. This led to a discussion among all participants about choice of law rules for nuptial agreements, the characterisation of maintenance agreements, the 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, and case law referenced by Critchley, such as F v M 2021 SLT 1121.

Looking at a very different area of law, Dr Thomas Klink (Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart) addressed characterisation in international M&A disputes, where issues arise in judicial practice especially when the purchase agreement did not contain a relevant and valid choice of law clause. In his presentation Klink initially examined the characterisation of purchase agreements both in the form of a ‘share deal’ or – less common – an ‘asset deal’. He hinted at the tricky ramifications if the selling shareholder is a natural person and could be considered to be a consumer for the purposes of Article 6 of the Rome I Regulation. He then moved on to characterisation challenges encountered in the preparation of the transaction and in respect of non-disclosure agreements/letters of intent, access to information, exclusivity, and the issues arising from the termination of negotiations such as break-up fees. Klink also touched upon company law issues such as the transfer of shares. Post-M&A disputes such as fraud cases were also addressed. Looking ahead, he expressed his expectation that the number of M&A disputes in the newly established International Commercial Courts will increase, which was then also discussed further by the conference participants. Other issues in the discussion included the consumer status of investors, the parallels between choice of law and jurisdictional characterisation in M&A disputes, and the latest case-law developments on concurrent claims. This concluded a day full of fruitful debates.

The second day of the conference began with a session on what the organisers had termed rethinking characterisation, exploring novel and more critical approaches to characterisation.

The first speaker in this session was Professor Jeremy Heymann (University of Lyon III Jean Moulin). Heymann’s presentation was entitled ‘characterisation from a unilateralist perspective’. He outlined the approach of unilateralism in contrast to multilateralism. Heymann argued that, from a methodological point of view, it is necessary to first identify a ‘legal order of reference’ and then to determine if the legal issue at hand and the facts of the case fall under the scope of this ‘legal order of reference’. Whilst indicating that the ‘legal order of reference’ of the judge should be the lex fori in most instances, he also highlighted that the law to be taken into account should correspond to the expectation of the parties. Through this conception of unilateralism Heymann argued that the law applicable to characterisation should be ‘much more the lex causae than lex fori’. In the subsequent discussion, the designation of the ‘legal order of reference’ was debated in addition to the challenges of taking into account the expectations of the parties. Heymann further commented on how some EU Regulations might provide for unilateral rules on certain private international law matters, such as the GDPR and the Air Passenger Regulation.

The second presentation in this session was delivered jointly by Philomena Hindermann and Professor Ralf Michaels(both Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) with the provocative title ‘Against Characterisation?’. Michaels began the paper with a critique of the current approach to characterisation with reference to the English decision in Macmillan v Bishopsgate Investment Trust. He explained how such a methodology in fact conceals the real essence of legal reasoning behind characterisation. He then touched upon the attempts of the American Conflicts Revolution to overcome characterisation through interest analysis. Whilst acknowledging that overcoming characterisation is not possible, he argued for taking account of the policies behind legal rules in the process of characterisation. In this regard, Michaels criticised a process of characterisation through preliminary categories and argued instead that characterisation should be an ‘end result’. Building on this finding, Hindermann continued with the question as to whether there could be such a thing as ‘post-categorical characterisation’. She also criticised characterisation as reflecting certain presumptions and as omitting the policies and various functions of legal rules. Considering characterisation as an epistemological process she then questioned the need for categories and advocated for embracing a non-exhaustive / post-categorical functional approach. Therefore, instead of reducing characterisation to a pre-determined taxonomy, she argued that categories should be built based on each case by way of looking at the functions of the legal institution at hand. Participants to the discussion engaged with the reasons why the American realist thinking approach might or might not be compelling and also deepened the discussion from an EU perspective. The idea of categories under national laws having an open-ended nature as opposed to close-ended categories was further discussed on the one hand, as well as the concerns of legal uncertainty on the other hand.

The last speaker of this session was Professor Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh). Her presentation covered characterisation as a tool to manage diversity and hence she focused on an epistemic change of perspectives in characterisation. Her paper started off with an explanation of the creation of a new delict under Scottish substantive law in relation to domestic violence. Furthermore, Ruiz Abou-Nigm considered a possible interplay with the 1980 Child Abduction Convention where under Article 13(1)(b) domestic abuse might constitute a reason to refuse the return of a child. Recognition and enforcement of civil protection orders were also discussed through this lens. As a conclusion Ruiz Abou-Nigm called for an internationalist approach to characterisation that takes into account feminist perspectives as well as the interplay of cultures. Ruiz Abou-Nigm argued that instead of taking the lex fori as a starting point, one should embrace an epistemological and pluralistic approach. In her view, the ‘order of reference’ of the judge in characterising a matter should be much more complex and international than the categories under the lex fori. Participants asked her how this inter-cultural approach should affect the application of the new Scottish law in a cross-border setting and raised the problem that embracing an inter-cultural approach might not appear to be supportive of a feminist normative approach. Participants also suggested ways that might foster pluralistic thinking with a feminist approach and commented on how the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence could be used for characterisation or interpretation.

The last session of the conference focused on the interplay of private and public international law. Professor Alex Mills (University College London) spoke about private international law treaty interpretation and characterisation. He started by examining the English common law approach to characterisation in order to draw comparisons between the methodology in the common law regarding the characterisation and the interpretation of international treaties. He explained that, since treaties are implemented through national laws in dualist systems, statutory interpretation is needed in their application whilst principles of international treaty interpretation are also taken into account. Mills argued that international treaty interpretation has commonalities with the common law approaches to characterisation, but that the judge should acknowledge where choice of law rules belong to an international body of law. He used the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention as an example and pointed to its explanatory report which indicates the ‘international spirit’, echoing the English common law approach. In the subsequent discussion, the internationalist interpretation was generally welcomed but its practical implications were questioned. The idea that international treaty interpretation was reflecting the common law approach was challenged by Civilian representatives, though Continental European approaches could also be understood as being too ‘rigid’ from the point of view of the English common law doctrine. Participants also pointed to the process in which the 2005 and 2019 Hague Conventions were drafted and how the consistency in the internationalist approach in both Conventions reflected a common understanding of the drafters.

The final paper of the conference was delivered by Professor Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University and the University of Antwerp) discussed how characterisation questions were addressed at the Hague Conference for the purposes of drafting Conventions. Three main examples were given: first, Pertegás Sender explained that drafters increasingly employ provisions that regulate the scope of a Convention. As a second example of instances where the HCCH takes into account characterisation matters, she demonstrated how rather broad terms are preferred in the drafting of Conventions’ provisions that would establish a common ground for contracting states. Finally, she pointed out the fact that there does not exist a lex fori for the drafters of such international Conventions. Sender also highlighted that especially in the last two decades all of the Conventions emphasise the autonomous interpretation and the promotion of uniformity in their application. The preference for broad terms was challenged in the subsequent discussion as being too vague, especially in the absence of a special court system for the interpretation of HCCH Conventions. Interestingly, the consequences of ‘negative characterisation’ were discussed in relation to the aspects which are kept outside of the scope of the HCCH Conventions, in contrast to a true or ‘positive characterisation’ of what is within the scope of a particular Convention.

Concluding the conference proceedings, the three organisers expressed their gratitude to all speakers for their papers and to all attendees for their fruitful contributions to the discussion.

 

As previously noted on this blog, 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 deadline for submissions has been extended to 4 April 2025.

Additional details are available here.

A call for papers has been issued for the XI International Conference on Private International Law at the Carlos III University of Madrid, due to take place on 22 and 23 May 2025.

This year’s conference will honor Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca on the occasion of his 70th birthday.

Selected contributions will be published on the journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

Those interested to submit a paper are invited to send an abstract of no more than 800 words to congresodipr@uc3m.es by 30 April 2025.

The Scientific Committee of the conference consists of Javier Carrascosa Gonzalez, Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Heinz-Peter Mansel, Ilaria Pretelli and Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti. The organizing committee is directed by Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo.

For further information, see here.

On 4 April 2025, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan will host a seminar, in English, on the case of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man.

The Vitruvian Man is a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci. Made around 1490, it is a study of ideal body proportions inspired by the teachings of Vitruvius, an architect in ancient Rome, and features a human figure inscribed in a circle and a square. A unique combination of art and scientific ideals, the drawing is one of the most recognisable images of the Renaissance. It is part of the collections of the Gallerie dell’Accademia, a museum in Venice.

In 2019, the Italian Ministry of Culture and the Gallerie dell’Accademia instituted proceedings in Italy against Ravensburger, a jig-saw puzzle manufacturer based in Germany, for the unauthorized use of the image of the Vitruvian Man in one of their puzzles.

They relied on provisions of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code whereby works in the Italian cultural heritage cannot be exploited for commercial purposes without prior authorisation and the payment of fees. The provisions, they argued, apply to any commercial use of the images of such artworks, whether in Italy or elsewhere. The Tribunal of Venice granted the provisional measures sought on this basis, ordering Ravensburger to cease marketing products using the image of the Vitruvian Man.

At that point, Ravensburger began proceedings in Germany seeking a declaration that the above Italian provisions do not apply outside of Italy, noting, inter alia, that those provisions, if upheld, would result in a form of unlimited copyright protection under which the images of the works concerned would be indefinitely prevented from falling into the public domain. In 2024, the Regional Court of Stuttgart ruled in favour of Ravensburger (more on the ruling here and here). Appeal proceedings are pending.

The case raises a range of issues at the crossroads of private international law, art law and intellectual property law. The seminar will address some of those issues. Speakers include Anna Pirri Valentini (IMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca), Arianna Visconti, Giulio Enrico Sironi and Pietro Franzina (all three Catholic University of the Sacred Heart).

The seminar will also offer an opportunity to commemorate Erik Jayme (1934-2024) and recall his unique passion for law and the arts.

Those wishing to attend the seminar can do so both on-site and on-line. More information, including as regards registration, can be found here.

A call for papers has recently been issued by Michiel Poesen and Patricia Živković (University of Aberdeen), co-convenors of the Society of Legal Scholars Private International Law section, for the PIL section of the SLS Annual Conference 2025 at Leeds University from 3 to 4 September 2025. The call is reproduced below, as received by the promoters.


This is a call for papers and panels for the Private International Law section of the 2025 Society of Legal Scholars’ Annual Conference to be held at Leeds University, from 2nd-4th September.  The Private International Law section will meet in the second half of the conference on 3-4 September and will have 4 sessions, each lasting 90 minutes.  Doctoral students are very welcome and are encouraged to submit papers for consideration in the Subject Sections Programme.

Conference Information

There will be no theme for the conference in 2025; we hope this allows for real creativity in the ways we, as legal scholars, can explore our subject and the viewpoints we take on it and we look forward to a substantively and methodologically diverse and engaging range of papers across the wide spectrum that is our common subject of law.

However, we will be picking up again on themes from the 2023 conference at Oxford Brookes University and explore ways in which our work and our scholarship can inform the public good, public policy and public discourse. As legal scholars none of us wish our work to disappear into the aether unnoticed. We do the research we do and the scholarship we do precisely because we want it to make some sort of difference.

We will also pick up on themes from the 2024 conference at the University of Bristol and continue to explore the ways in which scholarship and legal research has become ever more interdisciplinary as we seek to grapple with ever more complex and varied local, national and international challenges. Inevitably those things are linked. We want to make a difference and increasingly that can best – or only – be done by engaging critically, even before we start, both with other disciplines and with those we hope will read and take notice of our research – the “research user” in the dreaded jargon.

The 2025 Leeds conference will be fully in person.  Recordings of both plenaries, the ECR and EDI sessions, together with the AGM and Council meeting, will be available after the event for a limited period for delegates. Council members who are not attending the 2025 Conference will still be able to attend the Council meeting and AGM virtually and, consistent with our EDI priorities, speakers who cannot attend may, on sufficient notice, be able to present virtually.  We will also endeavour to allow speakers unable to attend at the last minute due to ill-health or travel restrictions to present virtually. This decision reflects a move globally to resume in person conferences, the significant costs surrounding the delivery of a fully virtual attendance. We will also continue to offer support for attendance via our Annual Conference Additional Support Fund (ASF) to support those with special circumstances warranting additional support. Priority for support will be given to applicants who have no other source of funding.

To find out more please visit https://www.slsconference.com/.

Submitting through Oxford Abstracts

If you are interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 4 April 2025.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed here   – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. For those whose papers are accepted, the original submission offers the facility to upload a full paper nearer the time. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

This is the third year we will be running first blind peer review, with a subsequent non-blind review once initial decisions have been made to consider profile diversity before final decisions are made and communicated. The feedback from convenors on this process was overwhelmingly positive.

Decisions will be communicated by Friday 2 May 2025.

Submission Format

We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives and methodological approaches in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

Those wishing to present a paper should submit a title and abstract of around 300 words. Those wishing to propose a panel should submit a document outlining the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate) and their abstracts.  Sessions are 90 minutes in length and so we recommend panels of three speakers, though the conference organisers reserve the right to add speakers to panels in the interests of balance and diversity.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible can present, speakers should not present twice at the conference at the expense of another credible paper.  When you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

The Best Paper Prize

Please also note that the SLS offers two prizes. First, The Best Paper Prize, which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career, and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £300 monetary award, and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, appear in Legal Studies.  To be eligible: speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members, and must be fully paid up. The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final.); papers should be submitted as a word document and must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count);; papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 22 August 2025; papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the Annual Conference by at least one of the authors.

Where a Convenor or Final Panellist is unable to judge, for example, where there is a conflict of interest, he or she will nominate another member of the Section or Executive Committee member to act as an alternate (A conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, where a Convenor, Chair or Judge is a colleague or PhD supervisor of an author).

The SLS adopts the same policy as Legal Studies as regards AI. The policy is available via this link.

The Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize

In 2020 the Society launched the Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize, which is open to currently registered doctoral students who are members of the Society. The Prize is £300. There is no link to publication in Legal Studies arising from this award, but any winner would be welcome to submit their paper for consideration by the Society’s journal. To be eligible: speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS who are Doctoral students. (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be fully paid up members and all authors must be Doctoral students, whatever their discipline). The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final; papers must be submitted in word document format and should not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count); papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 22 August 2025; papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; and papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented by at least one of the authors at the Annual Conference. Where a paper eligible for this prize wins the Best Paper Prize, the judges may at their discretion award the prize for Best Paper by a Doctoral Student to a different nominated paper. The judges may announce a shortlist at their discretion with the winner to be announced by the first week in August. Where a Convenor or Final Panellist is unable to judge, for example, where there is a conflict of interest, he or she will nominate another member of the Section or Executive Committee member to act as an alternate (A conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, where a Convenor, Chair or Judge is a colleague or PhD supervisor of an author). The SLS adopts the same policy as Legal Studies as regards AI. The policy is available via this link.

Registration and Paying for the Conference

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Friday 13 June 2025 to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this deadline is likely to pose any problems for you. Booking information will be circulated in due course and will open after the decisions on the response to the calls are made.

On 24 March 2025, at 6pm UK time, Marta Pertegás (Maastricht University; University of Antwerp; a fulltime member of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law between 2008 and 2017) and Alex Mills (UCL; a Specialist Editor of Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws, with particular responsibility for, inter alia, the rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments) will give a seminar on The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – English and EU Perspectives at the Faculty of Laws, University College London. The event will be delivered in a hybrid format and the readers of the blog are welcome to join either in person or on line.

The seminar is part of the International Law Association (British Branch) Lecture Series and will be chaired by Ugljesa Grusic.

On 1 July 2025, the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters will enter into force in England and Wales. This historic regime establishes a general treaty basis for the recognition and enforcement of civil judgments between Convention States, supplementing the existing national rules and the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005. Perhaps most significantly, it will provide common rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments from England and Wales in EU Member States, and conversely, for EU Member State judgments to be recognised and enforced in England and Wales, to some extent filling a ‘gap’ created by Brexit.

This seminar will address the significance of this development from both an English and EU perspective, examining the main features of the 2019 Convention and considering the opportunities and challenges it presents.

To register, please follow this link.

Building on the success of the two previous editions (here and here), a new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is currently being organized by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como, in cooperation with the Law Faculty of the University of Murcia and the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

It will be held again on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 2 to 6 February 2026.

The general topic will be Values in Private International Law. Lectures will deal with traditional topics, such as the protection of weaker contractual parties, to challenges that have surfaced in more recent times, such as the role of private international law in the realisation to the rights of minorities, migrants and vulnerable persons.

The Winter School is aimed at PhD students, young scholars, young practitioners and EU private international lovers, generally!

Want to know what former participants think of their time in Como?

Alix Ernoux, a teaching assistant at the University of Liège, regards her participation in the 2024 edition a “career-changing experience”. Here’s what she said:

I left the Winter School with a renewed passion and determination to specialize in this field. It sparked my decision to dive deeper into research on the complex intersections of international family law, human rights, and belgian law. It has been a crucial step in shaping my academic journey, and I’m excited to continue exploring this fascinating area of law in greater depth.

Aleksandra Wasielewicz, a doctoral student at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, shared her thoughts of the 2024 and 2025 editions of the Winter School.

She said she would strongly recommend participation

to anyone interested  in private international law… Insightful lectures by prominent experts, in-depth discussions, and a sense of community with people from so many countries who share interests and enthusiasm for private international law.

Thanks to both testimonials!

The full program of the 2026 edition of the Winter School will be published in September 2025. Practical details on the registration process and the fees will be provided on that occasion.

For information, please send an e-mail to eapilws@gmail.com.

The upcoming edition of the Ravenna Summer School on Cross-Border Litigation and International Arbitration will be held between 13-19 July 2025 in Ravenna (Italy), hosted by the University of Bologna.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who wish to develop a better knowledge of international civil procedure and arbitration.

Confirmed speakers are Marie Elodie Ancel (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas), Cristina Antonello (Paragon Advocac, Vienna), Letizia Ceccarelli (Squire Patton Boggs, Milan and Geneva), Giovanni Chiapponi (University of Florence), Maria Beatrice Deli (Univeristas Mercatorum, Rome), Marco Farina (European University, Rome), Francesca Ferrari (University of Insubria), Franco Ferrari (New York University), Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Stradiņš University), Albert Henke (University of Milan), Nina Jankovic (Aceris Law, Geneva), Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna), Marck McLaughlin (Singapore Management University), Dominika Moravcova (University of Trnava), Shamila Nair (Peter Ong & Nar, Malaysia), Pietro Ortolani (Radboud University), Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Catherine Rogers (Bocconi University), Catherine Sali (Milan Chamber of Arbitration), Marco Torsello (University of Verona), Stefaan Voet (Univeristy of Leuven), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University, Kraków), Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca (University of Bologna).

Registration will be opening soon.

In the meanwhile a call for papers has been issued aimed at aw students and law graduates under the age of 30 (as of 1 January 2025). The authors of the best two papers will be admitted to the Summer School for free. The three best papers will be published in the Linkedin Newsletter of the Summer School Transnational Litigation Pills.

Those wishing to submit a paper must send their application to Michele Angelo Lupoi (micheleangelo.lupoi@unibo.it) by 30 April 2025. The application shall include an original and previously unpublished paper in English on a topic chosen by the applicant in the area of cross-border civil litigation or international arbitration (Word format, length between 15.000-30.000 characters including spaces), with a CV in English and a copy of the applicant’s ID document to verify the date of birth.

The winners will be selected by the Scientific Directors of the Summer School and will be announced on the Summer School’s Linkedin page by 15 May 2025.

In addition, PhD students and those who hold a PhD are encouraged to apply to make a 45-minute presentation on one of the Summer School topics, and to publish the text of their presentation in the Yearbook of the Summer School. Applicants must be aged 35 or less.

Proposals for presentations must be submitted to Michele Angelo Lupoi at the address above by 28 February 2025. They must be accompanied by an original PowerPoint presentation in English on a topic of the applicant’s choice in the area of civil cross-border litigation or international arbitration (max 10 slides for a 45 min presentation) and a written outline (max 1 page), a CV and a copy of the candidate’s ID document to verify the date of birth.

The top three applicants will have the possibility to attend the Summer School for free.

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 from 10 to 15 February 2025.

The course was organized by the University of Insubria in partnership with the University of Murcia and the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Financial support was provided by the International Insubria Summer/Winter Schools programme and through a Jean Monnet Module named European Private International Law: Recent Trends and Challenges (EuPILART).

The programme, prepared by a dedicated EAPIL Working Group consisting of  Silvia Marino, Javier Carrascosa González, and Anna Wysocka-Bar, addressed a broad range of topics concerning Multistate Torts.

Thirty participants, coming from Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Pakistan, Poland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, attended the School. Most were either PhD students with an interest in European Private International Law or young practicing lawyers.

10 February

The course started with a welcome address by the President of EAPIL, Gilles Cuniberti, and a presentation of EAPIL and its ongoing projects.

Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva) provided an overview of the current challenges of cross borders tort law. He presented the main difficulties surrounding the localisation of torts with respect both to jurisdiction and the applicable law. He then discussed with the attendees the application of the current rules in two case studies related to product liability.

In the afternoon, Sylwia Żyrek (Deputy Director of EU Law Department at Chancellery of Prime Minister of Poland) presented an analysis of the grounds of jurisdiction according to EC/EU instruments. She discussed the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and its approach to the interpretation of the rules in force. In particular, she pointed out the principles set by the case law and their application to the most challenging cases, such as actions for negative declarations and harmful events producing injuries and losses in more than one State.

Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia) discussed the challenges of the general rules for the determination of the applicable law. He went through the rationale of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation, discussing case studies that evidence its strengths and drawbacks. He challenged the notion of State for private international law purposes, also looking to future technological developments that stress test the meaning of localisation for the determination of the applicable law.

11 February

Day two was devoted to possible solutions to multiple jurisdictions at the time of lodging a claim of during the proceedings on the merits.

It started with a lecture on the HCCH parallel proceedings project. Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University) presented the developments of the HCCH Jurisdiction project and the current state of the art in the draft of an eventual future Convention. She stressed the difficulties in reaching legal satisfactory agreements and discussed the solutions proposed by the Working Work both from common law and civil law perspectives.

Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) offered a more in-depth analysis of the EU system, from the definitions of lis alibi pendens and related actions, to the current normative solutions in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

She also presented the different approaches applied in the systems of common and civil law and their interference.

Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven) focused on the rules on multiple defendant in EU Law, in both a theoretical and practical perspective. During a fruitful debate on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European and of the England and Wales Court of Appeal, he stressed the different approaches and the possibility of strategical or even abusive litigation in the twists and turns of Brussels Ibis Regulation.

12 February

On day three, Paivi Hirvelä (Former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights) started the session on the relationships between the freedom of expression and the personality rights providing an overview on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, trying to strike a balance between the two in a human rights protection related approach.

Javier Carrascosa González followed with a lecture on Jurisdiction for defamation cases and libel tourism, focussing on the consequences of the mosaic approach in online defamation cases. He tested the functionality of the current EU solution from the perspective of some case studies related to the personality rights of worldwide famous people.

Caterina D’Osualdo (European Commission, Seconded National Expert in DG JUST) presented the EU Commission report on the application of Rome II Regulation and the ideas for future normative developments in the rules on the applicable law. She offered an insight on the anti-SLAPP directive, underlining the benefits of a harmonisation of national procedural laws in the specific case of abusive claims.

The day ended with an inspiring lecture of Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) on crypto assets. He discussed the notion of damage in these cases, and through tradition private international alw showed how contractual and non-contractual matters can be closely intertwined in the protection of these patrimonial rights. He proposed possible alternative approaches within the role of the network.

13 February

Day four started with a lecture by Magdalena Lickova (Référendaire at Court of Justice of the European Union) on jurisdiction and applicable law to unfair competition and acts restricting free competition. She focussed on the development of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union taking also in consideration the comments of the legal scholars, demonstrating how the tort can be localised for the purposes of private international law, notwithstanding the potential multiplicity.

Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité) discussed cases related to climate change litigation, starting from the very nature of these claims and the possibility to bring them before a national Court, to the impact of the EU rules on jurisdiction and on applicable law in order, also for the purposes of favouring the alleged victim. A debate on the rules of safety and conduct pursuant to Article 17 of the Rome II Regulation was stimulated.

In the afternoon, Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University/University of Antwerp) challenged the classic territorially principle for the protection of IP rights, offering remarks on some weakness of the case law of the Court of Justice on jurisdiction and on Article 8 of the Rome II Regulation. She presented also EU cases expected to be decided soon and opened a discussion on them.

The end of the day was devoted to a short presentation of the ongoing works of the EAPIL Working Group on the feasibility of a European Private International Law Act. Thomas Kadner Graziano as Chair of the Working Group, illustrated its working methodology, the challenges and the opportunities that this act could offer in the future.

14 February

Day five started with a focus on the human rights in cross borders situations. Satu Heikkilä (Legal Counselor) presented the challenges of cross border enforcement under the ECHR prongs of the right to fair trail, the right to private life and the right to property. For this, she discussed a set cases related to the alleged violation of these rights in the enforcement of judgments in cross border situations, decided by the ECtHR.

Francisco José Garcimartín Alférez (University Autónoma of Madrid) presented the 2019 HCCH Convention in the light of the enforcement of irreconcilable judgments. After focussing on the main definition, he offered a practical approach to the possible difficulties of enforcement in the light of multiplicity, leaving room to debate. Then, he showed potential difference with the EU legal system, following to the case law of the Court of Justice.

In the afternoon, participants were invited to exchange national practises to their knowledge, from the point of view of academia and legal practice. The workshop, moderated by Silvia Marino, touched upon artificial intelligence, the impact of EU legislation on national procedural law, the localisation of specific torts (climate change; competition law infringements and car traffic accidents).

From the evening and the day after, parallel lectures were offered on topics “extra torts”, in order to discuss similar problems of multiplicity in other areas of the law. Participants were invited to choose among two parallel sessions and take part in the discussion, based, among other things, on reading materials that had been shared before the start of the Winter School.

On Friday the options were between Succession: the very special coordination of jurisdiction (held by Anna Wysocka-Bar, Jagiellonian University in Kraków) and The family and the law of torts in EU: A case study on international child abduction, held by Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, attorney at law).

15 February

Saturday morning parallel session continued with a seminar devoted to Family matters: forum and law shopping, held by Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) and a case study analysis stimulated by Patrick Kinsch (Honorary Professor at the University of Luxembourg) on Relationship between arbitration and state court jurisdiction in the treatment of overriding mandatory provisions.

Ilaria Pretelli, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, held the final lecture on human rights-based claims, focussing on their developments in the recent year and on the impact of the CSDDD on these claims in the EU.

Finally, she held a workshop for the discussions in groups and the presentation to the audience of five judgments from different jurisdiction related to punitive damages.

The organisers wish to thanks EAPIL for the opportunity to host the Winter School at the University of Insubria; the speakers, top specialists, including experts who have participated in the drafting of the instruments with which we worked this week; and the participants, highly skilled and motivated, that fruitfully contributed to the debates and the discussions.

— More pictures can be found here. The topic of the next edition of the EAPIL Winter School will be announced in the coming weeks. 

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 and present their research before a panel of experts.

The conference will feature five panels: panel 1, on Commercial Activities and Private International Law, will be moderated by Justin Borg Barthet and Burcu Yüksel Ripley; panel 2 will deal with Family life and Private International Law and will be moderated by Katarina Trimmings and Le Xuan Tung; panel 3 will concern Private International Law in the Digital Age, and be moderated by Patricia Zivkovic and Michiel Poesen; panel 4, moderated by Luci Carey, will be about Maritime Law and Private International Law; panel 5, on Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility, will be moderated by Nevena Jevremovic and Francesca Farrington.

The organizers have issued a call for submissions addressed to current postgraduate law students (LLM, PhD) and recent LLM or PhD graduates who have not yet undertaken postdoctoral studies.

The deadline for submissions is 20 March 2025.

Additional details are available here.

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 Hong Kong, 7 PM Sydney)
Session 2 (8 AM US Pacific Coast, 11 AM US East Coast, 4 PM London, 5 PM Berlin)

The webinars aim to inform those who are interested in the Committee about the project’s content and how to become members.

Why This Topic Matters

Those working in international arbitration will not be surprised by the topic. Conflict-of-laws problems frequently surface in arbitration, causing head-scratching, sometimes headaches, and in the worst cases head-on collisions. Readers of this blog will remember the online symposium we organised on the law governing the arbitration agreement. This is just one of the many intricate conflicts problems that may plague arbitration proceedings. Here are some other issues:

  • Which law governs arbitrability, i.e. the question whether the dispute is amenable to private dispute resolution?
  • Which law governs the duty of document production?
  • Which law governs attorney–client or other forms of privilege?
  • How should an arbitrator deal with sanctions, moratoria, or other overriding mandatory rules?
Committee Leadership and Mandate

The ILA has decided to set up this new committee, chaired by Nikolaus Pitkowitz (Vienna) and Wendy Lin (Singapore). The rapporteurs are Mariel Dimsey (Hong Kong) and me. The full mandate can be found here.

In a first step, the Committee will run for four years, from 2025 to 2028. In this time, it will draft a questionnaire, disseminate it to ILA members, and analyse the responses. It will also elaborate a general methodology and principles for tackling conflicts problems in arbitration. Should the project be extended for a second phase, from 2029 to 2030, the Committee may also draft new rules in the form of treaties, model laws, or arbitration rules that will be suggested to international organisations and institutions.

Call for Support

The task of the Committee is broad, complex, and has potentially far-reaching consequences. We would welcome if members of EAPIL and readers of this blog support this committee with their expertise in private international law. Please be aware that only ILA members can participate in the Committee, and that they must be nominated by their national chapters. More information will be given in the webinars.

On 20 February 2025, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan will host a seminar in English titled International Successions between EU Member States and Turkey. The main speaker will be Biset Sena Güneş (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg), while Gregor Christandl (University of Graz) will intervene as a discussant.

Those wishing to attend can do so either on-site or on-line through MS Teams. No prior registration is required.

Additional information, including as regards on-line participation, can be found in the seminar’s poster, available here.

The event is part of the Milan Early Career Scholars Initiative (MECSI), a program run by the Institute of International Studies of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart aimed to promote the scientific achievements of young researchers in the field of private international law, transnational law and the law of international arbitration.

After the first successful conferences in Aarhus (2022) and Wroclaw (2024), the European Association of Private International Law is set to hold its next conference in Geneva, on 18, 19 and 20 June 2026.

The title chosen for the conference is Shaping the Future of Private International Law in Europe.

Further details on both the programme and the logistics will be provided through this blog in the coming months.

Many thanks to Thomas Kadner Graziano and his team for taking care of the organisation of the event.

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

With competences in family and succession matters increasingly moving from courts to other authorities – such as notaries, civil status officers, child protection agencies, judicial officers, advocates, and even private parties – ELI’s Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project aims at developing an outline of a harmonised European concept of courts, building on the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU in its recent case law, to ensure a harmonised application of EU instruments to such actors in Member States.  As the trend of ‘de-judicialisation’ continues to grow, the project’s Dissemination Conference offers a valuable opportunity to discuss its implications and to present and reflect on recommendations developed by the ELI to address this shift.

Those wishing to attend the conference are invited to register here. A tentative agenda is available here.

The Société de législation comparée has published a compendium of legal studies on foreign law (Le Droit Étranger). The scholarly works in this 3-volume collection examine the role of foreign law in shaping legal thought and practice, offering insights into its academic contributions, practical applications, and future perspectives.

Background

Over the last ten years, the Société de législation comparée has produced a series of collective studies on the theoretical, methodological and practical issues of access to, knowledge of and implementation of the law. These studies have now been brought together in this compendium, thanks to Gustavo Cerqueira (Professor at the University Côte d’Azur) and Nicolas Nord, Secretary General of the International Commission of Civil Status). The objective is to provide academics and practitioners with an overview of the reflections of lawyers from different backgrounds on the most salient issues relating to this often neglected chapter of conflict-of-laws, as well as their proposals for ensuring the most accurate establishment of the content of  foreign law.

Compendium Launch

A conference devoted to the compendium will be held on 23 January 2025 at 5.00 PM (UCT+1) in Paris (28, rue Saint Guillaume). The compendium’s academic contributions will be illustrated, starting with its insights into private international law and beyond this field. The discussion will then turn to the practical applications of the compendium, focusing on its value for assessing and providing expertise on foreign law. Finally, the event will address the perspectives offered by the compendium on codification, with presentations dedicated to both national and international “codifiers”. The conference will conclude with closing remarks.

The list of speakers includes François Molinié (President of the Société de législation comparée), Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Univ. Panthéon-Assas) Eleonora Rajneri (Univ. Piemonte Orientale), Vincent Vigneau (French Cour de cassation), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Julien Dubarry (Univ. Sarre), Cyril Nourissat (Univ. Lyon 3), Nicolas Nord (ICCS) and Gustavo Cerqueira (Univ. Côte d’Azur).

This conference will be held in French.

Registration is necessary by 21 January 2025 via email (emmanuelle.bouvier@legiscompare.com)

An online conference on International Recovery of Maintenance on the Basis of Authentic Instruments is set to take place on 29 January 2025 from 3 to 5 PM CET, hosted by the German Institute for Youth Services and Family Law (DIJuF).

Authentic instruments, such as enforceable deeds, allow maintenance debtors to commit to child support payments without court involvement. These instruments hold the same enforceability as court decisions in cases of non-payment. Cross-border enforcement is addressed under Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 and Article 30 of the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention. However, limited global understanding of their nature often results in scepticism regarding the conditions under which they are established, leading to challenges in recognition, declaration of enforceability and enforcement.

Speakers include Isabelle Jäger-Maillet (DIJuF Heidelberg), Nigel Ready (Scriverner Notary, London), Dieter Martiny (Hamburg) and Catherine Collombet (Caisse Nationale d’Allocations Familiales, Paris).

For further information and registration, see here.

This post has been written by Bryan (H.B.) Verheul, PhD Candidate in Private International Law, Leiden University. He attended the Advanced Course in Hong Kong as a participant.


Between 2 and 6 December 2024, the second edition of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Advanced Course on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was held in the Hong Kong SAR.

Mirroring the success of last year’s edition, the Advanced Course  was collaboratively organized by The Hague Academy of International Law (HAIL) and the Asian Academy of International Law (AAIL), with support from the Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Hong Kong International Legal Talent Training Academy.

Over the span of five days, distinguished experts delved into an comprehensive array of topics related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, with an special emphasis on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The program attracted a broad audience, including judges, legal practitioners, researchers, academics, and government officials from all around the globe.

Kicking off the event on Monday morning, professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law, and Lam Ting-kwok Paul, Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong SAR Government, set the stage with their opening remarks. Following them, professor Teresa Cheng, former Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong SAR and Founding Member and Co-Chairperson of the AAIL, captivated the audience with her lecture on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Hong Kong SAR. Given that the Hong Kong SAR is a common law jurisdiction, she empathized the basics of common law recognition and enforcement, specifically highlighting the Hong Kong SAR’s approach. She also elaborated on the latest developments concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the Hong Kong SAR and China Mainland.

The Monday afternoon was reserved for professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) delving into Contemporary approaches of recognition and enforcement of foreign Judgments. He provided a comparative overview of different rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements, with examples from both domestic legal systems as well as international treaties. Professor Franzina addressed several key questions regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. He highlighted the fundamental difference between extending a foreign judgment to the legal order of the requested State and assimilating the foreign judgment to a judgment of the requested State. Additionally, he discussed the issue of reciprocity,  res judicata, the recognition and enforcement procedure, the principle of exequatur-sur-exequatur-ne-veut (making subtle reference  to the – rather infamous – CJEU decision in C-568/20,  J v H Limited), as well as the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Drawing on the diverse nature of the rules on recognition and enforcement in a global context, Franzina insightfully noted that treaties like the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention do not establish enforcement rules per se, but rather set criteria for a judgment’s enforceability. In other words, the Convention establishes a minimum standard for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which must then be executed according to the domestic law of the Contracting State.

Building on his general remarks from Monday afternoon, Professor Franzina’s second lecture on Thursday morning tackled the challenges posed by the HCCH Judgments Convention 2019 regarding Preliminary Questions Outside the Scope and Judgments Consisting of Severable Parts. In the Convention’s general effort to enhance the effective circulation of judgments, Franzina stressed the importance of Article 9. This article ensures that a part of a judgment must be recognised in case the judgments debtor applies for only partial recognition and enforcement or when only part of the judgment is capable of being recognised and enforced under the Convention. Rather than a reason for the requested court to refuse the recognition and enforcement of the whole judgment under the Convention, this article must be seen as to ensure the enforceability of judgments is to the greatest extend possible. After all: “something is better than nothing”.

Professor Franzina further pointed out that the Convention, in Article 2(3), also provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments that partially deal with preliminary matters falling outside the ratione materiae of the Convention (Article 1) or are explicitly excluded from its ratione materiae (Article 2), so-called “complex judgments.” The (implicit) presence of such preliminary issues does not preclude the applicability of the Convention, which again shows the Convention’s endeavor to ensure the circulation of judgments among Contracting States as much as possible.

The special attention of some of the participants was drawn to Article 10, which provides for the refusal for recognition or enforcement in case of exemplary (or punitive) damages. Franzina argued that the provision is meant to accommodate concerns that may arise both in civil law and in common law jurisdictions The latter, despite being generally familiar with the notion itself of punitive damages, may not be ready to enforce foreign judgments awarding such damages in all and any circumstances. Under Article 10, judgments awarding both compensatory and exemplary damages would be recognised and enforced to the extent that the damages are not regarded as excessive according to the court of the requested State.

On Tuesday, Professor Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo) started the morning lecture on Public Policy as a Limitation to Enforcement and Recognition. Drawing on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention’s explanatory report (an important interpretative tool according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and insights from the public policy exception in commercial arbitration and  international instruments in Private International Law, she elucidated how the public policy exception under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention should be understood both in its substance and in its relation to other grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement under Article 7.

Regarding its substance, Professor Cordero-Moss reminded the audience of the exceptional nature of the public policy exception. Although invoking the public policy exception is not always unsuccessful (citing the recent CJEU decision in C-633/22, Real Madrid v. Le Monde among other cases), it must be applied only in exceptional cases where the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment would constitute a serious breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the requested state.

In her Wednesday afternoon lecture, Cordero-Moss addressed the relationship between the public policy exception and other grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement under Article 7. She highlighted the international nature of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, noting that Article 7(1) lit. (a) to (c) considerably overlap as they all pertain to procedural fairness. While in some jurisdictions a breach of procedural fairness is not deemed “manifestly contrary to public policy,” the Convention provides a more detailed list of refusal grounds to accommodate the globally divergent nature of the public policy exception.

On both Thursday afternoon and Friday morning Judge Shen Hongyu (Chief Judge of the fourth division of PCR’s Supreme People’s Court) elaborated on China’s Perspective on International Recognition and Enforcement. According to Article 289 of the PCR’s Code of Civil Procedure, foreign judgments can be recognised either under an international treaty (such as a bilateral judicial assistance treaties, these days mostly initiated in the context of the Blet and Road Initiative), or under the principle of reciprocity. The latter principle gained significant prominence following the 2006 decision by the Berlin Court of Appeal in decision in German Züblin International Co. Ltd v. Wuxi Walker General Engineering Rubber Co., Ltd, in which the Berlin court held that it was prudent for German courts to take the first step in establishing reciprocity in the hope that Chinese courts would follow. This “wake up call” from the German Court (as described by Shen) paved the way for a so called “presumed reciprocity” in the PCR: if there is no precedent for refusing recognition and enforcement of judgments from the state of origin, the Chinese court, as the requested court, would generally presume reciprocity.

Regarding China’s position on the ratification on both the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Shen pointed out that the PCR was involved in, and agreed to, the result of the negotiations of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention is already signed by the PCR, but not yet ratified. Shen pointed out that the PCR is considering signing and ratifying the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, but only after it has opted for a definitive approach to the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention. Judge Shen indicated that the PRC will only take a position on signing and ratifying the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention after it has definitively determined its stance on the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention.

Especially of interest for the diplomats in the audience was Shen’s elaboration on the new Chinese Law on Foreign State Immunity, that got into force on 1 September 2023. As Judge Sheng carefully explained, this new law shows China’s endeavors to open up to the world by adopting a less absolute approach to foreign State immunity before Chinese courts.

Wednesday morning and Friday morning, professor Matthias Weller (University of Bonn) delivered two lectures on the rather complicated and engaging subject of The Jurisdictional Filters under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Although the Convention (only) creates a minimum framework for recognition and enforcement of judgments among Contracting States, the Convention deals with what is called “indirect jurisdiction” for the purpose of recognition and enforcement. Rather than determining whether the court of origin had jurisdiction according to its own lex fori (compétence directe), the requested court reviews the jurisdiction of the court of origin in accordance with the  “jurisdictional filters” of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (compétence indirect).

Weller looked at the phenomenon of jurisdictional filters – as he has done compellingly so on several previous occasions – through a more contemporary lens of Private International Law, namely that of “trust management”. He described the concept of indirect jurisdiction under the Convention as a form of intermediate trust: the convention prohibits révision au fond, but does allow for a review of jurisdiction of the court of origin in accordance with the jurisdictional filters set out in Arts. 5 and 6. Arts. 5 and 6 HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention are intended to filter out judgments based on unacceptable grounds of direct jurisdictions by the courts of the State of origin. The jurisdictional filter of Article 6 is mandatory in nature: a judgment ruling on rights in rem in immovable property shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State or origin. As a personal note, the author of this blog post would like to point out that Article 6 might be a reason for the EU (e.g. as part of the upcoming reform of Brussels I bis) to assume reflex effect (effet réflex) of the exclusive jurisdiction rule of Article 24(1) Brussels I bis (see in that context also the currently pending CJEU case C-339/22,  BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux).

Diving into the jurisdictional filters of the Convention, Weller distinguished five different groups of jurisdictional filters, relating to: 1. Personal connections of the defendant; 2. Forms of consent; 3. Connections of the subject matter; 4. Modifications for the protection of weaker parties; 5. Exclusive jurisdiction. To illustrate the challenges of each jurisdictional filter, the presentation incorporated brief hypothetical case scenarios and made use of comparative analyses,  designed to spark active discussions among the participants. For instance, Weller examined the jurisdictional filter outlined in Article 5(1) lit. (f), which provides for appearance without contestation unless it is evident that contestation would be unsuccessful. Weller argued that this requirement has significant implications, as it necessitates the requested court to possess extensive knowledge of the lex fori of the court of origin. He referred to Article 333 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that a party joining an ongoing case does not have the opportunity to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the court, even if a forum selection clause exists.

As an icing on the cake, the organization invited professor Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) to deliver a special lecture on Crypto Currency and International Law, on both Tuesday and Wednesday evening. Lehman managed to explain both the functioning of the blockchain underlying crypto assets (such as Bitcoin) as well as a new approach he proposes towards these assets in the field of international property law. The decentralized blockchain technology poses new questions to the more classical rules in international property law, as the decentralized blockchain technology is difficult to localise. Although some efforts have been made to unify the private law rules on crypto currencies (such as the UNIDROIT Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law 2023), binding global uniform rules for the blockchain are still a in utopia. Instead of referring to traditional concepts in private international law (e.g., lex rei sitae or lex registri),  Lehmann proposes a different approach to crypto currencies in the international arena, namely relying on the blockchain as a uniform international rule of property law. One should ideally recognise the blockchain as an authentic register of private rights.

Concluding the lecture series, Teresa Cheng presented on Articles 22 and 25 of the HCCH Judgment Conventionwith a focus on the Mutual Arrangements between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR.

Cheng elaborated on the legal frameworks inspired by the HCCH Conventions, grounded in Article 95 of the Hong Kong SAR Basic Law. She also pointed out that the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention was actually the basis for the negotiations on the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland end the Hong Kong SAR. She explained that Article 22 HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, originally intended for federal states, also applies to the unique relationship between Mainland China and Hong Kong, described as by Cheng “one country, two systems”. Reflecting on the opening lecture from Monday morning, Cheng noted China’s unique bi-jural legal system, where Hong Kong’s common law coexists with Mainland China’s civil law. According to Cheng, this duality fosters legal innovations, such as Article 4 of the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, which excludes anti-suit injunctions.

As the sun began to set on Friday afternoon, a sense of accomplishment filled the air. Participants, having navigated through a week of intellectually stimulating yet challenging sessions, gathered for the closing ceremony and received their certificates. With a backdrop of Hong Kong’s stunning Victoria Harbour, participants enjoyed an array of delicious food and refreshing drinks.

The European Judicial Network (EJN) in civil and commercial matters, set up in 2001 on the model of the European Judicial Network in criminal matters, aims at strengthening cross-border cooperation between national courts of EU Member States, including legal practitioners. Therefore, it supports the effective implementation of private international law instruments in the EU jurisdiction.

More than 20 years after its creation, the EJN in civil and commercial matters remains an important tool for EU Member States and the proper functioning of their judiciary in international scenarios. It provides for an appropriate institutional structure to support the various legal and judicial tasks of practitioners and courts involved in cross-border civil justice.

In this context, I was able to talk to the French national contact points of the EJN about the “CLUE III” project, which is based on the EJN in civil and commercial matters. Here are the contents of our discussions.

Can you first explain the “CLUE III” project to our readers?

The “CLUE III” project, which stands for “Getting to know EU legislation” (« Connaître la Législation de l’Union Européenne »), is implemented since February 2024 by the French Ministry of Justice in cooperation with Expertise France, the French agency for international technical cooperation. Funded by the European Union, for a duration of two years, the project’s objectives are twofold: first, enhancing the visibility of the European Judicial Network (EJN) in civil and commercial matters vis-à-vis French legal practitioners; second, supporting the latter when they implement EU law and private international law in civil and commercial matters.

Practitioners targeted by the project are the ones currently represented within the French EJN: judges, notaries, lawyers and bailiffs. To some extent, the project also aims to benefit court clerks who are highly involved in the practical implementation of EU legislation in civil and commercial matters, despite them not being officially represented in the network.

What are the project’s main initiatives?

The “CLUE III” initiatives involve the organisation of training seminars for legal practitioners. Practical tools for practitioners will also be developed: a mind map on the cross-border service of documents; computer graphics on family matters and legal aid in cross-border litigation; a practical guide on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

The project’s novelty consists in an additional “Roadshow” activity, which will bring a delegation of French EJN experts to visit five courts in France (Lille, Lyon, Nice, Perpignan et Strasbourg). There, the delegation will conduct a “needs analysis”, i.e. to survey the needs of legal practitioners with regard to the challenges of international judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. Based on a series of interviews with local practitioners and feedback, the delegation will develop a one-day training seminar in 2025, with a view to meeting the needs expressed and to strengthening European judicial cooperation.

Ultimately, the project aims not only to implement a more effective judicial system in France, but also to support a more efficient and adequate cross-border cooperation with EU Member States, and beyond. Hence, it contributes to reinforce the Area of freedom, security and justice in the EU.

What are the project’s upcoming events?

Legal practitioners in France, in the European judicial area and beyond may wish to note the following two dates:

    • 18 December 2024: training seminar on the EU and international frameworks in civil and commercial matters, designed for practitioners (judges, lawyers, notaries, bailiffs and court clerks), eager to learn more on how to deal in practice with a cross-border case. Organised in Paris Court of appeal (in-person and in French). Interested practitioners can register through the online form.
    • 23 January 2025: French EJN Annual meeting (plenary session), organised in Paris at the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) (in-person and in French). The event will gather practitioners and experts working on EU and international cases in civil and commercial matters. Interested practitioners can register through the online form.

For more information about these meetings and the “CLUE III” project: rjecc.dacs@justice.gouv.fr.

The readers of tis blog are aware that the second edition of the EAPIL Winter School on private international law will take place in Como between 10 and 15 February 2025.

Organised by the University of Insubria, in cooperation with the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Murcia, the 2025 edition is about multistate torts.

The lectures, in English, will address a range of issues relating to cross-border torts. The topics covered include  jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of judgments regarding online defamation, crypto assets, AI, patents, climate change, and competition law. Both Hague conventions and EU legislative measures will be examined, with an approach combining theory and practice.

There will be ample room for interaction with (and among) the participants.

The teaching staff, coordinated by Silvia Marino (University of Insubria), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia) and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków), includes Olivera Boskovic (Professor, Université Paris Cité); Benedetta Cappiello (Associate Professor, University of Milan); Javier Carrascosa González (Professor, University of Murcia); Caterina D’Osualdo (European Commission, Seconded National Expert in DG JUST); Anatol Dutta (Professor, LudwigMaximilian University of Munich); Francisco José Garcimartín Alférez (Professor, University Autónoma of Madrid); Satu Heikkilä (Administrative law Judge, Associate Professor, University of Lapland); Paivi Hirvelä (Former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, Legal Senior Advisor); Thomas Kadner Graziano (Professor, University of Geneva); Patrick Kinsch (Honorary Professorat the University of Luxembourg); Magdalena Lickova (Référendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union); Tobias Lutzi (Professor, University of Augsburg); Marta Pertegás Sender (Professor, Maastricht University / University of Antwerp); Ilaria Pretelli (Senior Research Fellow, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law); Nadia Rusinova (Lecturer, The Hague University, attorney at law); Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Professor, University of Edinburgh); Louise Ellen Teitz (Professor, Roger Williams University); Geert Van Calster (Professor, KU Leuven); Anna Wysocka-Bar (Assistant Professor, Jagiellonian University in Kraków); Sylwia Żyrek (Deputy Director of EU Law Department at Chancellery of Prime Minister ofPoland); Silvia Marino (University of Insubria, director of the School).

The detailed programme can be found here.

The School is aimed primarily at law graduates, law practitioners and PhD candidates with an interest in private international law, EU law and human rights law.

Those interested in attending the School are invited to submit their application through this form before 25 January 2025.

An early bird of 180 Euros applies to those who enroll by 12 December 2024. The ordinary fees amounts to 250 Euros.

A reduced fee of 80 Euros is offered to one student from any of the Universities that are partners in the project on the base of the “first come first served” rule. A student from a Partner University is a PhD student enrolled in a PhD Course offered by either the University of Insubria, the Jagiellonian University in Kraków or the University of Murcia, or a young scholar (below the age of 32) working in one of those Universities.

For further information: eapilws@gmail.com.

On 21 November 2024, the concluding workshop of the fourth project of the EAPIL Young Research Network on Recognition of Non-EU Judgments in the EU Member States took place. The workshop was hosted by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) in collaboration with the Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC) Project Balkan Enforcement Strengthening Project (BESp), funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and implemented by the CILC. The event was also supported by the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL).

The fourth project of the EAPIL Young Research Network, coordinated by Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg), Ennio Piovesani (Ferretti Firm) and Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (University of Zagreb), focuses on the domestic rules of the EU Member States governing the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in civil and commercial matters.

The concluding workshop marked a significant moment of discussion and exchange on this critical topic in private international law, fostering collaboration among young researchers, practitioners and senior legal experts.

Below is a report of the event.

Welcome

The workshop began with the welcome from Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General, HCCH) and Gérardine Goh Escolar (Deputy Secretary General, HCCH). Their introductory remarks set a collegial and engaging tone for the event. Joining them were Melissa Ford (Secretary, HCCH) and Ning Zhao (Principal Legal Officer, HCCH), who also contributed to the opening session and actively supported the proceedings throughout the day. All participants were then given the opportunity to introduce themselves individually.

Presentation of the Comparative Report

The coordinators of the fourth project of the EAPIL Young Research Network commenced the workshop proceedings.

Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) began by outlining the project’s timeline. The initiative started in early 2023, with a call for participation launched in March 2023. This process resulted in the selection of 31 reporters covering 21 EU Member States. Geographically, the project’s reach across Europe is extensive, as illustrated by a map shared during the presentation. Following the project launch, two workshops were held: the first focused on refining the questionnaire, and the second, a hybrid event, online and at the University of Turin, aimed at a preliminary comparative assessment. Over the summer of 2024, the reports underwent review and editing, and the publication of a volume containing both the country reports and a comparative analysis is expected in early 2025.

Tobias Lutzi also presented the structure of the questionnaire used in the project, detailing the adjustments made to it over time as the work progressed.

He then presented a selection of insights from the Comparative Report, that the three project chairs have been drafting on the basis of the national reports. In terms of general observations, the discussion highlighted significant differences between EU Member States legislations. Some have codified rules on the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments as part of private international law or civil procedural law, while others rely primarily on case law. The approach to recognition is similarly varied: in some Member States, recognition is always informal; in others, it is generally informal but becomes formal upon application or for specific types of judgments; for a few, recognition is always formal. Enforcement also diverges between systems, depending on whether it concerns foreign judgments requiring a declaration of enforceability through exequatur proceedings or domestic confirmation judgments based on the judgment debt.

Ennio Piovesani (Ferretti Firm) then delved into some more specific aspects, particularly the requirements, i.e. grounds for recognition and refusal, using a comparative table to illustrate the findings. A graphical comparison revealed how the distinction between positive and negative requirements influences the allocation of the burden of proof and the court’s power or duty to review matters on its own motion.

Some specific requirements were examined in greater detail, as they were recurring themes during the workshop. These included the (so-called indirect) jurisdiction of the court of origin and the requirement of reciprocity. Additionally, some other supplementary requirements were briefly touched upon.

Panel 1: The Assessment of (Indirect) Jurisdiction of the Court of Origin

The first panel featured the contributions from Tess Bens (University of Vienna), Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University), Dafina Sarbinova (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”) and Erik Sinander (University of Stockholm).

Tess Bens and Birgit van Houtert, serving as national reporters for the Netherlands, alternated in presenting their analysis. They began by examining Article 431 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and the landmark referral to the Dutch Supreme Court in 2014, which established four exhaustive national-autonomous requirements for recognition in the Gazprombank case. Among these requirements, one stipulates that a foreign judgment can, in principle, be recognized in the Netherlands if the court of origin’s jurisdiction is based on an internationally accepted ground of jurisdiction. Their discussion delved into relevant case law addressing the concept of ‘international jurisdiction’ of the court of origin and explored the legal instruments from which such guidance can be derived. This led to an analysis of the possible grounds for jurisdiction that may qualify as internationally accepted, including party autonomy whereby the court of origin’s jurisdiction stems from a choice-of-court agreement between the parties. The reporters emphasized the advantages of a case-by-case assessment over internationally accepted ground of jurisdiction, which allows flexibility to adapt to international developments and draw inspiration from various sources.

Dafina Sarbinova, national reporter for Bulgaria, followed with an overview of the complex legal framework governing recognition and enforcement in Bulgaria. This framework includes international treaties both multilateral, sector-specific conventions and bilateral agreements, particularly those predating Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union that remain relevant for non-EU judgments. Additionally, domestic laws play a role, including lex specialis, the 2005 Private International Law Code (PILC) and the Civil Procedure Code. Among the requirements for recognition under Article 117 of the PILC is the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court of origin. Dafina Sarbinova highlighted Bulgaria’s adoption of the mirror-image approach, which requires the assessment to be conducted from the perspective of foreign court as to whether they would be granted jurisdiction under Bulgarian legislation if they were presented with the same facts to the case. Exceptions have been provided, specifically in the cases of exclusive and exorbitant jurisdiction.

Erik Sinander, national reporter for Sweden, concluded the panel. He explained that Swedish private international law generally adopts a restrictive approach toward the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Swedish Enforcement Code stipulates that enforcement based on a foreign judgment requires explicit legal provisions, reflecting Sweden’s cautious stance. While the provision only mentions enforcement, it is widely understood to apply equally to recognition. Within this framework, Erik Sinander underscored the significance of the jurisdiction of the court of origin. In Sweden, foreign judgments are only recognized and enforced if issued by a court exclusively prorogated (forum prorogatum). He explored case law from the Swedish Supreme Court regarding the forum prorogatum exception and its non-extension to other jurisdiction grounds.

Following the presentations, the session transitioned into a discussion, which included inputs from national ‘champions’ representing the Western Balkans countries. The debate expanded beyond the national rules on the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments, the core of the project, exploring parallels between these rules and the regimes established by bilateral and multilateral treaties. A key observation was that national provisions and treaty regimes may offer more favourable circulation conditions for judgments than those under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

The discussion focused on the theme of flexibility, particularly the ability of parties seeking recognition and enforcement to decide on the best circulation regime. It was noted that the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention explicitly embraces such flexibility through Article 23, which addresses its relationship with other international instruments and reflects a cooperative stance toward bilateral and multilateral treaties. To illustrate this point, participants compared the requirements for recognition and enforcement under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention with those in other treaties, especially bilateral ones. A shared reflection emerged that the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention establishes a minimum framework, not a maximum one, providing a foundational regime while allowing for more generous alternatives where available.

Panel 2: The Requirement of Reciprocity: Application and Relevance

The second panel featured the contributions from Leon Theimer (Humboldt University Berlin), Ramona Cirlig (RC International Disputes) and Paul Eichmüller (University of Vienna).

Leon Theimer, national reporter for Germany, presented an overview outlining that recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Germany generally depend on reciprocity. Pursuant to Section 328(1) no 5 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, recognition shall be ruled out if ‘[r]eciprocity has not been granted’. With some exceptions, this means that foreign judgments are typically recognized only if the country of origin reciprocally recognizes German judgments. While formal confirmation or guarantees of reciprocity are not necessary, Leon Theimer elaborated on the different types of reciprocity in German practice: substantive, partial and factual. The underlying purpose of this requirement is to encourage foreign countries to adopt recognition-friendly practices toward Germany by pre-emptively sanctioning the non-recognition of German judgments. However, the reciprocity requirement has not escaped criticism. These critiques go beyond questioning its historical origins as an outdated standard; they extend to its scope, its implications, and its overall effectiveness. Despite this, there are no current plans by the German legislator to abolish the requirement.

Ramona Cirlig, national reporter for Romania, explored the reciprocity requirement in Romania. She highlighted a contradiction: while considered irrelevant, the functional study conducted for the purposes of this project revealed its significance as a condition required by law and applied by Romanian courts. Article 1096(1)(c) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure mandates reciprocity of effects for non-EU judgments between Romania and the State of origin. It is generally accepted that factual reciprocity suffices, without the need for an exact match of requirements. Moreover, reciprocity is presumed unless proven otherwise, as outlined in Article 2561 of the Romanian Civil Code. Ramona Cirlig referred to a 2023 case involving a judgment from Belarus, where the burden of proof concerning reciprocity led the Bucharest Court of Appeal and subsequently the Court of Cassation to issue relevant rulings on the point. Additionally, references were made to decisions by the Romanian Constitutional Court, which examined the reasonableness of this requirement.

Paul Eichmüller, national reporter for Austria, concluded by detailing Austria’s stringent approach to reciprocity. He explained that reciprocity is one of the most restrictive and prominent requirements for the enforcement of foreign judgments in Austria. Despite long-standing criticism from legal scholars, this requirement has endured through numerous legislative amendments and remains in force. In Austria, reciprocity is interpreted in a particularly strict manner: enforcement demands not only substantive reciprocity but also formal reciprocity. What sets Austria apart is the necessity of proving reciprocity through legislative or diplomatic acts. Section 406 of the Austrian Execution Act stipulates that enforcement requires either an international treaty or an Austrian ordinance (Verordnung). Paul Eichmüller noted the challenges posed by the reciprocity requirement and emphasized that political consensus for abolishing the reciprocity criterion has yet to be reached.

The panel concluded with another round of discussions, which included a closer examination of the case law presented, including constitutional decisions. The debate centred on identifying the reasons why various legislators across EU Member States continue to uphold this requirement. Despite its contentious nature, the reciprocity criterion remains a fixture in the legal frameworks of several EU countries.

Panel discussion on Policy Implications

The panel discussion on policy implications featured the contributions from Tena Hoško (University of Zagreb), Ilija Rumenov (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University), Donikë Qerimi (University of Prishtina, Kosovo) and Melissa Ford (Secretary, HCCH).

Tena Hoško explored the perspective and the potential role of the European Union in shaping a harmonized circulation regime for non-EU judgments in EU Member States. She began by examining the EU’s competences to legislate in this area, focusing on how potential EU rules might relate to access to justice and the internal market. Beyond the legal basis, Tena Hoško analysed the practicality and desirability of such an initiative, highlighting the (unclear) benefits of pursuing this approach. She noted the existence of multiple overlapping regimes: national rules, the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, bilateral treaties, and, at the core, the Brussels I bis Regulation. A potential EU intervention replacing national regimes could promote a high level of uniformity, particularly at EU level under the interpretative guidance of the European Court of Justice. However, she also observed that several legal issues are already influenced by the Brussels I bis regime in current national frameworks. Any action in this field would also need to account for sector-specific circulation regimes and, finally, for the wider implications.

Ilija Rumenov shifted the discussion to philosophical considerations, offering a functional perspective on the dual role of such rules: facilitating the outbound recognition of domestic judgments and the inbound acceptance of foreign ones. Donikë Qerimi added a policy-making dimension, emphasizing the importance of considering third States to foster mutual cooperation on a global scale.

Melissa Ford highlighted the significant divergences in recognition and enforcement even within a region with shared legal traditions. She pointed out that the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention serves as a baseline, established through broad consensus to encourage widespread participation. Its multilateral nature makes it a cost-effective and predictable tool for practitioners, offering a global framework for recognition and enforcement. Melissa Ford described the Convention as a pragmatic solution with a strong focus on clarity and simplicity, balancing broad applicability with manageable complexity.

A final discussion encouraged participants to contribute further reflections and insights.

The coordinators of the fourth project of the EAPIL Young Research Network then closed the workshop, which succeeded in offering both detailed analysis and a broader perspective. They expressed their gratitude to all those who contributed to making the event possible.

Further insights and details on the perspectives of other EU Member States covered by the project and the comparative analysis will most certainly be found in the forthcoming publication.

On 29 November 2024 in Dijon, from 9 AM to 5 PM, the Centre de Recherche sur le Droit International des Marchés et des Investissements Internationaux (CREDIMI) of the University of Burgundy, in partnership with the Centre Droit Éthique et Procédures (CDEP) of the University of Artois, is organizing a colloquium titled La spécialisation du droit international privé. Réflexion dans le champ du droit des affaires.

The scientific direction is led by Gaëlle Widiez (University of Burgundy), and the scientific committee is composed of Marion Ho-Dac (University of Artois), Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier (University of Burgundy) and Gaëlle Widiez (University of Burgundy).

The colloquium will open with introductory remarks from Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier (Director of CREDIMI) and Gaëlle Widiez (University of Burgundy), followed by general reflections on specialization by Nicolas Balat (Aix-Marseille University).

The colloquium will then unfold in two thematic parts, each addressing key aspects of the specialization of private international law.

The first part, chaired by Natalie Joubert (University of Burgundy), focuses on the specialization of private international law rules related to the protection of people and the planet. It features a series of presentations: Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité) will discuss international litigation on environmental damage, followed by Marie Nioche (Université Paris Nanterre) who will delve into international litigation based on due diligence. The session continues with Marion Ho-Dac (University of Artois) exploring international litigation generated by artificial intelligence, and concludes with Marie-Elodie Ancel (Université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas) addressing international litigation concerning personal data.

The second part shifts focus to the specialization of private international law rules related to market regulation and is chaired by Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier (University of Burgundy). This session examines diverse issues, beginning with Valérie Pironon (University of Nantes) discussing international litigation in competition law. Next, Juliette Morel-Maroger (Université Paris-Dauphine) explores international financial litigation, followed by Constantin Ringot-Namer (University of Lorraine) shedding light on international litigation related to defective products.

The day concludes with a comparative dialogue on the specialization of private international law, offering perspectives from different regions. Béligh Elbati (University of Osaka) will provide insights from Asia and the Arab world, while Sarah Laval (Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale) examines the Anglo-American perspective and, finally, Cyril Nourissat (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3) will discuss the perspective of the European Union.

Registration is required (fees: €20 for academics / €100 for professionals, including lunch) and can be completed by contacting credimi.secretariat@u-bourgogne.fr. For those interested, the registration form and additional information are available here.

For any question, contact karine.kreutz@u-bourgogne.fr.

The University of Luxembourg will host an event to present a newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier.

Co-edited by Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), the book offers a detailed analysis of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.

The first panel will explore practical challenges in the use of EAPO in Luxembourg and France, moderated by Elena Alina Onţanu (University of Tilburg) and featuring insights from Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg) and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France).

The second panel will examine future developments and reforms, moderated by Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), with contributions from Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Carlos Santaló Goris (University of Luxembourg) and Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia).

The event will take place on 3 December 2024 in Room A401, University of Luxembourg – Weicker Building, from 11:00 to 13:15 CET.

For more details and to secure your spot at the conference, please see here.

This post was written by Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld.


On 28 November 2024, the University of Vienna, in cooperation with the Association Henri Capitant (German and Belgian branches) and the Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL), will host a conference on The Reform of Belgian Property Law and Law of Obligations.

The event will take place from 14:00 to 18:00 in the Roman Law Seminar Room (3rd floor, Schenkenstrasse 8-10, University of Vienna) and offers participants the chance to explore the significant changes that are transforming the Belgian legal landscape. Renowned academics from leading Belgian universities will discuss the modernisation of property law and the reform of the law of obligations.

The programme includes a presentation by Professor Vincent Sagaert (University of Leuven) and Professor Pascale Lecocq (University of Liège) on the new Belgian property law and its approach to balancing tradition and innovation, followed by an in-depth analysis of the reform of the Belgian law of obligations by Professor Rafael Jafferali (Université Libre de Bruxelles).

After the “beer and waffles break”, Professor Benoît Kohl (University of Liège) will discuss the draft of Book 7 of the Belgian Civil Code on special contracts and its potential impact on legal practice. The final session, led by Professor Michèle Gregoire (Université Libre de Bruxelles) and Professor Christine Biquet (Université de Liège), will focus on personal and real securities, exploring their rationalisation and the search for a better balance between the interests of the parties.

The full programme can be accessed here.

The participation is free and possible in person or via Zoom. Please register by 22 November 2024 at service.rechtsvergleichung@univie.ac.at.

Zoom Link for online participation: https://univienna.zoom.us/j/65368226995?pwd=9W5PdpUQvTZI3wT0cMvNRbRnaY1SQa.1

Or scan the QR-Code:

 

 

 

On 3 December 2024, at 6 pm UK time, Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven) will give a talk on Muscles from Brussels at the Faculty of Laws, University College London. The event will be delivered in a hybrid format and the readers of the blog are welcome to join either in person or on line.

The lecture is part of the International Law Association (British Branch) Lecture Series and will be chaired by Ugljesa Grusic.

The EU is flexing. It has updated its trade defence instruments and seems prepared to use them more routinely. With the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism it has extended its carbon trading regime to production abroad. In adopting the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive it aims better to police multinational corporations’ activities extraterritorially. Yet could and should it work? What are the pitfalls?

To register, please follow this link.

Digital Assets in Scots Private Law: Innovating for the Future‘ is a research project led by the University of Aberdeen with collaborators from the University of Edinburgh, University of Dundee (formerly from Edinburgh Napier University) and international law firm CMS. The third workshop of the project examined the Intra-UK and International Dimensions of Digital Assets for Scotland: With a Focus on Private International Law Matters and Developing International Frameworks. The Aberdeen project team, including Burcu Yüksel Ripley (University of Aberdeen), Alisdair MacPherson (University of Aberdeen) and Luci Carey (University of Aberdeen), has kindly provided the editors of the EAPIL blog with a post overview of some of the points addressed during the workshop.


Introduction

The third workshop of the University of Aberdeen’s research project ‘Digital Assets in Scots Private Law: Innovating for the Future’, funded by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), was held on 12 September 2024. The workshop examined intra-UK and international dimensions of digital assets for Scotland, with a focus on private international law (PIL) matters and developing international frameworks, with participants across the UK and Europe from the judiciary, academia, legal practice including law reform, the Law Commission of England and Wales (LCEW), the Scottish Government, Liechtenstein’s Government Office for Financial Market Innovation and Digitalisation, and international organisations, including the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). This blog article provides an overview of some of the points addressed during the workshop (for further details, please see the workshop report).

International Legal Frameworks on Digital Assets

The participants first considered relevant international initiatives by UNCITRAL, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), and the HCCH.

UNCITRAL has adopted important frameworks to facilitate end-to-end digital trade, including the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records 2017 (MLETR), and build a trusted and secure digital environment. UNCITRAL’s ongoing initiatives include a broad stocktaking exercise to examine existing texts; a guidance document on paperless trade to facilitate business-to-government exchange of trade-related data and documents electronically; and finalisation of the development of a guide, in coordination with the HCCH, on the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in trade. Future legislative work may arise from ongoing exercises, including consolidation of e-commerce texts, security interests on new types of assets like digital assets, and the use of decentralized autonomous organisations particularly for governance. The participants observed various global emerging trends, including the uptake for MLETR adoption, movement towards interoperable digital trade ecosystems and specialised service providers. They also highlighted the need for PIL input.

The participants next considered the UNIDROIT Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law (DAPL Principles), which is an international instrument designed to facilitate transactions in types of digital assets often used in commerce and which deals with private law questions. It is not a model law or an entire code, but it provides principles for national states to use, partially or as a whole, depending on their needs in devising their own laws. The participants considered the DAPL Principles’ functional and (technology and jurisdiction) neutral approaches among their benefits while noting that the Principles are imperfect and incomplete. Regarding Principle 5 on the law applicable to proprietary issues in respect of digital assets, it was observed that the extend of its scope of application would depend on the forum’s qualification of issues as proprietary. It was queried why the DAPL Principles do not address international jurisdiction given than they are only a set of principles and that Principle 5(1)(d) might become the key connecting factor to apply in the waterfall leading to the lex fori but with no accompanying rules on jurisdiction. Other comments were concerned with subsequent change of choice-of-law or of statutory seat, depeçage, the law specified in the system under Principle 5(1)(b), and criteria that an issuer has to fulfil for the application of the law of the issuer’s seat under Principle 5(1)(c). Some participants expressed the view that the US Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 12 on Electronic Controllable Records, which Principle 5 was inspired by, should not have been the foundation for global harmonisation on digital assets. Additionally, some participants questioned whether the UNIDROIT DAPL Principles were the right place for providing choice of law rules on digital assets.

The discussion then moved on to the HCCH’s Project on Digital Tokens, which aims to study PIL issues relating to digital tokens. As mandated by the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH, the Permanent Bureau (PB) undertakes this project in partnership with relevant subject-matter experts and observers and in recognition of the importance of avoiding fragmentation among legal instruments developed by different intergovernmental organisations on related subject matter, including the UNIDROIT DAPL Principles. ‘Tokens’, in the context of the project, refer to ‘virtual representations, stored electronically on decentralised or distributed storage mechanisms’. The project focuses on representative concrete use cases and includes consideration of relevant (overriding) regulatory frameworks as necessary. The project excludes securities, Central Bank Digital Currencies, and carbon credits due to separate projects the HCCH is undertaking or is involved with regarding them. The PB will report to CGAP at its meeting in March 2025 on the outcomes of this study, including proposals for next steps.

Private International Law Aspects of Digital Assets in Scotland

The participants next considered PIL aspects of digital assets in Scotland and explored the scope for PIL reform in Scotland concerning digital assets.

The discussion started with the features of DLT that pose certain challenges for PIL, including global nature and reach, disintermediation, the distributed nature of the ledger, and pseudonymity. It was noted that there is no specific PIL provision and no PIL case regarding digital assets in Scotland. The work of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on Digital Assets focussed on substantive law matters. The LCEW’s ongoing law reform project on digital assets and electronic trade documents (ETDs) in PIL is being conducted for recommendations for England and Wales only. However, some PIL rules and the Electronic Trade Documents Act (ETDA) 2023 considered under that project apply across the UK, which make that project important for Scotland too.

The discussion next focused on some key preliminary questions and determination of the applicable law, including foreign element/internationality, characterisation and arguments making a distinction between (i) on-chain situations, involving (multilateral) relationships within the system, which are internal and contractual, and (ii) off-chain situations involving (bilateral) relationships external to the system and can be e.g. proprietary.

For contractual matters, it was observed that the application of the provisions of the Rome I Regulation to permissioned systems does not seem problematic and can result in the application of a single law (i.e. the chosen law if there is a valid choice of law under Article 3; or in the absence of a choice, the law of the habitual residence of the company that owns or operates the system as the service provider (under Article 4(1)(b)) or characteristic performer (under Article 4(2)). However, uncertainties exist for permissionless systems which typically have no choice of law or no obvious service provider or characteristic performer whose law could be applied. The closest connection test in Article 4(4) is difficult to apply to them because of decentralisation. Consumer protection was further considered.

For non-contractual matters, the limited utility of party autonomy was noted concerning digital assets under Article 14 of the Rome II Regulation, and, in the absence of choice of law, uncertainties exist regarding localisation, for example, in determining the law of the country in which the damage occurs under Article 4(1) for tort/delict.

For proprietary matters, the lex situs is predominant in Scots PIL but it is not clear how the Scottish courts would decide the situs of a digital asset underpinned by DLT. In England, there is no settled authority on this matter, with different court decisions referring to the place of domicile or residence of the owner. It was suggested that the Scottish courts may take a similar view on the matter based on a habitual residence or place of business test, but with reference to the ‘last known holder’.

In terms of the scope for PIL reform on the applicable law, it was suggested that, for cryptoassets, the developments in England and Wales and international developments (including HCCH’s work) in the area are to be monitored closely in Scotland, rather than looking into an immediate PIL reform in Scotland. For ETDs, there seems to be some justification for expedited PIL reform to increase legal certainty given the absence of PIL rules in the ETDA 2023 and because PIL rules in some other legislation (e.g. Bills of Exchange Act 1882) are not very suitable for application to ‘electronic’ documents. With reference to the LCEW’s ongoing law reform project including ETDs in PIL, it was also suggested that there would be benefits of UK-wide reform to lessen the likelihood of intra-UK conflicts.

The discussion then moved on to jurisdiction with some preliminary points, including suggestions for PIL classification of digital assets as moveable property while being mindful that PIL classification is a functionally distinct exercise from domestic law classification; the position regarding blockchain in intimation (or an equivalent) in Scotland; and the role of the lex situs and of the lex fori in relation to jurisdictional grounds. Regarding domicile as general approach in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act (CJJA) 1982, it was noted that a person may be sued, ‘where he has no fixed residence, in a court within whose jurisdiction he is personally cited’ under schedule 8, rule 2(a). It was queried whether there is scope in Scots law to advocate this rule where the service of proceedings was possible via a non-fungible token (NFT) airdrop against persons unknown and all other avenues have been exhausted.

Regarding special jurisdiction for contract and ‘the place of performance of the obligation in question’ (schedule 8, rule 2(b); schedule 4, rule 3(a)), it was raised whether this is the place of delivery or control of digital assets. For delict (schedule 8, rule 2(c); schedule 4, rule 3(c)), the lack of jurisdiction for economic loss was noted as a key issue for digital assets. Regarding exclusive jurisdiction, it was queried whether some form of public register for digital assets could be advocated which would allow jurisdiction in relation to validity of entries in the register (schedule 8, rule 5(1)(c); schedule 4, rule 11(c)).

For the HCCH Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 and HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019, in force in the UK from 1 July 2025, it was argued that some exclusions in Article 2 could be examined further in Scots PIL concerning digital assets.

Regarding forum conveniens, it was observed that forum conveniens could enable a pragmatic role for Scottish courts in shaping PIL’s contribution to dealing with digital assets.

In relation to a possible PIL reform on jurisdiction, it was suggested that Scotland needs to be future-proof as a forum of choice. The CJJA 1982 schedules 4 and 8 can broadly apply to jurisdictional aspects of digital asset disputes, with some points requiring further attention and consideration. It was suggested that the options for the future could be incremental interpretation by courts, or adaptation through further additional paragraphs within schedule 4 and 8, or a combination of both approaches.

The discussion next focused on issues in Scottish legal practice concerning digital assets, starting with ETDs. Although the ETDA 2023 was considered by some workshop participants as a ‘game-changer’ in the market, it was argued that it has not changed, and possibly will not change, legal practice very much in Scotland which, inter alia, relates to the ETDA 2023’s drafting technique. For a document in the statutory open list of potential ETDs, e.g. a bill of lading, the change the ETDA 2023 makes is about evidence (proving electronic material). However, even evidential issues are likely to be very rare occurrences in Scottish courts if the bill of lading includes arbitration or exclusive law and jurisdiction clauses in favour of England (which is very common). The merits would be heard in England (usually in London as the chosen forum) under English law, with the only possible involvement for Scottish fora being to enable ship arrestments for the obtaining of security for the claims made in English proceedings for which the applications would unlikely be affected by the form of the bill of lading.

In litigating cases concerning digital assets in Scotland, it was noted that the first problem would be the identification and designation of the defender, followed by the acquisition of jurisdiction over them. For contract cases, the main difficulty would be in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defender in Scotland in the existence of exclusive jurisdiction (or arbitration) clauses in favour of a non-Scottish forum as that would likely be the end of the action in Scotland. In other cases where the Scottish court has jurisdiction, the question becomes whether the fact that the subject matter of the dispute is a digital asset, or relates to such an asset, has any real significance for the prosecution of the case. Regarding applicable law, issues relating to proof of the foreign law could possibly arise.

For delict cases, the identification of the defender and the acquisition of jurisdiction would be potentially more difficult. In contrast to England, one cannot sue ‘persons unknown’ in Scotland. The primary problem for the pursuer in a fraud case would be the need to identify and trace the defender, and to establish whether any assets belonging to him against which any decree could be enforced can be found somewhere that would recognise a Scottish decree (judgment).

Although, for Scots law, the consequences of digital assets being, or not being, property which can be possessed are significant, particularly in relation to remedies and interim protective measures which may be sought, the need to identify the defender remains. Even if the defender was identified and located in Scotland, the asset might not be capable of being arrested or attached as protective measures. The conditions imposed in s.27 of the CJJA 1982 to obtain a warrant for interim attachment or arrestment or inhibition of an asset on the dependence of pending foreign litigation would raise significant obstacles in relation to digital assets.

Experiences from Jurisdictions Across and Beyond the UK on Digital Assets

The participants then considered experiences from England and Wales, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

The discussion started with the consideration of ETDs in England. It was noted that many documents, particularly the ones used in trade finance, usually do not have a governing law clause. The main concerns regarding PIL relate to electronic promissory notes and bills of exchange since conflict of laws rules in s.72 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 are intended for paper ones only. In contrast with MLETR, the ETDA 2023 is silent on whether it recognises and protects ETDs wherever they are issued and under whichever law. It was observed that governing law clauses designating English law are now being inserted to such documents based on the thinking that s.72 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 would then not apply to those documents because there would be no conflict of laws situation and the application of the ETDA 2023 would be ensured.

Observations were made on the emerging trends in England, including market involvement with various initiatives, resulting in the emergence and expansion of market experts; reliance on common law in the drafting method of legislation for English law and for some UK-wide statutes (e.g. ETDA 2023) which raises issues with leaving matters to the judiciary’s interpretation and relying on case law development; and the development of market standards.

The discussion next moved to digital assets under the private (international) law of Switzerland which amended its law in 2021, to respond to the developments of DLT, with a framework incorporating provisions into the existing federal laws, including the Swiss Code of Obligations and PIL Act. New articles were incorporated into the Code of Obligations on ledger-based securities to provide a private law regime for tokens registered on a blockchain (Article 973 and further of the Code of Obligations). Tokens become instruments comparable to securities with their own legal effects.

The Swiss PIL Act was also amended concerning the applicable law. Article 145a was introduced on the law applicable to a transfer [of a claim] by means of an instrument, which is the main provision addressing the applicable law of digital assets. It provides for the application of the designated law in the instrument representing or transferring the claim. If there is no designated law, the law of the seat of the issuer or, failing such, of its habitual residence applies. The issuer refers to the debtor of the claim. As regards the pledging, Article 105 provides an exception that in the absence of a choice of law, the law of the state of the pledgee’s habitual residence applies. The scope of application of Article 145a was also addressed at the workshop, as well as Article 106 on the applicable law of documents of title and equivalent instruments.

The discussion then focused on the experience of Liechtenstein which enacted the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for the token economy in 2019 by the Act on Tokens and Trustworthy Technology Service Providers (TVTG) in force since 1 January 2020. The TVTG contains regulatory provisions as well as a civil law section dedicated to private law issues. The TVTG sets out requirements of registration and supervision of TT Service Providers with headquarters or a place of residence in Liechtenstein. The TVTG applies to tokens issued by Liechtenstein TT Service Providers or if the parties declare its application. In these cases, the token is considered to be located in Liechtenstein and subject to the TVTG. Party autonomy was considered as the most reliable option to adequately provide legal certainty in this context given complexities with identifying and applying other connecting factors (e.g. based on location) in decentralised and digital environments. It is important to ensure to link the issuance and transfer of digital assets to a legal system which recognises the intended legal effects of that issuance and transfer.

In the absence of choice of law in favour of the law of Liechtenstein, challenges remain in determining the law applicable to tokens generated outside of Liechtenstein based on the connecting factors available in Liechtenstein’s PIL.

Thanks and Next Steps

The authors are very grateful to the RSE for its generous financial support for this project and to the participants for their invaluable contributions at the workshop.

The project’s final event will be a webinar taking place on 26 November 2024 at 13.00-14.00 (UK time). The webinar is free to attend but requires registration here.

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

The first session, chaired by Angelica Bonfanti (University of Milan), will deal with issues concerning jurisdiction raised by cross-border ESG-related litigation.

A general report by Hans van Loon (former Secretary-General of the HCCH) will be followed by three presentations. Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven) will speak of Jurisdiction in Environmental Damage Claims, with Michele Grassi (University of Milan) acting as a discussant. Rui Dias (Coimbra University) will focus on Jurisdiction in Human Rights Claims, with Anna Liebman (University of Milan) as discussant. Eduardo Alvarez Armas (Comillas University Madrid) will address Jurisdiction in Climate-change Litigation, with Lenka Valkova (University of Milan) as a discussant.

The second session, on applicable law, will again be opened by a general report by Hans van Loon. Olivera Boskovic (Paris Cité University) will then give a presentation on Applicable Law in Environmental Damage Claims, with Stefano Dominelli (University of Genoa) as a discussant. François Mailhé (Picardy-Jules Verne University) will be concerned with Applicable Law in Human Rights Claims, with Roberta Greco (University of Teramo) as discussant. Finally, Silvia Marino (Insubria University) will deal with Applicable Law in Climate-change Litigation, with Caterina Benini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) serving as a discussant.

Some final remarks by Zeno Crespi Reghizzi (University of Milan) will close the conference.

See here for the detailed programme.

Those wishing to attend can do so both on site and online. Attendance is free of charge, but registration is highly recommended. The registration form is available here.

On 4 and 5 December 2024, a conference on the Brussels I bis Regulation will take place in Budapest and online. The event is organized by Balázs Arató, Thomas Garber (Johannes Kepler University Linz), Katharina Lugani (Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf) and Matthias Neumayr (Johannes Kepler University Linz).

The aim is to offer a perspective on the future of the Regulation, provide updates on case law from the European Court of Justice, and feature country reports from Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Speakers include Balázs Arató, Kristián Csach, Rui Dias, Eva Dobrovolná, Andrej Ekart, Edyta Figura-Góralczyk, Thomas Garber, Burkhard Hess, Anastasia Kalantzi , Alexander Karl , Katharina Lugani, Enrica Maggi, Matthias Neumayr, Carlos Santaló Goris, Dafina Sarbinova, Andreas Stein, Bartosz Sujecki , Maarja Torga and Corinne Widmer Lüchinger.

Presentations and discussions will be held in English and German.

Participation is free of charge and registration can be completed here.

For further information, write an email to eu-dialogue@uniduesseldorf.de.

As already noted on this blog, the Children’s Rights Academy at the University of Geneva offers the second edition of the executive training short course on Civil Aspects of International Child Protection (ICPT).

Participation in individual modules is also available, with each module open for separate enrolment.

The registration deadline for the full programme has been extended to 18 November 2024. Module registration deadline, after 1 November 2024, is due one month prior the date of the module.

The 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law will take place at the Faculty of Laws of University College London between 11 and 13 September 2025.

The conference organizers, Ugljesa Grusic (UCL) and Alex Mills (UCL), and the editors of the Journal, Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), have issued a call for paper proposals.

Submission is open to anyone regardless of seniority or academic affiliation, including postgraduate students and practitioners, with an expectation that you will produce a paper for submission to the Journal of Private International Law by the end of the 2025 calendar year (with publication subject to the usual peer review process). Proposals are welcome on any topic within the scope of the Journal. A proposal should include an abstract of no more than 500 words, as well as details of the name and affiliation(s) of the author(s).

Proposals should be sent to JPrivIL25@ucl.ac.uk by 17 January 2025

The conference will include, in the customary manner, a mixture of parallel panel sessions (on Thursday afternoon and Saturday morning) and plenary sessions (on Friday). Please indicate in your proposal whether you are willing to present in either format, or only in one or the other – a willingness to be flexible will increase your chance of being selected.

Speakers will not be expected to pay a conference fee, but will need to pay for their own expenses, including travel and accommodation. Non-speakers will be expected to pay a conference fee. A conference dinner will be held on 12 September 2025, at additional cost and with limited places – details will be provided in due course on the conference web page.

On 9 December 2024, at 13.00 CET, UNIDROIT will host a live webinar celebrating the UNIDROIT Essay Competition – 30 Years of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, with support from the International Law Institute (ILI) and facilitated by the UNIDROIT Foundation.

The event will feature opening remarks from Maria Chiara Malaguti and Don Wallace, a panel discussion and Q&A session moderated by Anna Veneziano, and closing remarks from Ignacio Tirado. The webinar will also spotlight the competition winners and their essays, including: Anna Fonseca, The Choice for UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts to Fill the Legitimacy Gap in the Arbitration of Sustainability-Related Disputes; Nuran Tuğçe Bilgetekin, The ‘Stickiness’ of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: A Behavioral Analysis; Eva Litina, Thirty Years of UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: An Assessment and Way Forward; Ardrit Gashi, 30 Years of The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts; Stefan Jovanović, UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and New Frontiers of Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Digital Assets; in addition, the honourable mention of Ji Wenhua and Zhang Sihui, Assessment of the Effectiveness of the UNIDROIT Principles as Governing Law in Litigation: Case-Based Observation.

To register for the webinar, please click here.

For further information, contact info@unidroitfoundation.org.

On 26 and 27 September 2024, an international conference was held in Paris to honour the work, and celebrate the 90th birthday, of Paul Lagarde.

The contributions of the speakers are available on the website of the European Group of Private International Law (EGPIL-GEDIP). Most are dedicated to the contribution of Paul Lagarde to the making of international conventions, in particular under the aegis of the Hague Conference.

The following papers can be freely downloaded:

On 18 November 2024, the French Cour de Cassation will hold a one-day conference on the latest developpements in private international law. The objective is to present recent case law in various areas of PIL and to consider the future prospects for this field.

One of the great interest of this scientific event is that it brings together the main judicial practitionners from the French Supreme Court on PIL as well as leading lawyers and academics in the field.

The conference will begin with opening remarks by Christophe Soulard (premier Président de la Cour de cassation), followed by a presentation from Carole Champalaune (Présidente de la première chambre civile).

The first part of the conference, chaired by François Molinié (President de la Société de Législation comparée), is devoted to an overview of recent case law. It will be divided into three panels discussions covering the following topics: Conflict of laws in contractual and delictual matters moderated by Etienne Pataut (University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne); Conflict of laws, including jurisdictions concerning personal status and family law moderated by Rebecca Legendre (University of Paris-Nanterre); Jurisdiction and exequatur moderated by Jérôme Ortscheidt (avocat au Conseil d’Etat et à la Cour de cassation)

The list of speakers includes Odette-Luce Bouvier (conseillère à la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation), Hélène Guillou (conseillère à la chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation), Hugues Fulchiron (conseiller en service extraordinaire à la 1ère chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Anne Beauvois (conseillère à la 1re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Agnès Daniel (conseillère référendaire à la 1re  chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Anne Caron-Déglise (avocate générale à la 1re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Sabine Corneloup (conseillère en service extraordinaire à la 1ère chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Agnès Martinel (présidente de la deuxième chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Renaud Salomon (avocat général à la 1re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation).

The second part of the conference chaired by Jean-Pierre Remery (President du Comité français de DIP), will deal with future prospects in PIL and includes two panels discussions coreving the followings topics: PIL and privileges moderated by Dominique Guihal (doyenne à la 1re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation, section 3); The role of the judge moderated by Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences-Po).

The list of speakers includes François Ancel (conseiller à la 1re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Renaud Salomon (avocat général à la 1ère chambre civile de la Cour de cassation), Louis d’Avout (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas), Alice Meier-Bourdeau (avocat au Conseil d’Etat et à la Cour de cassation), François Melin (président de chambre, cour d’appel de Reims).

The conference will conclude with closing remarks by Jean-Yves Carlier (Emeritus Professor, Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve & avocat au barreau de Bruxelles).

The conference will be held in French. The full programme is available here.

Registration is necessary for on site (here) or online attendance (here).

On 21 November 2024, Gérard Anou (University of Grenoble Alpes) organises a one-day conference devoted to the rise of the digital economy in the context of international trade law. It will deal with both the regulatory dimension and dispute resolution.

The presentation of the event reads as follows:

The development of information and communication technologies (ICT) has shaped and even revolutionised the lives of individuals and businesses. They have influenced and transformed the economy. The digital economy refers to those economic phenomena and activities that incorporate information and communication technologies (e.g. computers, electronics, the Internet and telecommunications) or are based on such technologies (for example, transactions involving software or applications). As such, the digital economy is vast and includes contractual and non-contractual situations, as well as profit-making and non-profit-making operations. The growth of these technologies is such that the digital transition is increasingly becoming a necessity for many businesses, which must adapt their business model or run the risk of disappearing.

Since digital networks are by definition capable of interconnecting several countries or of being ubiquitous, as is the case with the Internet, the development of technologies has entered the field of international trade and transformed it, at least in part. For example, it is now easier for an economic operator established in France to find foreign partners, or even to negotiate agreements with them via the Internet, or to purchase services online, performed from a foreign country. Consumers have not been left out either, as digital networks have made it easier for them to do business online.

The list of speakers includes Ingrid Maria (Co-Director, Centre de Recherches Juridiques), Gérard Anou (University Grenoble Alpes), Ludovic Pailler (University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3), Nicolas Bouche (Universitey of Jean Moulin Lyon 3), Maud Minois (Paris Cité University), François Viangalli (University of Grenoble Alpes), Jean-Michel Bruguière (University of Grenoble Alpes), Éric Caprioli & Ilène Choukri (avocats associés, Caprioli et Associés), Lukasz Stankiewicz (University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3), Florence Guillaume (University of Neuchâtel), Yves El Hage (University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3), Marie-Élodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas), Sarah Laval (University of Littoral Côte d’Opale), Valérie Pironon (University of Nantes), Cyril Nourissat (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3).

The conference will be held in French. The full programme is available here.

Registration is required, through the form available here.

This post has been written by Reef Alfahad, a PhD candidate at King’s College London.


On 17 October 2024, a conference on ‘The Anglo-French Approaches to Arbitration’ will take place at King’s College London, UK. This conference will discuss how the French and English approaches differ when dealing with corruption in arbitration and anti-suit injunctions, particularly in light of the recent UK Supreme Court decision in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance (reported on the EAPIL blog here).

The event will bring together renowned experts in international arbitration and international commercial litigation.

Welcome remarks: Manuel Penades, King’s College London.

The first panel will address corruption in arbitration and review by national courts. The speakers will be: Jason Fry KC, Global Head of International Arbitration, Clifford Chance; Jan Kleinheisterkamp, Arbitrator, JK ADR, and Visiting Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science; Karolina Latasz, Senior Associate, Squire Patton Boggs, The Chair will be Reef Alfahad, PhD Candidate, King’s College London, organiser of the event.

The second panel will be dedicated to anti-suit injunctions concerning foreign-seated arbitrations. The panellists will be: the leading counsels for both parties in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance, Alexander Gunning KC and Jonathan Harris KC; Raphaël Kaminsky, French law expert and Partner, Teynier Pic; Maxi Scherer, Queen Mary School of Law and Arbitrator, ArbBoutique. The panel will be chaired by Marie Berard, Head of UK Arbitration, Clifford Chance (London).

The conference will be held in English. The program is available here.

Those wishing to attend are required to register here.

The flyer for the event can be found here.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2025.

The course will be opened by Linda Silberman (Clarence D. Ashley Professor Emerita at New York University School of Law) with a lecture on Cooperation and Communication in Private International Law.

The general course, titled International Dispute Resolution in the XXI Century, will be given by Burkhard Hess (University of Vienna).

The special courses will be as follows: Sami Bostanji (University of Tunis El Manar), Secularisation and Private International Law in the Arab Countries; Adeline Chong (Singapore Management University), Express, Resulting and Constructive Trusts in Private International Law; Christopher Drahozal (University of Kansas Law School), Empirical Analysis of International Commercial Arbitration; Stéphanie Francq (Université catholique de Louvain), Contemporary Unilateralism, Particularly in Personal and Family Law – Dusting down a Theory; Caroline Kleiner (Université Paris Cité), Monetary Interest in International Judicial and Arbitral Proceedings; Maxi Scherer (Queen Mary University of London), Artificial Intelligence in Private International Relationships.

The directors of studies will be Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) for the English-speaking section, Gian Paolo Romano (University of Geneva) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee, scholarship, doctoral scholarship and Directed Studies applicants is between 1 November 2024 and 31 January 2025.

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

On 26 and 27 June 2025, the University of Graz will host a Private International Law Workshop, following previous editions in Linz (2022), Innsbruck (2023), and Vienna (2024).

The workshop, held in German, is being organized by Florian Heindler (SFU Vienna), Simon Laimer (University of Innsbruck), Brigitta Lurger (University of Graz), and Martina Melcher (University of Graz).

Speakers include Barbara Egglmeier-Schmolke (University of Salzburg), Burkhard Hess (University of Vienna), Martin Lutschounig (University of Innsbruck), Sören Segger-Piening (University of Osnabrück), and Bea Verschraegen (University of Vienna).

Further details on the conference topics, program, and registration options will be made available in the coming months through the event’s website. For inquiries, contact ipr-workshop@uni-graz.at.

Les juridictions commerciales internationales, modèle(s) étatique(s) des juridictions spécialisées ?On 8 October 2024, Jeremy Heymann and Marylou Françoise will host a conference on International Commercial Courts, State Model(s) of Specialised (Domestic) Courts? at the University of Lyon 3.

A first panel will give the perspective of judges sitting on three international commercial courts (French, German, Dutch). A second panel will give an academic perspective on the challenges of international commercial courts.

Speakers will include judges of various international commercial courts (Fabienne Schaller, Patrick Melin, Duco Oranje, Willem Visser), and academics (Marie-Elodie Ancel, Thomas Riehm, Michele Angelo Lupoi, Xandra Kramer).

This is the inaugural conference in a 2024-2025 series on International Disputes and Specialised Courts.

The programme is available here. Registration is possible here.

The 19th Regional Private International Law Conference will take place on 20 September 2024 at the Faculty of Law, University of East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the support of the Deutche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). The theme of the Conference is Application of General Legal Principles in Contemporary Private International Law.

The opening panel will feature the following topics and speakers:

  • Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General, The HCCH and its Ongoing Work, with a Focus on Transnational Litigation, The Hague Conference on Private International Law
  • Vesna Lazić, Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): Relevance for Private International Law, Utrecht University and Asser Institute, The Hague
  • Meliha Povlakić and Sevleta Halilović, The Collision Issues Regarding the Agreement as to Succession in B&H: Cross-Border and Interlocal Conflicts of Law, University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law
  • Toni Deskoski and Vangel Dokovski, Temporal Application Challenges of Private International Law: A Judicial Perspective, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Faculty of Law Iustinianus Primus

The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The working language of the Conference will be English, and it will also be streamed online via Zoom (https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84284962839?pwd=alsUT8OQf9DR0y5shNlG0u12dxnc01.1; Meeting ID: 842 8496 2839; Passcode: 059110).

Conference proceedings will be published next year. Last year’s conference proceedings can be found here.

The 115th Annual Conference of the Society of Legal Scholars will take place at the University of Bristol between 3 and 5 September 2024.

The conference will focus on the theme Learning from Others: Lessons for Legal Scholars?

The Conflict of Laws section, coordinated and moderated by Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) and Patricia Zivkovic (University of Aberdeen), will feature three sessions.

The first session includes presentations on Decentralized Dilemmas: Navigating Jurisdictional Complexities in the Digital Asset Landscape by Aygun Mammadzada, Anti-Suit Injunctions as an Equitable Relief: Revisiting the Conflict of Laws in Cross-border Commercial Litigation by Jieying Liang and Lau Ching Lam Chelsea, Service of Process via Social Media in Comparative Conflict of Laws: On EU Continental (Re)Actions to Emerging Approaches in Common Law by Stefano Dominelli.

The second session will cover The principle of international comity: an ally or an enemy for victims of cross-border harm? by Francesca Farrington and The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration: The Way for Justice? by Marco Pasqua.

The third session will feature presentations on Choice of law in real-life courts: reality or a figment of the imagination? by Sharon Shakargy, Choice of law and the validation principle by Ardavan Arzandeh, Interpreting (and enforcing) conflicting arbitration and choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts: Comparative analysis proposed default solutions by Shouyu Chong.

For more details, see here.

As already noted on this blog, a PAX Moot Court Half-Day Conference was held on 26 April 2024, organized by the Centre for Private International Law at the School of Law of the University of Aberdeen, in cooperation with the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana.

The conference titled Private International Law in Dispute Resolution brought together leading experts to examine the evolving landscape of private international law and its role in resolving cross-border disputes.

A series of posts resulting from the conference are now available on the website of the University of Aberdeen.

The first post corresponds to the opening keynote speech by Ronald Brand. It deals with the intricacies of drafting choice of court and arbitration agreements, and examines private international law from a transaction planning perspective.

The second post (Business and Human Rights Litigation and Private International Law) by Uglješa Grušić highlights insights put forward by panelists on sustainability, private international law, and human-rights-related torts within the context of the EU private international law framework.

The third post (The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement) by Ronald A. Brand delves into the legal complexities and considerations in determining the applicable law for arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the latest changes to the 1996 English Arbitration Act.

The fourth post (Decolonisation and Private International Law) by Sandrine Brachotte, Robin Cupido, Gyooho Lee, Tena Hoško and Thalia Kruger provides a fresh perspective on the influence of globalization on private international law. They contend that the purported neutrality of private international law is becoming more of a myth, as it is deeply rooted in a particular liberal and Euro-centric ideology.

As already noted on this blog, Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam and Utrecht University) and Laura Carballo Piñeiro (University of Vigo) edited Research Methods in Private International Law – A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching.

An online book launch is scheduled for 10 September 2024, from 10am to 12pm CEST. During this event, several contributors to the book will share their perspectives on methods of regulation, research, and education in private international law.

Participants in the online book presentation include Xandra Kramer, Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Dulce Lopes, Adriani Dori, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Giesela Rühl and Mary Keyes.

For more information, see here.

The University of Sheffield will host on 6 September 2024 a symposium to celebrate David McClean’s scholarship over 60 years. 

Organised by Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Paul Beaumont and Jonathan Harris, the event is in person only.

Speakers include David McClean himself, Roxana Banu (University of Oxford), Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), Campbell McLachlan (University of Cambridge), Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling), Abubakri Yekini (University of Manchester), Alex Mills (University College London), George Leloudas (University of Swansea), Andreas Ruehmkorf (Westphalian University of Applied Sciences), Auguste Hocking, Daniel Wand and Kisch Beevers.

More information, including the registration form, can be found here.

The Children’s Rights Academy at the University of Geneva offers the 2nd edition of the executive training short course on Civil Aspects of International Child Protection (ICPT).

The programme includes four half-day online modules in English (Children’s Individual Rights in Transnational Parental RelationshipsInternational and Comparative Family LawVulnerable Migration and Practice of Child Protection Stakeholders: Inter-agency Co-operation in Context), scheduled to take place between 28 November 2024 and 10 April 2025.

Roberta Ruggiero, Gian Paolo Romano and Karl Hanson are the programme directors; Vito Bumbaca is the coordinator.

Speakers include: Roberta Ruggiero, Olga Khazova, Karl Hanson, Gian Paolo Romano, Philippe Lortie, Michael Wilderspin, Ilaria Pretelli, Vincent Chetail, Irina Todorova, Noelle Darbellay, Emily Thuo, Mayela Celis Aguilar, Jason Harts, Nicolas Nord, Joëlle Schickel and Jean Ayoub.

The deadline for registration is 1 November 2024.

For further info, see here.

Building on the success of the first edition, a new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is being organized by the European Association of Private International Law, together with the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como (Italy), with the Law Faculty of the University of Murcia (Spain) and the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków (Poland).

It will be held on-site in Como, in the cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 10 to 15 February 2025.

The general topic will be Multistate Torts.

The lectures will address the ongoing challenges of the treatment of torts connected with several States. The following topics, among others, will be discussed: online defamation, product liability and artificial intelligence, infringement of patents, climate change litigation.

Parallel sessions will be devoted to other topic, outside the wide definition of torts, to the extent they give rise to similar problems. These include topics in the field of succession and family law. Both Hague Conventions and EU legislative measures will be examined, under an approach combining theory and practice, and making ample room for interaction with the attendees.

The lecturers are academics, magistrates and practicing lawyers. Among them: Olivera Boskovic (Professor, Université Paris Cité), Gilles Cuniberti (Professor, University of Luxembourg, President of EAPIL), Anatol Dutta (Professor, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich), Francisco José Garcimartín Alférez (Professor University Autónoma of Madrid), Satu Heikkilä (Administrative law Judge, Associate Professor, University of Lapland), Thomas Kadner Graziano (Professor, University of Geneva), Patrick Kinsch (honorary Professor at the University of Luxembourg), Matthias Lehmann (Professor, University of Vienna), Tobias Lutzi (Professor, University of Augsburg), Marta Pertegás Sender (Professor, Maastricht University/University of Antwerp), Ilaria Pretelli (Senior Research Fellow, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Professor, University of Edinburgh), Nadia Rusinova (Lecturer, The Hague University, attorney at law), Sylwia Żyrek (Deputy Director of EU Law Department at Chancellery of Prime Minister of Poland), Javier Carrascosa González (Professor, University of Murcia), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Assistant Professor, Jagiellonian University in Kraków), Silvia Marino (Professor, University of Insubria).

The full programme is here.

The Winter School is aimed at PhD students, young scholars, young practitioners and EU private international lovers, generally!

The full program will be published in September 2024, with the details on registration and fees. 

On 26 and 27 September 2024, an international conference in honour of professor Paul Lagarde, on the occasion of his 90th  birthday, will take place in Paris, at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Centre Sorbonne, Liard Auditorium). It will deal with the international sources of private international law, drawing on the major role that Paul Lagarde has played in this respect, both at the global and European level.

Organised by the Institut de recherche juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS, Paris 1 University) and the Laboratoire de droit des affaires et nouvelles technologies (DANTE, Paris Saclay University), the conference will bring together renowned experts in private international law, who had the great opportunity to work alongside and with Paul Largarde. They are invited to explain and analyse his strong academic influence and the active contribution he made to the development of contempory PIL on a variety of issues.

The conclusions of the conference will be delivered by Paul Lagarde himself.

The list of speakers includes Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Paris Saclay University), Etienne Pataut (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Karl Kreuzer (Würzburg University), Catherine Kessedjian (Paris Panthéon Assas University), Hans Van Loon (Hague Conference on Private International Law), Fausto Pocar (Milan University), Karine Parrot (Cergy-Pontoise University), Sabine Corneloup (Cour de cassation & Paris Panthéon Assas University), Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Paris Panthéon Assas University), Marc Fallon (UCLouvain), Natalie Joubert (Bourgogne Franche-Comté University), Christian Kohler (Saarland University), Petra Hammje (Nantes University) and Estelle Gallant (Toulouse Capitole University).

The conference will be held in French. The full programme is available here.

Registration is required at https://urlr.me/3qVLR

For information: irjs@univ-paris1.fr

The registrations for the Hague Academy Centre for Studies and Research of 2025 are open.

The 2025 edition of the Centre will focus on Artificial Intelligence and International Law. The Directors of Research will be Marco Roscini (University of Westminster) for the English-speaking section, and Marion Ho-Dac (University of Artois) for the French-speaking session.

The integration of AI technologies into human activities necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of international legal frameworks. Advanced AI systems, operating with increasing autonomy, generate content, recommendations, predictions, and decisions for States, organizations, and individuals. While AI offers significant opportunities by facilitating various tasks, it also poses risks such as potential biases and accountability gaps. This raises the question: can international law, both public and private, effectively address the transformative changes brought about by AI?

The Hague Academy of International Law’s Centre of Studies and Research 2025 aims to holistically analyse these challenges and opportunities through the lens of international law. The focus will be on three aspects: AI’s impact on the sources and institutions of the international legal order, AI’s influence on specific international law regimes, and AI’s role in tackling contemporary issues.

Selected researchers will explore, under the guidance of the Directors of Research, the following topics: AI and International/Regional Organisations, AI and International/Regional Courts and Tribunals, AI and the Making of (Public/Private) International Law, AI and the Practice of (Public/Private) International Law, International Governance of AI including Technical Standardisation, AI and the Risk-based Approach, AI and the International Law of Armed Conflict, AI and International Environmental Law, AI and Conflict of Laws, AI and International Human Rights Law, AI and the Law of State Responsibility, AI and International Criminal Law, AI and International Business Law, AI and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Lethal Autonomous Weapons and International Law, AI and the North-South Divide, AI and Cybersecurity, AI and Privacy, AI and Humanitarian Action, AI and the Cross-border Movement of Persons, AI and (Mis)Information.

Registration is free of charge. Interested candidates must be researchers and preferably hold an advanced degree (PhD or Doctorate degree). The registration period is from 1 July to 15 October 2024.

The programme of Hague Academy Centre for Studies and Research of 2025 is available here.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

The last seminar in the series organised by Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) and hosted by the Cour de cassation on the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation was held on 24 June 2024.

The general topic of the seminar was recognition and enforcement of judgments. Speakers included Fabien Marchadier, Christelle Chalas, Claudia Cavicchioli and Jean Sébastien Quéguiner.

The video of the full seminar is freely available on the website of the Cour de cassation and below.

The authors of this post are Leon Theimer (Humboldt University of Berlin) and Nicolas Dewitte (Humboldt University of Berlin).


Introduction


From 6 to 8 June, around 100 members of the EAPIL gathered in the captivatingly charming city of Wrocław in Poland for the 2024 EAPIL conference on ‘Private International Law and Global Crises’. Over the course of three days, academics and practitioners from 24 different countries engaged in discussions about private international law’s potential to respond to global crises. More specifically, the theme of the conference was addressed in four blocks, including war and armed conflict, the rule of law, climate change, and global supply chains. After an exploratory meeting in Berlin in 2018 and a successful inaugural conference in Aarhus in 2022, this was the second conference of the association, which celebrated its fifth anniversary this year. In addition, holding the 2024 EAPIL conference in Poland 20 years after the country’s accession to the EU – and thus the adoption of most EU private international law – represented a splendid connection to the association’s field of study.

Credit: P. Piotrowski

First Day

Keynote

In continuation of the tradition that the host country of the conference provides the keynote speaker, Mateusz Pilich (University of Warsaw) delivered a keynote lecture on ‘Cross-border Recognition of Personal Status and Gender Reassignment: Challenges for the European Private International Law’, a topic most recently put into the limelight by AG De La Tour’s Opinion in C-4/23 – Mirin. Pilich provided a succinct overview of gender reassignment in the EU, its (non-)treatment by EU private international law, as well as its fundamental rights dimension and place in the debate on the recognition method. In addition, he offered a thorough analysis of the issue in terms of jurisdiction, characterisation, and public policy. Concluding that EU private international law currently stands at a crossroads, he ultimately argued for methodological simplification in favour of fundamental rights-based substantive law solutions.

Reports from Strasbourg, Luxembourg, and Brussels

Prior to discussing the specific issues addressed by the panels, attendees were able to benefit from reports from Strasbourg, Luxembourg, and Brussels, which provided an overview of the numerous judicial and legislative developments in European private international law over the last two years. Raffaele Sabato (European Court of Human Rights) stressed that, due to the nature of the ECtHR, issues of private (international) law are brought before the Strasbourg Court only indirectly. As an example, he referred to Art 8 ECHR, the normative base for the circulation of personal status in Europe and the protection of private and family life. The provision has played the role of an ‘incubator’ in this regard, given that it touches upon many areas relevant to private law, such as surrogacy, parenthood, and recognition of same-sex marital status.

Moving north to Luxembourg, the CJEU has dealt extensively with private international law in the last two years, having rendered around 40 judgments in the field. From these decisions, Vincent Kronenberger (Court of Justice of the European Union) picked C-501/20 – MPA to discuss the definition of habitual residence in Art 3 and 8 Regulation No 2201/2003 as well as the various issues relating to forum necessitatis. He noted that the Court based its assessment on a broad understanding of that condition of forum necessitatis whereby proceedings outside the EU must be impossible or cannot reasonably be brought or conducted.

Andreas Stein (European Commission) closed the first day of the conference with a dive into the past, present, and future of the Commission’s work. He reported that the Civil Justice Unit is looking back on an extremely productive period, having finalised four legislative proposals between 2022 and 2024, namely on the harmonisation of insolvency law, parenthood, the protection of adults, and on strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Out of these instruments, Stein considered the Anti-SLAPP Directive to be the most innovative, given its approach of harmonising substantive law and establishing procedural safeguards rather than relying on private international law. Regarding the ‘big accomplishment’ of the EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD), which became a recurring topic at the conference, he indicated that the near-complete exclusion of rules on jurisdiction and choice of law was a deliberate choice. The Commission decided against introducing special rules of private international law and in favour of the general framework, particularly the Recast Brussels I Regulation, thus avoiding fragmentation. Looking ahead, Stein explained that the Commission will be preparing for a new mandate in the transitional period after the European elections. Notably, both a revision of the Recast Brussels I Regulation and a revision of the Rome II Regulation are currently under consideration. More specifically, the inclusion of defamation and privacy into the Rome II Regulation could be on the table, given that the UK as its most fundamental opponent has now left the EU. Lastly, Stein noted that third party litigation funding (TPLF) is picking up in practical economic and regulatory relevance and may be of legislative interest in the future.

Aperçu de l’image

Second Day

Revisiting the Functions of Private International Law

Patrick Kinsch (Luxembourg Bar/University of Luxembourg) and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) kicked off the second day by revisiting the functions of private international law on the quest for answers to the question ‘Can Private International Law respond to crises and if yes, how?‘. Putting forward an ‘Old-Fashioned View’, Kinsch responded with ‘essentially no’ and presented three arguments in support of his claim. First, most international crises cannot be resolved by law at all. Secondly, while some international crises have legal aspects, the legal rules involved will typically be rules of substantive law, not of private international law. As an example, he referred to the recently adopted CSDDD. Thirdly, Kinsch conceded that private international law has an auxiliary role to play in the response to global crises. This role lies in the application of its traditional rules. An invention of new rules, he argued, can often be misguided, as is evidenced by the unconstitutionality of Art 13(3) no1 Introductory Act to the German Civil Code on the invalidity of certain child marriages. Moreover, private international law should not be conflated with public law, like in the reciprocity requirement in § 328(1) no5 German Civil Code of Procedure.

In response, Ruiz Abou-Nigm presented her view on ‘Private International Law and the Calling of Global Responsibilisation in our Polycrisian Age?’. Drawing on the concept of self-reflexivity, she emphasised the strengths of private international law in responding to global crises, in particular as a method containing ‘techniques for plurality’. At the same time, she addressed private international law’s pitfalls and its role as part of the problems it is attempting to solve. Taking the food crisis as an example, Ruiz Abou-Nigm revisited the coordinative, facilitative, and regulatory function of private international law and identified ‘sites of tension’ in terms of jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. She concluded with urging attendees to ‘walk the walk’ in private international law, engage with other fields, immerse themselves in global crises, carry out interdisciplinary research, and have an ethical responsibility to unveil what private international law can contribute to responding to global crises.

Aucun texte alternatif pour cette image

Private International Law, War and Armed Conflicts

The next panel took up the regrettably topical issue of War and Armed Conflicts. Iryna Dikovska (Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv) dealt with family law aspects and discussed the law applicable to parental responsibility in cases relating to war-induced migration. She explained that the particularity of this type of migration lies in its floating and spontaneous nature where people and especially unaccompanied children often face difficulties in providing documents and proof of their family status. Against this background, Dikovska advocated for a sensitive approach and pleaded for a distinction between unaccompanied minors and minors subsequently left alone as well as the harmonisation of rules on habitual residence in migration law and the 1996 Hague Convention.

Addressing the economic side of the crisis, Tamasz Szabados (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University) held a presentation on ‘Dealing with war-induced effects: Economic sanctions in EU Private International Law’. Drawing on the Art of War by Sun Tzu, he identified the aim of sanctions as ‘breaking the enemy without fighting’. While sanctions have a public law character and origin, they have a direct impact on contractual relations and therefore also on private international law. Economic sanctions are overriding mandatory rules under Art 9 Rome I Regulation. As such, they can only be considered as part of the lex fori or the law of the place of performance if they render the performance unlawful. Outside of these scenarios, the Rome I Regulation remains silent. Moreover, some of the Russian countermeasures also touch upon matters of jurisdiction. For example, the Russian Commercial Procedural Code has been amended and now includes an exclusive head of jurisdiction for Russian courts in cases involving economic sanctions. This raises questions both in terms of parallel proceedings and on the recognition and enforcement level.

Private International Law and the Rule of Law

In the third panel of the day, Alex Mills (University College London) and Matthias Weller (University of Bonn) devoted themselves ‘Private International Law and the Rule of Law’, dealing with jurisdiction and applicable law as well as enforcement and mutual trust respectively. Mills began by distinguishing three aspects of the much-disputed notion of the rule of law. The formal notion, whereby law must be accessible and clear, can help to assess conflict rules from the perspective of its end users. The procedural notion, in turn, can assist in dealing with the independence of the judiciary, while the substantive notion, being the most contentious, can help to address discriminatory rules. As an example, Mills referred to the forum non conveniens doctrine often being framed as an expensive and inconvenient delay by its critics. As an alternative, he put forward a rule of law-based framing, enquiring whether the parties know what the law requires of them. In this sense, forum non conveniens creates uncertainty for the parties, given that they cannot be sure as to where to bring their claims. In light of this, forum non conveniens could be considered a bad rule in the formal sense of the rule of law. More generally, Mills argued that the rule of law perspective should induce scholarship and practice to refocus on the individual persons affected by the law rather than the courts or other legal actors. The rule of law could also help to reframe the objectives of private international law.

Turning to enforcement and mutual trust, Weller pointed out that private international law is missing from the Commission’s ‘rule of law toolbox’ and advocated for filling this lacuna: private international law can and should do more in the field than most realise. Crucially, he identified three relevant perspectives on the recognition and enforcement level. First, national rules from a Member State which deal with judgments from a third state in violation of the rule of law. Here, the public policy exception comes into play and the values under Art 2 TEU should step in if national law does not provide for adequate protection of the values (referring to the ‘Reverse Solange Doctrine’ by von Bogdandy et al). Secondly, enforcement under international treaties to which the EU is a contracting party, namely the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. Here, the question of protection against foreign judgments in violation of the rule of law arises as well. In this scenario, Member States could reject the judgment of a non-independent foreign court as a non-judgement. Finally, the scenario of intra-EU relations, where mutual trust, the raison d’être of European integration, applies. To this end, Weller suggested that courts of the Member States could, in light of the values in Art 2 TEU, be obliged to limit mutual trust and suspend judicial cooperation in exceptional circumstances.

Private International Law and Climate Change

Eduardo Alvarez Armas (Universidad Pontificia Comillas) and Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité) concluded the second day with a joint presentation on the topic ‘Climate change litigation: jurisdiction & applicable law’. Conceptually, their analysis stressed the distinction between actions for damages (such as the Dutch Shell case) and preventive actions (such as the German RWE case). Moreover, they argued that the dynamic nature of climate change leaves a lot of questions unanswered, referring to the CSDDD as an example. Notably, a head of jurisdiction for non-EU defendants is missing in the newly adopted directive, thus creating a jurisdictional gap despite their inclusion of into the scope of the Directive. In light of this, they advocated for a forum legis as a subsidiary rule based on the CSDDD as a European overriding mandatory provision. With regard to applicable law, Alvarez Armas and Boskovic rejected the idea of a company law characterisation of the directive, arguing instead for a tort characterisation in light of the CSDDD being a measure to prevent and cease damage.

Aucun texte alternatif pour cette image

Third Day

Private International Law and Global Supply Chains

In the last panel of the conference, Rui Dias (University of Coimbra), Klaas Eller (University of Amsterdam), and Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova) presented their perspectives on the ‘Protection of human rights in global supply chains’. Addressing the jurisdictional dimension of the question, Dias placed the protection of human rights into the context of the CSDDD and highlighted the absence of rules on jurisdiction from the instrument. Against this background, he provided a detailed analysis of the different heads of jurisdiction for claims based on the violation of human rights in global supply chains. These included a forum legis on the basis of the personal scope of the CSDDD, as suggested by Michaels and Sommerfeld, as well as a forum legis based on any European overriding mandatory provision, as suggested by Boskovic and Alvarez Armas in their presentation on the previous day. Moreover, Dias discussed the de lege lata application of as well as de lege ferenda proposals for the Recast Brussels I Regulation, ultimately arguing for a revision of Art 7(5) Recast Brussels I Regulation in parallel with Art 24 CSDDD.

Turning to applicable law, Eller advanced three claims relating to the importance of private international law in the context of global supply chains. First, due diligence is a novel type of uniform law that makes the question of applicable law less relevant. Secondly, the alleged lack of legal certainty is in-built in due diligence which is evolutive and persistently ‘in the making’. It is against this background that the proposal for the plaintiff’s right to choose the law applicable to business-related human rights claims in Art 6a Rome II Regulation, which has been criticised as legally uncertain, must be viewed. Thirdly, due diligence uses ‘impact’ (as a factual criterion) to overcome the parcellation of value chains into different regimes of applicable law and hence neutralises some of the private international law-based corporate techniques in value chains.

Concluding the panel, Carpaneto focussed on public policy and overriding mandatory provisions. To that end, she carried out an in-depth examination of the scope and structure of the CSDDD, in particular the civil liability scheme in Art 29, its procedural safeguards, as well as its provision on overriding mandatory provisions. Drawing attention to the functions of public policy as a ‘shield’ and overriding mandatory provisions as a ‘sword’, she argued for the latter as the more suitable mechanism to protect human rights. Moreover, she investigated a reform of the Rome II Regulation, specifically its Art 4, 16, 26, and raised the question of whether a transition to sustainability should take precedence over certainty and predictability.

How Can Private International Law Contribute to a More Sustainable Life?

In the ultimate event of the conference, Hans van Loon (University of Edinburgh/formerly Hague Conference), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, and Patrick Kinsch convened for a roundtable on ‘How Can Private International Law Contribute to a More Sustainable Life?’. Kicking off the discussion, van Loon noted that efforts towards sustainability are all too often focussed on public international law only, citing the UN Development Goals as an example. It is, however, sensible not to depend exclusively on state action. Instead, bottom-up approaches should be embraced, including private international law. In this sense, private international law forms part of the ‘missing private side’ to many international treaties. The former Secretary General of the Hague Conference called on EAPIL members to work on suggestions for a future world, engage with other academic institutions, and develop proposals to discuss with legislators. Echoing his remarks and building on them, Ruiz Abou-Nigm offered insights into her involvement in a new project which explores private international law and the transition to a circular economy. Finally, Kinsch added an important reminder not to forget the existence of more sceptical views regarding the transformative role of private international law, which are held outside the largely academic community present at the conference, particularly in the business world.

Conclusion

Three days filled with rich and intense discussions have left the lasting impression that private international has something to contribute to responding to the different crises of our time. It is up to private international law scholars and practitioners to work out and critically assess what exactly that contribution is or should be. In particular, the recently adopted CSDDD proved to be a constantly recurring topic which sparked a lot of debate about the role of private international law in protecting and promoting the regulatory objectives of the Directive. More generally, the different panels served as a reminder that, in evaluating the role of private international law in global crises, one cannot shy away from revisiting and scrutinising its different functions in light of newly emerging challenges. Closing the conference, the EAPIL’s president, Gilles Cuniberti, emphasised the open nature of the association’s work and invited all members to develop ideas for projects within the association’s framework. The next conference will take place in Geneva. It will be most interesting to observe how the role of private international law will develop until then.

The second conference of the European Association of Private International Law will take place in Wrocław on 6-8 June 2024. As the readers of this blog know, the topic of the event will be Private International Law and Global Crises.

Organised by Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, the conference will begin on 6 June, in the afternoon, with a key-note speech by Mateusz Pilich, followed by reports on PIL-related developments from the European Court of Human Rights (by judge Raffaele Sabato), the Court of Justice of the European Union (by Vincent Kronenberger) and the European Commission (by Andreas Stein).

On 7 June, after an opening session revolving around the question Can Private International Law respond to crises and if yes, how? (with Patrick Kinsch and Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm), three main subjects will be discussed: Private International Law, War and Armed Conflicts (with Iryna Dikovska and Tamas Szabados), Private International Law and the Rule of Law (with Alex Mills and Matthias Weller), and Private International Law and Climate Change (with Eduardo Alvarez Armas and Olivera Boskovic).

On 8 June the focus will turn to Private International Law and Global Supply Chains, with interventions by Rui Dias, Klaas Eller and Laura Carpaneto, followed by a roundtable regarding the way(s) in which private international law can contribute to a more sustainable life, with Hans van Loon, Patrick Kinsch and Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm.

The full program, together with practical details, can be found here. The poster of the event is here.

Members of the European Association of Private International Law attending the conference will be able to participate in the Association’s general assembly, which will take place on 7 June at 17.

An invitation was sent by e-mail to all members of the Association by the Secretary General of the Association on 22 May 2024, with the agenda and further information. If you’re an EAPIL member and you haven’t received this e-mail, just get in touch with the Secretary General, Giesela Rühl, at secretary.general@eapil.org.

A Summer School on Cross-border litigation and international arbitration will take place between 15 and 20 July 2024 both on-site at the Ravenna Campus of the University of Bologna and on-line, under the direction of Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna) and Marco Farina (LUISS, Rome).

The course will address cross-border litigation from a wider perspective, embracing transnational civil and commercial legal matters as well as international arbitration.

The lecturers include Apostolos Anthimos, Davide Castagno, Giovanni Chiapponi, Elena D’Alessandro, Marco Farina, Francesca Ferrari, Pietro Franzina, Paola Giacalone, Albert Henke, Anastasia Kalantzi, Michele Angelo Lupoi, Ilaria Pretelli, Olga Słomińska, Maja Stanivuković, Marco Torsello, Anna Wysocka-Bar, and Guodong Yang.

In addition, a roundtable, devoted to the role of the new International commercial courts in cross-border litigation, will be held by Letizia Ceccarelli, Alberto Malatesta (Chair), Edith Nordmann, Edoardo Piermattei, Andrea Spada Jimenez, and Salvatore Domenico Zannino.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and practitioners.

Registrations are open until 24 June 2024. Further information are found here.

The Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan invites young scholars to present the outcome of their doctoral research on any topic within the field of private international law, transnational law or the law of international arbitration, at a dedicated seminar that to be held in Milan (the MECSI Seminar). Each MECSI Seminar will revolve around one scholar.

Applicants must be aged less than 38 and may come from any country. They must have already discussed their PhD dissertation at the time when the application is submitted (however, no more than three years must have passed since the dissertation was discussed). Applications must include a copy of the dissertation, an abstract of the dissertation in English and a CV of the author equally in English (dissertations written in a language other than English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian should preferably come with an abstract of no less than 3.500 words).

Applications must also include a proposal for the seminar presentation consisting of a title followed by abstract of about 1.500 words. The subject matter of the presentation must relate to the topic of the thesis, but should not necessarily cover that topic in its entirety. The applicant may choose, for instance, to concentrate on one aspect of his or her research, or discuss developments occurred after the dissertation was discussed.

All documents accompanying the application must be in pdf format. The selection process involves, for those shortlisted, a Zoom interview.

The Catholic University of the Sacred Heart will cover the travel expenses of the selected scholar up to 600 Euros, and will take care of his or her accommodation at one of the guest houses of the University for up to two nights. During their stay in Milan, the selected scholar will also be invited to give a 45-minute lecture in English to the students attending the course of Private International Law on a topic unrelated to their PhD research.

Those interested in presenting their doctoral research at the third MECSI Seminar, scheduled to take place in Fall 2024, are encouraged to send an e-mail to Pietro Franzina (pietro.franzina@unicatt.it) by 15 August 2024.

The registrations for the Hague Academy Winter Course of 2025 are open.

The course will be opened by Bhupinder Singh Chimni (O.P. Jindal Global University) with a lecture on International Law and Global Justice.

The general course, titled International Law in the Time of Globalization. Contexts, Networks, Practices will be given by Mónica Pinto (University of Buenos Aires).

The special courses will be as follows: Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab (Cairo University, Dean of Africa Arbitration Academy), Good Faith and Neighbouring Concepts: Navigating beyond the Civil-Common Law Divide in International Law; Payam Akhavan (Massey College at the University of Toronto), Crimes against Humanity and Genocide: Defining the Ultimate Crime; Niki Aloupi (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas), Human Persons and the Law of the Sea; Enrico Milano (University of Verona), The Relevance of the Principle of Effectiveness in International Law; Catherine Rogers (Bocconi University), The Concept of Arbitrator Impartiality; Sébastien Touzé (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas), The Relative Approach to Torture and to Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishments or Treatment.

The directors of studies will be Maria Carmelina Londono Lazaro (University of La Sabana) for the English-speaking section, and Emanuel Castellarin (University of Strasbourg) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee applicants is between 1 May 2023 and 1 October 2023. Selected attendees of the Winter Courses will also be able to participate in the doctoral networking sessions, additional afternoon lectures, embassy visits, social activities, and to register for the event “Hours of Crisis” Simulation Exercise (subject to acceptance). The simulation will be conducted in English only.

The programme of Hague Academy Winter Course of 2025 is available here.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

On 6 May 2024, the Centre for Private International Law (CPIL) of the University of Aberdeen will host its Second Postgraduate Law Conference on-line.

The conference consists of four panels dealing, respectively, with private international law aspects of international family law, AI and cross-border legal issues, international civil and commercial law, and private international law and human rights.

The programme of the conference is available here.

For registration and further information, see here.

As announced in a previous post, a seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, is taking place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris at the Cour de cassation and online (in French), under the scientific coordination of Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne).

The fourth seminar will take place on 22 Avril 2024 from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1).

It will be devoted to “protective, exclusive and provisional jurisdiction” in the context of Brussels I bis Regulation recast. The main topics to be discussed deal with the protection of the weaker party, exclusive jurisdiction including in IP matters, as well as provisional proceedings in civil and commercial matters.

The list of speakers includes Sarah Laval (University of Littoral Côte d’Opale), Jeremy Heymann (University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3), Edouard Treppoz (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) and Marie Nioche (University of Paris Nanterre)

The programme, as well as registration and access details can be found here.

The recording of the previous seminars are available online here, here and here.

The other seminars will take place from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1) on 30 May and 24 June 2024.

The seminar series is organised by the Research Centre for Private International Law and International Trade (CRDI, University of Paris Panthéon Assas) and the Sorbonne Department Study of International Private Relationships (SERPI, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), together with the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the French national school for the judiciary (ENM) and the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation).

As announced in a previous post, the tenth Congress of Private International Law of the Carlos III University of Madrid will take place on 16 and 17 May 2024.

It will be devoted to the recognition and enforcement of decisions in the area of family law and other procedural issues.

The speakers include Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo, María José Castellanos Ruiz, Joaquín Delgado Martín, Ilaria Pretelli, Estelle Gallant, Francesco Pesce, Salomé Adroher Biosca, Javier Carrascosa González, Asunción Cebrián Salvat, Isabel Lorente Martínez and Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca.

The programme is available here, together with additional practical information.

The event can also be attended on-line.

For registrations: juliana.rodriguez@uc3m.es.

Many will remember the brilliant Austrian-American conflicts scholar Albert A. Ehrenzweig. He is associated with the ‘lex fori theory’, according to which courts faced with cross-border situations should primarily follow their own national law. He is also, together with Eric Jayme, the author of a multi-volume treatise on private international law. This short description does not do justice to all of his achievements.

June 2024 marks the fiftieth anniversary since Ehrenzweig passed away. On this occasion, the University of Vienna and the University of Berkeley – Ehrenzweig has taught at both of them –  will organise a joint conference. The event will take place on 20 June 2024 at the Austrian Ministry of Justice in Vienna, with a welcome address by the Minister. Confirmed speakers are Richard Buxbaum (University of Berkeley), Eric Jayme (University of Heidelberg), Andrew Bradt (University of Berkeley), and Jeremy Heymann (University Lyon III).

More details can be found here. Participation is free of charge. Please register under office@igkk.org.

We sincerely hope that the conference will kick-start a new dialogue on the conflict of laws between the EU and the US. Everybody who can make it: Please come to Vienna!

Florian Heindler contributed to this post.

The call for papers is open for the X International Conference on Private International Law of the Carlos III University of Madrid, which will take place on 16 and 17 May 2024.

This year’s conference will focus on recognition and enforcement of decisions in private international family law and other procedural matters.

All those interested are invited to send the title of the paper they intend to propose and an abstract of a maximum length of 800 words by 30 April 2024 to congresodipr@uc3m.es.

The proposed papers will be selected by the Scientific Committee of the Conference, composed of Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa Gonzalez, Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Heinz-Peter Mansel, Ilaria Pretelli and Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti. Papers may subsequently be published in the online journal Cuadernos de derecho transnacional.

The organizing committee is directed by Juliana Rodriguez Rodrigo.

For further information, see here.

Within the framework of the Jean Monnet Module CoME CircLE, the University of Udine, in cooperation with a consortium of European universities, now including University of Essex , De Montfort University of Leicester, University of West Timisoara, East Anglia University, University of Rijeka, University of Belgrade and University of Szeged, organizes the 17th edition of the Summer School on Consumer and Market Law in the European Circular Economy, to be held 11-19 July 2024.

The Summer school is a blended intensive course (40 hours of lectures (11-13 July online / 15-19 July on site in Udine), a workshop and a moot court. It addresses theoretical and practical issues related to the legal protection of consumers and the market regulation in the European Union.

The call for application and the brochure are respectively available here and here.

The application deadline is 30 April 2024.

For further information: ip.europeanlaw.uniud@gmail.com.

On 26 April 2024, a half-day conference will be held at 9 am CET, organized by the Centre for Private International Law at the School of Law, University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana.

The conference aims to explore crucial topics within the realm of private international law.

The event will kick off with a keynote address by Ronald A. Brand, followed by another keynote by Marta Pertegás Sender. After a refreshing break at 10:45 am, the conference will feature parallel sessions from 11:00 to 12:30. Participants will have the option to choose from three streams. The first two will focus on private international law and commercial arbitration and litigation, led respectively by Ronald A. Brand and Uglješa Grušić, while the third stream on decolonial perspectives on private international law will be led by Thalia Kruger.

It is possible to attend online or in-person.

For further information and registration, see here.

An international conference on the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation will take place at the Skylounge of the University of Vienna on 12 April 2024.

Organized by Professors Burkhard Hess, Christian Koller and Paul Oberhammer (Institut für Zivilverfahrensrecht, Universität Wien), the event will bring together representatives of the European Commission and of the Court of Justice, judges of Supreme Courts of Member States, legal professionals and scholars, to discuss the reform of the most important UE instrument in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.

The conference is a follow-up of the one held in Luxembourg in October 2022, based on Prof. Burkhard Hess’s paper ‘Reforming the Brussels Ibis Regulation: Perspectives and Prospects’  and involving the EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussles Ibis Regulation. A Working Paper available here summarizes the outcome of the discussions held by the participants to the Luxembourg conference.

The April meeting will be based on a questionnaire about possible reforms (32, to be exact) submitted to academics and practitioners, as announced on this blog and ConflictofLaws.net. The results of the survey will soon be available at the webpage of the Institut für Zivilverfahrensrecht.

The conference will starts at 9.15 am and is scheduled to end at 6 pm. Attendance, onsite and online, is free of charge. Prior registration by e-mail at reformingbrussels-Ibis.zvr@univie.ac.at is required.

A call for papers has recently been issued by Michiel Poesen and Patricia Živković (University of Aberdeen), co-convenors of the Society of Legal Scholars Conflict of Laws section, for the Conflicts section of the SLS Annual Conference 2024 at Bristol University from 3 to 4 September 2024. The theme of the conference is Learning from Others: Lessons for Legal Scholars?.

The call is reproduced below, as received by the promoters.


As scholars, we interact with others – students; fellow academics; legal practitioners; the wider public – and the 2024 conference will reflect on the gains we can achieve from such interaction in a global academic environment.  The conference will examine this theme in two ways.  First, as scholars attending the SLS conference, we benefit greatly from meeting colleagues from different backgrounds and disciplines and, notably, from other legal jurisdictions (both within and outside the common law world).  What can we gain from taking an international or comparative perspective to our work?  To what extent do different perspectives, such as socio-legal, interdisciplinary or historical viewpoints, assist our research? Secondly, one of the significant elements of the conference is the inclusion of papers from both junior and senior scholars. What lessons can we gain from each other, both in terms of mentoring and in recognising the need to promote the interests of early career legal scholars and offering support for those entering the academy? No scholar is an island. The SLS provides a positive inclusive environment for legal academics at whatever stage of their career to engage with each other and learn valuable lessons from a diverse and inclusive community of legal scholars. Doctoral students are very welcome and are encouraged to submit papers for consideration in the Subject Sections Programme.

Conference Information 

The 2024 conference will be primarily in person with a virtual element.  ECR and EDI sessions, together with the AGM and Council meeting, will be available virtually free of charge.  A small charge will be made for virtual attendance at the plenary sessions. Council members who are not attending the 2024 Conference will still be able to attend the Council meeting and AGM virtually and, consistent with our EDI priorities, speakers who cannot attend may, on sufficient notice, be able to present virtually.  We will also endeavour to allow speakers unable to attend at the last minute due to ill-health or travel restrictions to present virtually. This decision reflects a move globally to resume in person conferences, the significant costs of virtual attendance which would require a rise in price due to the absence of suitable facilities at Bristol University and evidence of a significant drop in numbers for virtual attendance at the 2023 conference. We will also continue to offer support for attendance via our Annual Conference Additional Support Fund (ASF) to support those with special circumstances warranting additional support. Priority for support will be given to applicants who have no other source of funding.

If you are interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on 22 March 2024. All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed here – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. For those whose papers are accepted, the original submission offers the facility to upload a full paper nearer the time. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk. If you are submitting as part of the Gesellschaft für Rechtsvergleichung there will be a tick box option for you to select as you complete the form.

This is the second year we will be running first blind peer review, with a subsequent non-blind review once initial decisions have been made to consider profile diversity before final decisions are made and communicated. The feedback from convenors on this process was overwhelmingly positive.

Decisions will be communicated by 26 April 2024.

Submission Format

We welcome proposals for papers and panels on any issue relating to “Learning from Others: Lessons for Legal Scholars?.” We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives and methodological approaches in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

Those wishing to present a paper should submit a title and abstract of around 300 words. Those wishing to propose a panel should submit a document outlining the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate) and their abstracts.  Sessions are 90 minutes in length and so we recommend panels of three speakers, though the conference organisers reserve the right to add speakers to panels in the interests of balance and diversity.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible can present, speakers should not present twice at the conference at the expense of another credible paper.  When you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

The Best Paper Prize

Please also note that the SLS offers two prizes. First, The Best Paper Prize, which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career, and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £300 monetary award, and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, appear in Legal Studies.  To be eligible:

  •  speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members. The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final.)
  • papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count);
  • papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on 23 August 2024;
  • papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; and
  • papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the Annual Conference.
The Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize 

In 2020 the Society launched the Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize, which is open to currently registered doctoral students who are members of the Society. The Prize is £300. There is no link to publication in Legal Studies arising from this award, but any winner would be welcome to submit their paper for consideration by the Society’s journal. To be eligible:

  • speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS who are Doctoral students. (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members and all authors must be Doctoral students, whatever their discipline). The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final;
  • papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count);
  • papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on 23 August 2024;
  • papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; and
  • papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the Annual Conference.
  • Where a paper eligible for this prize wins the Best Paper Prize, the judges may at their discretion award the prize for Best Paper by a Doctoral Student to a different nominated paper
  • The judges may announce a shortlist at their discretion with the winner to be announced by the first week in August.
Registration and Paying for the Conference 

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by 14 June 2024 to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this deadline is likely to pose any problems for you. Booking information will be circulated in due course and will open after the decisions on the response to the calls are made.

A Conference on Cross-Border Dispute Resolution will be held in Dubrovnik on 8-10 May 2024 organized by the Law Schools of the University of Pittsburgh, Verona and Zagreb.

The Conference will deal with cross-border professional responsibility and privilege, aspects of international arbitration and international litigation. Each day will include discussion-oriented presentations and workshops on practical international arbitration and litigation issues.

Speakers include Ron Brand, Marco Torsello, Franco Ferrari, Milena Đorđević, Dora Zgrabljić Rotar and Giesela Ruhl.

The full programme is available here.

For registration and further info see here and here.

The question which law applies to the blockchain and assets recorded thereon, such as cryptocurrencies, stablecoins or other token, is one of the most hotly debated issues in the conflict of laws (see e.g. the recent book ‘Blockchain and Private International Law‘).

A conference on this topic will take place on 11 and 12 April 2024 in Vienna and remotely. It is organised by the University of Vienna, in cooperation with the Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL) and the European Banking Institute (EBI).

The conference will bring together academics, technology experts, and lawyers, from various EU member states, the UK, Switzerland, and Japan. Two of the international organisations active in this field – the HCCH and UNIDROIT – will also be represented.

Topics include the law governing crypto-custody, secured transactions in digital assets, and the law applicable to Decentralized Finance (DeFi). Fundamental issues such as the need for a ‘blockchain revolution’ in Private International Law or the role of consumer law will also be discussed.

The full programme can be downloaded here. Participation is free of charge. Please register for either physical attendance or online participation by 6 April 2024 at service.rechtsvergleichung@univie.ac.at.

This post was written by Prof. Dr. Bea Verschraegen, Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld and Laurenz Faber.


On 28 November 2023, the Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL) held a conference on the legal protection of vulnerable adults in Central and Eastern Europe.

Against the backdrop of demographic and scientific developments impacting this field of the law, the event was attended with great interest by internationally renowned academics and practitioners.

The conference, held in the historic premises of the University of Vienna, commenced with a welcome address by Professor Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna, Raboud Universiteit Nijmegen). Professor Bea Verschraegen (University of Vienna) then led through the first half of the event, which focused on a comparative analysis of vulnerable adults’ protection in Central and Eastern Europe.

Professor Masha Antokolskaia (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) presented first results of a comparative examination by FL-EUR (Family Law in Europe: Academic Network), a research platform consisting of experts from 31 jurisdictions. Professor Antokolskaia explained that FL-EUR conducted a detailed assessment of the protection of vulnerable adults in European countries with the aim of promoting cooperation “in books and in action”. Pointing to the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), she outlined the need for substantial reform in the overwhelming majority of European countries. Professor Antokolskaia explained that the status of these reforms was assessed based on extensive country reports received from 31 jurisdictions. Providing an insight into the work of FL-EUR, she highlighted the methodological difficulties that arise in the comparative examination of vulnerable adult protection, inter alia due to the lack of a historic ius commune in this area.
While the project is still in progress, FL-EUR was already able to identify trends among the European countries: while some have undergone major reforms either before or after the adoption of the UN CRPD, many have only passed “patchwork” reforms or no sufficient reforms at all. Professor Antokolskaia underlined these differences by examining specific examples of vulnerable adult protection, such as the transition towards “support before representation”. In the bigger picture, the presentation observes that many Eastern European countries have not yet undergone the necessary “paradigm shift” but a minority are already far along or have completed this process.

After a spirited discussion on the implications of the comparative analysis presented by Professor Antokolskaia, the second part of the conference, led through by Professor Matthias Lehmann, was dedicated to cross-border issues.

Professor Bea Verschraegen examined current conflict of laws issues relating to the protection of vulnerable adults. She drew attention to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Adults, which focuses on adults who, because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are unable to protect their interests in cross-border situations.

Professor Verschraegen highlighted the increasing number of adults in need of protection and the variety of protective measures prescribed by the national law of their place of residence. These measures range from court-ordered protection to the assistance of pre-arranged third parties.
She expressed concern about the limited regional scope of the Hague Convention, as only 11 EU Member States are parties, and its complexity, which poses challenges to its effective application. In practice, it is not entirely clear what kind of ex ante and ex post measures are covered by the Convention. The same may apply to private mandates.

She pointed out that there is no EU instrument governing judicial cooperation in the field of adult protection. The proposed regulation aims to change this. In this context, Professor Verschraegen argued for a broader perspective beyond the dominant narrative of an ageing society, advocating the inclusion of all adults from the age of eighteen. Citing alarming statistics predicting a significant increase in new cancer cases by 2040, she stressed the urgency of implementing comprehensive policies that address both age-related diseases such as dementia and the unforeseen challenges faced by young adults.

The ongoing debate about the possible reorientation of the Convention and the proposal in line with the UN Convention on Disability or its effectiveness in its own right was also the focus of the presentation. While acknowledging the complexities, Professor Verschraegen suggested that a robust articulation of private international law rules and human rights instruments might suffice, underlining the need for careful consideration.

The discussion went on to explore issues arising from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including private autonomy, self-determination and dignity. Professor Verschraegen questioned the fact that both Conventions monitor fundamental rights from a bird’s eye view, without a feasibility test. In societies that define individuals as worthy members of society if they work and earn enough money, individuals tend to define themselves in this way. Employment is therefore the test of worth in society and for individuals. This may be one of the reasons why the ageing population and the vulnerable and disabled are seen as a burden. However, younger adults face enormous problems, they too may be unable to work, impaired and vulnerable.

She highlighted that private autonomy, self-determination, and dignity are driving principles used in many countries, more specifically in the context of living and dying wills. However, their qualification shows a wide variety. As the EU Proposal aims at guaranteeing EU-wide recognition, clarification of what exactly ought or ought not to be recognized would be most useful.

Professor Verschraegen’s presentation was followed by a lively discourse on the complexities of the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border settings. The event was concluded with closing remarks by Professor Florian Heindler (Sigmund Freud University, Vienna).

Over the course of the conference, the consensus emerged that the legal protection of vulnerable adults, specifically in Central and Eastern Europe, remains a highly topical issue with meaningful developments to be expected both on a substantive and a conflict-of-laws level. In this context, new questions raised during the discussions may have already foreshadowed future publications and conferences.

A on online conference on the international recovery of maintenance by public bodies is set to take place on 15 May 2024, between 2 and 5 pm CEST, hosted by the German Institute for Youth Services and Family Law (DIJuF).

The event concept is as follows.

The Child Support forum is pleased to invite every interested stakeholder to an open conference deepening the topic of cross-border maintenance recovery by public bodies.

Due to the increase in international mobility of families, the need for immediate child support in case of default of maintenance payment is growing. This support often consists of advance maintenance payments granted by public authorities, which then must be reimbursed by the debtor. The enormous sums of money that states spend on these benefits make the cross-border enforcement of maintenance by public bodies an important political issue. 

The first three meetings of the Child Support Forum showed that there is a great need for exchange between the public bodies. On the one hand, they face different hurdles in enforcing their claims due to the diversity of the maintenance support systems. On the other hand, common problems were also identified. The results of this work will be presented.

In a future perspective, it is clear that the tension between the need for more support for children, for an effective recovery of maintenance against debtors, and debtor protection is growing. It will be interesting to discuss to what extent the States make the grant of benefits dependent on the legal possibilities for reimbursement. For example, in the light of the text of the 2007 Convention and of the EU-Maintenance Regulation, public bodies currently have less support from Central Authorities when they seek reimbursement of maintenance support than children do when they claim child maintenance. Thus, the question arises as to whether debtor protection still justifies this legal situation and how maintenance debtors can be protected from double claims when it is no longer the child alone but a public body that seeks the recovery of maintenance payments.

The conference will mark the end of a series of three seminars on the topic of maintenance recovery by public bodies and is intended to provide insight into its socio-political and legal aspects as well as a unique opportunity for exchange with experts from different fields (academics, Central Authorities, public bodies from different countries). 

The conference program can be found here. Attendance is free, but prior registration (here) is required.

As announced in a previous post, a seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, is taking place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris at the Cour de cassation and online (in French), under the scientific coordination of Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne).

The third seminar will take place on 26 February 2024 from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1).

It will be devoted to “emerging litigation” in civil and commercial matters, in the context of Brussels I bis Regulation recast. The main topics to be discussed deal with infringements of human rights and the environment as well as class actions.

The list of speakers includes Olivera Boskovic (Paris Cité University), Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris Panthéon Assas), Sandrine Clavel (Paris-Saclay University) and François Mailhé (Picardie-Jules Verne University).

The programme, as well as registration and access details can be found here.

The recording of the previous seminars are available online here and here.

The other seminars will take place from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1) 18 March, 22 April, 30 May and 24 June 2024.

The seminar series is organised by the Research Centre for Private International Law and International Trade (CRDI, University of Paris Panthéon Assas) and the Sorbonne Department Study of International Private Relationships (SERPI, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), together with the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the French national school for the judiciary (ENM) and the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation).

On 8 and 9 March 2024 a conference will be held at the University of Augsburg, organized by Tobias Lutzi, to discuss current developments in connection with punitive damages.

In particular, the event aims to critically discuss whether and to what extent the German courts‘ strict refusal to recognize foreign punitive damage awards is still tenable in light of developments both in legal systems that award punitive damages and in legal systems that do not (but may still recognize such awards).

Speakers include Tobias Lutzi, Lukas Rademacher, Jan Lüttringhaus, Phillip Hellwege, Catherine Sharkey, Rachael Mulheron, Eleni Katsampouka, Cedric Vanleenhove, Marko Jovanovic, Leonhard Hübner, André Janssen, Beligh Elbalti, Johannes Ungerer, Wolfgang Wurmnest, Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Marta Requejo Isidro, Caterina Benini and Min Kyung Kim.

The full programme is available here.

Registration is possible via this link; attendance is free of charge.

Those interested in attending the conference on-line may get in touch with the organisers (tobias.lutzi@jura.uni-augsburg.de) and ask for a video-link.

It has already been announced on this blog that the next EAPIL conference will take place in Wrocław (Poland) between 6 and 8 June 2024, and will be devoted to Private International Law and Global Crises.

Those willing to join the conference may now register for the event through the dedicated conference website. Please note attendance is in person (on-site) only.

The full programme of the conference, together with practical information on travel and accommodation, are also found in the website.

Huge thanks to Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, Vice-President of the European Association of Private International Law, and her team, for taking care of the event!

The conference speakers include: Raffaele Sabato (European Court of Human Rights), Vincent Kronenberger (Court of Justice of the European Union), Andreas Stein (European Commission), Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Iryna Dikovska (Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv), Tamasz Szabados (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University), Alex Mills (University College London), Matthias Weller (University of Bonn), Eduardo Alvarez Armas (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité), Rui Dias (University of Coimbra), Klaas Eller (University of Amsterdam), and Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova).

For further information: 2024.EAPIL.Wroclaw@uwr.edu.pl.

As announced on this blog, registrations for the EAPIL Winter School, which is taking place in Como between 12 and 16 February 2024, will close on 25 January 2024

Organised by the University of Insubria, in cooperation with the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, the University of Murcia and the University of Osijek, this year’s edition of the Winter School will be devoted to Personal Status and Family Relationships.

The detailed programme can be found here.

The School is aimed primarily at law graduates, law practitioners and PhD candidates with an interest in private international law, EU law and human rights law.

Those interested in attending the School are invited to submit their application through this form before 25 January 2024. The admission fees amount to 250 Euros.

For information: eapilws@gmail.com.

As announced in a previous post, a seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, is taking place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris at the Cour de cassation and online (in French), under the scientific coordination of Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne).

The second seminar will take place on 18 January 2024 from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1).

It will be devoted to the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation’s provisions on special jurisdiction. The main topics to be discussed include jurisdiction on contractual matters, in litigation over financial damage and in disputes relating to collective redress.

The list of speakers includes David Sindres (University of Angers), Bernard Haftel (University of Sorbonne Paris Nord), Caroline Kleiner (University of Paris Cité) and Valérie Pironon (University of Nantes).

The programme, as well as registration and access details can be found here.

The recording of the first seminar (30 November 2003) is now available online.

The other seminars will take place from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1) on 26 February, 18 March, 22 April, 30 May and 24 June 2024.

The seminar series is organised by the Research Centre for Private International Law and International Trade (CRDI, University of Paris Panthéon Assas) and the Sorbonne Department Study of International Private Relationships (SERPI, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), together with the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the French national school for the judiciary (ENM) and the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation).

A symposium titled “Personal Status on the Move” (La circulation du statut personnel), organised by the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS), the Law Faculty of University of Côte d’Azur and the Associazione Civilisti Italiani, will take place on 19 January 2024 in Rome at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

The main topics covered will be civil status, persons’ identification, the union of persons, parenthood and nationality in a context of international mobility of persons and families.

Speakers (and chairs) include Claudio Scognamiglio (Chairman, Associazione Civilisti Italiani), Gustavo Cerqueira (Chairman, Section Méthodologie comparée du droit civil de la SLC), Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Francesco Salerno (Università degli Studi di Ferrara), Marion Ho-Dac, Professeur (Université d’Artois), Camille Reitzer (Deputy Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Giovanni Di Rosa (Università di Catania), Fernand Munschy (Lawyer at the Strasbourg Bar & Université Haute-Alsace), Francesca Bartolini (Università degli Studi Link di Roma), Michele Sesta (Università di Bologna), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Alessandra Spangaro (Università di Bologna), Enrico Al Mureden (Università di Bologna), Ilaria Pretelli (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Renzo Calvigioni (Associazione Nazionale Ufficiali di Stato Civile e d’Anagrafe, ANUSCA), Gordon Choisel (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Mirzia Bianca (Università di Roma La Sapienza), Sylvain Bollée, (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Roberto Senigaglia (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia), Hugues Fulchiron (Conseiller extraordinaire à la Cour de cassation, France), Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Liliana Rossi Carleo (Università di Roma Tre).

Presentations will be held in French and Italian.

Those interested in attending can do so either in-person or on-line.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required by 12 January 2024, through segreteria.civilistiitaliani@gmail.com.

Additional information, including the full programme of the conference, can be found here.

A link to follow the conference remotely will be provided shortly.

From 15 February 2024 to 17 February 2024, an early career research workshop will be held at Freie Universität Berlin to discuss works in progress on dispute resolution mechanisms and competence-competence in multi-level systems. The workshop invites young researchers working on related topics from all fields of legal research and is open to different methodological approaches to analyse the research questions. The workshop aims to generate a constructive and friendly atmosphere to test working hypotheses and discuss findings.

Further information in the call for abstracts here.

Applications and questions can be addressed to Maren Vogel at maren.vogel@fu-berlin.de.

The University of Luxembourg will host a conference on Enforcing Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns: Recent Trends and Practice on 10 January 2024. The conference is organised in partnership with Bonn, Steichen and Partners.

The conference will be divided in four parts. The first will discuss the influence of EU law on enforcement. The second will address new issues related to enforcement such as assignment of awards and the influence of the right to property. The third will be concerned with issues relating to attachment of assets, including sovereign immunities and asset tracing. The fourth will discuss States’ international obligations to comply with arbitral awards.

Speakers will include Gary Born (WilmerHale), Nicholas Lawn (Lalive), Ana Stanic (E&U Law Limited), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Yael Ribco Borman (Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes), Javier Garcia Olmedo (University of Luxembourg), Fabio Trevisan (Bonn Steichen), Laura Rees-Evans (Fietta LLP), Thierry Hoscheit (Supreme Court, Luxemburg), Paschalis Paschalidis (Arendt & Medernach), Philippa Webb (Twenty Essex/ King’s College London), Michaël Schlesinge (Archipel), Luciana Ricart (Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP), Crina Baltag, FCIArb (Stockholm University), Cameron Miles (3 Verulam Buildings), Manuel Casas (Twenty Essex), Loukas Mistelis (Queen Mary University of London/Clyde & Co), Matthew Happold (University of Luxembourg), Laure-Hélène Gaicio (Bonn Steichen).

The full programme can be found here. The event is free of charge, but registration is necessary (here).

The Spanish Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations (AEPDIRI) is organizing its VII Seminar on current issues in Private International Law on the topic A Private International Law centred on the rights of individuals. The seminar will take place at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ICADE) in Madrid (https://www.comillas.edu) on 14 March 2024.

The Seminar is intended to discuss topics related to the challenges posed by the rights of individuals from a broad perspective and from a Private International Law dimension, related to the following thematic lines: Current issues raised by the regulation of the capacity of persons in Private International Law; Current issues raised by the regulation of parentage in international situations; The rights of vulnerable persons from a Private International Law dimension; Challenges posed by digitisation to the rights of the individual in private cross-border situations; Due diligence obligations in value chains and Private International Law; Civil liability of multinationals for human rights violations; New challenges in Immigration Law; Migrants’ rights from a Private International Law perspective.

Researchers are welcome to propose presentations which should cover one of the above-mentioned questions. Proposals should fit into the objectives of the Seminar and will be selected –for their oral presentation and/or publication- according to their relevance, quality and originality in respect to their contribution to the development of Private International Law studies.

Proposals should be submitted, following the requirements of the call, no later than 15 January 2024, by e-mail to: seminarioactualidad.dipr2024@aepdiri.org.

The working language of the Seminar will be Spanish, but papers may be also presented in English or French.

The submission of abstracts for selection as well as the participation to the Seminar are free of charge.

A new book entitled Blockchain and Private International Law has been published by Brill. It is available in open access and may be downloaded here. A book launch will take place on 20 December 2023 at 18:15 CET online and at the University of Lausanne (here is the link to the livestream).

The authors of the books are experts from various jurisdictions. The editors are Andrea Bonomi, Matthias Lehmann, and Shaheeza Lalani. It comprises five parts with overall 26 chapters.

The first part focuses on fundamental issues. It addresses the foundations of Distributed Ledger Technology (Tetsuo Morishita), the principle of technological neutrality  (Bruno Mathis), the general significance of private international law for crypto assets (David Sindres), property law issues associated with them (Christiane Wendehorst), as well as the problem of blockchain pseudonymity as an obstacle for the determination of the applicable law (Anne-Grace Kleczewski).

The second part addresses general conflict-of-laws problems raised by the blockchain. A taxonomy of crypto assets is given (Felix Krysa), the (in)significance of the situs is analysed (Amy Held), policy decisions are examined (Burcu Yüksel Ripley and Florian Heindler), and the law governing digital representations of off-chain assets is discussed (Emeric Prévost).

The third part examines specific crypto assets and legal relationships. It deals with central bank digital currencies (Caroline Kleiner), stablecoins (Matthias Lehmann and Hannes Meyle), blockchain torts  (Tobias Lutzi), insolvency issues (Giovanni Maria Nori and Matteo Girolametti), the law applicable to secured transactions on the blockchain (Matthias Haentjens and Matthias Lehmann), smart contracts (Mehdi El Harrak), blockchain-based negotiable instruments (Koji Takahashi), and crypto derivatives (Gregory Chartier).

The fourth part focuses on blockchain dispute resolution. In particular, the importance of the DAO for dispute resolution is investigated (Florence Guillaume and Sven Riva), and the recognition and enforcement blockchain-based decisions is analysed (Pietro Ortolani).

The fifth part of the book contains country reports. Represented are the legal systems of Switzerland (Pascal Favrod-Coune and Kévin Belet), the United States (Frank Emmert), Germany (Felix M. Wilke), in Liechtenstein (Francesco A. Schurr and Angelika Layr) and Japan (Tetsuo Morishita).

The virtual book launch of The Elgar Companion to UNCITRAL will take place on 14 December 2023 at 1:00 pm (CET) as a video conference via Zoom under the aegis of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law.

Co-edited by Rishi Gulati (University of East Anglia and Barrister, Victorian Bar, Australia), Thomas John (MCIArb, Independent Mediator, Arbitrator and Legal Consultant, the Netherlands) and Ben Köhler (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law), this comprehensive Companion delineates the range of issues considered at UNCITRAL, as well as assessing the potential for future work and reforms.

The book will be virtually launched by the Secretary of UNCITRAL Anna Joubin-Bret followed by an informative panel discussion will be included.

See here for registration to the book launch.

The Paris Court of Appeal will celebrate the fifth anniversary of the establishment of its chamber dedicated to international disputes in a symposium on December 13th, 2023 (4-7 pm).

This will be an opportunity to take stock of its achievements by reviewing progress made since 2018, the modus operandi, the perception of the Chamber’s users, its strengths and areas for improvement, and to consider the future.

Four round tables will discuss the specific procedural framework established for handling international disputes, whether the international chamber has developed a specific caselaw, the international attractiveness of French commercial justice and future reforms.

The programme can be found here.

illustration CCIP 11Speakers will include judges from the court, academics, lawyers practising in Paris and abroad and officials from the French Ministry of Justice.

The symposium will be held in French with simultaneous translation.

Attendance is free, but registration is required at colloque.ca-paris@justice.fr

The Children’s Rights Academy at the University of Geneva offers an executive training programme on Civil Aspects of International Child Protection (ICPT).

The programme includes four half-day online modules in English (Children’s Individual Rights in Transnational Parental Relationships; International and Comparative Family Law; Vulnerable Migration and Practice of Child Protection Stakeholders: Inter-agency Co-operation in Context), scheduled to take place between 7 December 2023 and 18 April 2024.

Roberta Ruggiero, Gian Paolo Romano and Karl Hanson are the programme directors; Vito Bumbaca is the coordinator.

Speakers include: Roberta Ruggiero, Olga Khazova, Karl Hanson, Gian Paolo Romano, Philippe Lortie, Michael Wilderspin, Ilaria Pretelli, Vincent Chetail, Irina Todorova, Noelle Darbellay, Mayela Celis Aguilar, Jason Harts, Nicolas Nord, Joëlle Schickel and Jean Ayoub.

For further info, see here.

On 4 December 2023, at 6 p.m. CET, a free webinar will take place in preparation of the 2024 inaugural edition of the EAPIL Winter School on Personal Status and Family Relationships, which will be held on-site in Como between 12 and 16 February 2024 (a detailed brochure is available here).

The webinar will give a glimpse of what the Winter School will be about. Specifically, it will focus on selection of hot topics, such as the cross-border recognition of sex reassignment and the enjoyment of the right to name abroad.

The speakers are some of those who will be lecturing at the Winter School, namely Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Ester di Napoli (University of Ferrara), Cristina González Beilfuss (Unversity of Barcelona), Satu Heikkilä (LL.D., Administrative Law Judge), Silvia Marino (University of Isnubria), Nadia Rusinova (Hague University), Michael Wildespin (Legal Advisor to the European Commission), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University), and Mirela Župan (University of Osijek).

The webinar will also offer an opportunity to provide information about the EAPIL Winter School.

Join the free seminar to discover what awaits you during the Winter School week, and…if you want to know more, enrol and come to Como in February!

Those interested in attending the webinar may do so directly through this link. No prior registration is required.

More information on the Winter School is found here. To enrol in the Winter School, please fill in this form.

A seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, organized by the Research Centre for Private International Law and International Trade (CRDI, University of Paris Panthéon Assas) and the Sorbonne Department Study of International Private Relationships (SERPI, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), together with the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the French national school for the judiciary (ENM) and the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation), will take place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris and online (in French).

According to the scientific coordinators of the seminar series, Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), the seminar series aims to provide a forum for French legal experts – academics and practitioners – to discuss the future reform of Brussels I bis Regulation and to propose key improvements to the text.

The first seminar will take place on 30 November 2023 (9.00 – 12.30 am, UTC+1). The objective will be to present the prospect of a recast, from a political and technical perspective, and to discuss different issues relating to the scope of a future “Brussels I ter Regulation”.

The list of speakers includes Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Tania Jewczuk, Marie-Elodie Ancel, François Ancel, Malik Laazouzi and Etienne Pataut.

The programme, as well as registration and access details can be found here. The conference series will take place at the Cour de cassation (Paris, France) and will also be broadcast live (see here).

The other seminars will take place in 2024 from 16.00 to 18.00 (UTC+1) on 18 January, 26 February, 18 March, 22 April, 30 May and 24 June.

This post has been written by Jacco Bomhoff (LSE)Uglješa Grušić (UCL), and Manuel Penades (KCL).


As previously announced, the LSE Law School hosted a symposium to celebrate the scholarly work of Emeritus Professor Trevor C. Hartley on 27 October 2023.

The Symposium brought together around 70 participants, colleagues, and friends from the UK and abroad, who celebrated and discussed Trevor’s many contributions.

The first contribution to the Symposium was a keynote by Professor David Kershaw, Dean of the LSE Law School. He reminded us that Trevor came to LSE from the University of Western Ontario in 1969 and taught at LSE for a record-breaking 54 years. In that time, Trevor firmly established himself as a leading scholar in private international law and EU law, and inspired many generations of law students.

Subsequently, Lord Collins gave another keynote in which he commented on Trevor’s contributions to private international law. Trevor has pursued many topics in the field, but is perhaps best known for his work on mandatory rules, choice-of-court agreements, and comparative international civil and commercial litigation. He joined the team of editors of Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws (as it then was) in 1985 and was one of the specialist editors responsible for 10 chapters in the 11th edition (1987) and 12 chapters in the 12th edition (1993). He sat on the Lord Chancellor’s Committee for Private International Law, gave a Hague Academy special course on the common law approach to mandatory rules in international contracts in 1997 and a general course on the modern approach to private international law in 2006, and was a rapporteur on the 2005 Hague Choice-of-Court Convention. Trevor has authored many books in the field, including a student textbook on International Commercial Litigation (CUP, now in its 3rd edition from 2020), and monographs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (OUP, now in its 3rd edition from 2023) and Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments (OUP, 2013).

These keynotes were followed by the first panel of the day, which focused on global and comparative private international law, one of the main themes of Trevor’s scholarship. This panel was chaired by Dr Roxana Banu (Oxford), who noted that the aim of the Symposium was to celebrate Trevor and, through Trevor, the field of private international law.

The first speaker in this panel, Professor Paul Beaumont (Stirling), outlined the 2019 Hague Foreign Judgments Convention and explained its relationship with the 2005 Hague Choice-of-Court Convention. He commented on key features of the 2019 Convention, such as the broad range of judgments that come within its scope, the broad set of indirect jurisdictional rules, and exclusion of arbitration. Furthermore, he noted that the 2019 Convention supplements the 2005 Convention in different ways, for example by covering non-exclusive choice-of-court agreements, providing for a defence of breach of a jurisdiction agreement, and covering asymmetric choice-of-court agreements (as confirmed in Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother, where the Court of Appeal referred to the Hartley and Dogauchi Explanatory Report at [85]). Finally, Professor Beaumont confirmed that the two conventions should be interpreted in a systematic way. The 2005 and 2019 Conventions represent two key pieces of the Hague global justice system, which is a fitting legacy for Trevor’s excellent work on the 2005 Convention.

Professor Alex Mills (UCL) commented on the importance of the 2005 Convention. He remarked that the fact that the 2005 Convention exists and is in force is important for the Hague Conference and global private international law. However, a relatively modest number of ratifications demonstrates challenges of international harmonisation. Nevertheless, the success of a treaty is not measured only in terms of number of ratifications – the 2005 Convention crystalised the importance and acceptance of party autonomy in the field of jurisdiction and foreign judgments, and is an important sign of consensus in this respect. The 2005 Convention is important for the London litigation market because it provided a degree of continuity after Brexit. Finally, Professor Mills noted the value of the Hartley and Dogauchi Explanatory Report for interpreting and applying the treaty, and its contribution to the success of the treaty.

Professor Koji Takahashi (Doshisha) commented on comparative private international law by pointing out that the relationship between the common law and civil law systems in private international law is often analysed in terms of well-known dichotomies. One of those dichotomies is pragmatism v dogmatism (idealism). Nevertheless, Professor Takahashi noted that all private international law systems combine elements of both pragmatism and dogmatism. He demonstrated this point by showing the pragmatic aspects of pleading and proof of foreign law, renvoi, and the choice-of-law rules for divorce in Japanese law. The application of these doctrines often allows Japanese courts to apply Japanese law.

Professor Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh) closed the first panel by discussing the protection of global commons in private international law, a subject that Trevor touched on in his 2009 Revue Hellenique de droit international article on ‘Multinational Corporations and the Third World’. Prof Ruiz Abou-Nigm did this by drawing out attention to three points: (1) power imbalances and access to justice, particularly in the context of business and human rights litigation; (2) accessibility of the private international law logic to ordinary people and lawyers; and (3) impact of differentials in capacity and expertise. Professor Ruiz Abou-Nigm concluded by remarking on the importance of local solutions to global problems such as sustainable development, and by recognising the importance of academic activism.

This panel was followed by a third keynote given by Professor Hans van Loon, who, as former Secretary General of the Hague Conference, is particularly well placed to comment on Trevor’s contribution to the work of the Conference. Professor van Loon expressed a view that the Hartley and Dogauchi Explanatory Report is a “masterpiece”. Professor Van Loon also reminded us that Trevor is a key member of the European Group of Private International Law (GEDIP).

A fourth keynote was given by Professor Carol Harlow (LSE, emerita). Since Professor Harlow and Trevor joined LSE at around the same time, she was able to comment on Trevor’s contributions to the LSE Law School, as well as on Trevor’s contributions to public law and EU law scholarship. Some readers of the blog may not know that Trevor was a pioneer in EU law in the UK and that his book on the Foundations of European Community Law (Clarendon Press, 1981) had a significant impact in the English-speaking world.

The day’s second panel was chaired by Professor Pippa Rogerson (Cambridge). Its remit was Trevor ’s well-known ICLQ article on the CJEU’s “systematic dismantling of the common law” in its decisions in Gasser v Misat, Owusu v Jackson, and Turner v Grovit. The panel’s task was to revisit the article, almost 20 years after its publication, and in light of all that has happened in the law of civil jurisdiction since.

Professor Andrew Dickinson (Oxford) spoke first, on anti-suit injunctions. Professor Dickinson sketched a contrast between Trevor’s view of anti-suit injunctions, which he characterized as one of “wary receptiveness”, and his own, which was “warier and less receptive”. Zooming out from the discussion of Turner v Grovit, Dickinson also looked further back – to the Privy Council’s seminal decision in Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, on which Trevor recently published a case comment – and to more recent developments, notably the CJEU’s decision in Charles Taylor Adjusting Ltd v Starlight Shipping Co. Professor Dickinson’s conclusion was that “[The] anti-suit injunction is as controversial as it ever was, and the issues that it throws up have become more complex as the world and the ways in which legal systems interact with one another have evolved over time. It is a good thing that Trevor has been willing to serve as one of our principal guides, highlighting the trade-offs involved in choosing between unilateralism and multilateralism.”

Professor Jonathan Harris (KCL) discussed forum non conveniens, taking up not just the ICLQ article just mentioned, but also Trevor’s book on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Sweet & Maxwell, 1984), and his 1992 comment in the European Law Review on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72. Professor Harris noted how Trevor thought the Court of Appeal had reached the right decision in that case, and how he “did not hold back” in his later criticism of Owusu, in both the ICLQ article and in his lectures for the Hague Academy. Again taking a broader perspective, Professor Harris noted that the answer to the question “forum non conveniens – where are we now?” seems to be, roughly, “where we were 35 years ago”, at the time of Spiliada. Professor Harris concluded by giving his views on why, in the way English law is currently structured, so much still turns on the ability of claimants to serve defendants within the jurisdiction, as compared to having to obtain permission to serve out.

Professor Eva Lein (BIICL and Lausanne) was slated to speak on “torpedo” actions – another topic of concern in the “systematic dismantling” article – but unfortunately had to cancel at short notice.

The last speaker for this panel, therefore, was Professor Adrian Briggs (Oxford), who addressed the topic “What is left of the Brussels I Regulation in English law and in the English courts?”. Professor Briggs identified four different layers to the lingering effects of the Brussels regime. First, the direct legacy of the rules of section 15 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as amended, on jurisdiction in certain cases involving consumers and employees. Second, and a little more indirect, is the baggage of CJEU interpretations of key terms in the Rome I and Rome II Regulations that built on their approach to the Brussels regime, and that now threaten to affect the English courts’ approach to the retained rules on choice of law. For both these instruments, in Professor Briggs’ view, the conclusion is that there is nothing much wrong with the “European” rules themselves, but rather a lot wrong with the CJEU’s interpretation of them. The third and fourth layers to the legacy of the Brussels regime in English law, in Professor Briggs’ view, sound in cultural terms. First, certain basic ideas and outlooks familiar from practice under the Brussels rules may still influence English law. The main example for this is perhaps the basic proposition, patterned on Article 4 of Brussels I bis, that it is right that claimants should always be able to sue English companies in England. For the fourth and last lingering effect of the Brussels regime, Professor Briggs returned to the main theme of Trevor’s “systematic dismantling” article. This is the lasting memory, stated bluntly, of a Court of Justice preaching mutual respect but acting with disrespect; to Member States courts and legal systems in general, and to the common law in particular.

The last keynote speaker for the day was Professor Damian Chalmers (National University of Singapore). His speech combined an appraisal of Trevor’s early and seminal contributions to the study of the law of the European Communities, with a more personal reflection on Trevor’s role as mentor.

The final panel dealt with the relationship between dispute resolution clauses and EU law, another of Trevor’s significant themes of scholarship. The panel was chaired by Professor Yvonne Baatz (QMUL, retired). She opened the session by highlighting the breadth of Trevor’s work and his characteristic ability to explain complex ideas in accessible and clear ways.

The first talk in the panel was given by Alexander Layton KC (Twenty Essex and KCL), focusing on the reflexive effect of EU private international law. While the topic is now primarily of historical interest in England, Layton explained that it still serves as a good example of the tension between the common law and civil law traditions. He criticised the CJEU for failing to consider the role of comity in the context of the potential reflexive effect of the Brussels regime toward third States in three relevant areas: foreign lis pendens, exclusive jurisdiction, and dispute resolution clauses in favour of the courts of third States. While lis pendens is now resolved by Articles 33 and 34 of Brussels I bis, the other two issues remain contentious. National courts have three options: interpreting the Brussels/Lugano regime as incorporating an implied yet mandatory reflexive effect (“strict reflexivity”); prohibiting such reflexive effect based on the mandatory application of the rules on jurisdiction of the Brussels/Lugano regime in favour of EU courts, regardless of the interests of the third State (“prohibited reflexivity”); permitting EU courts to decide the matter based on national law given the absence of express solution in the Brussels/Lugano regime (“flexible reflexivity”). While all three options present challenges, English courts appear to have adopted the flexible reflexivity approach (Ferrexpo v AG v Gilson Investments Ltd). Layton opined that brief passages in previous European case law suggest that the CJEU could support the “strict reflexivity” model. This uncertainty might be resolved by the forthcoming decision in BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux concerning the validity of a Turkish validation of a European patent.

This talk was followed by Professor Richard Fentiman (Cambridge), who spoke about the relationship between international arbitration and the Brussels/Lugano regime. He identified two reasons why the English legal community was profoundly unpersuaded by the case law of the CJEU that curtailed contractual remedies to enforce arbitration agreements in the form of antisuit injunctions and damages awards. The first was that those EU decisions were not about the hierarchy between arbitration and EU law but about a more profound clash between the integrity of the Brussels rules and the remedies available under national law to enforce arbitration agreements. The second reason concerned the Court’s frustrating technique, which refused to recognise the conceptual distinction between the allocation of jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the enforcement of contractual rights and controlling personal conduct, on the other. The use of open-textured concepts such as mutual trust and effet utile did not inspire confidence and, in fact, was used by the Court to make policy decisions in the guise of legal reasoning. In the second part of his presentation, Professor Fentiman argued that these contractual remedies should become available and effective again after Brexit even vis-à-vis EU Member States (as evidenced by French case law). Also he pointed out that the doctrine laid by the CJEU in Case Charles Taylor Adjusting no longer applies to English decisions and, therefore, their European effectiveness will depend on the national law of each EU Member State and their notions of public policy. The relief brought by Brexit, he concluded, is that the decision whether to request those remedies from English courts in each case will depend on the parties’ litigation strategies, and not on a general prohibition imposed by EU law. Equally, he celebrated the fact that English courts will be free to address outstanding questions such as the compatibility of these contractual remedies with Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights squarely and without the restrictions imposed by the often tendentious unpersuasive reasoning of the CJEU.

The third presentation in this panel was delivered by Jan Kleinheisterkamp (LSE), who spoke about arbitration and EU mandatory rules. He explained that at the root of the problem lies the fact that, unlike national courts with article 9 of the Rome I Regulation, arbitrators do not have a clear choice of law regime for mandatory rules. As a result of Eco Swiss and Ingmar, some European courts have refused the enforcement of arbitration agreements when the use of international arbitration, coupled with the choice of law made by the parties, would lead to the disapplication of EU mandatory law. An option to avoid this radical effect would be to allow court proceedings seeking an undertaking by both parties to apply the relevant mandatory rule as a condition to enforce the arbitration agreement, linked to the possibility of court review at the post-arbitration stage (just like in the SCOTUS decision in Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth). Dr Kleinheisterkamp argued that the growing tendency of English courts to issue antisuit injunctions should not impede the operation of this proposal post-Brexit, when a party commenced court proceedings before EU courts to obtain such undertaking from its counterparty to the arbitration agreement. To do this, English courts should reconsider the possible application of Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 139 to arbitration agreements and avoid turning England into a safe haven for arbitrations of any colour and shape. A more measured approach was preferable to avoid backlashes against arbitration, and recent decisions by English courts preventing illegality in arbitration (The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Limited) offered hope that some judges were receptive to that restrained approach.

Professor Linda Silberman (NYU, emerita) closed the panel. She discussed the potential adoption of the 2005 Hague Choice-of-Court Convention by the USA and the controversy raised by the reactions of some arbitration practitioners against the Convention compared to the 1958 New York Convention (see herehere, and here). While the prospects for the adoption of the 2005 Convention are positive, Professor Silberman signalled that one of the main areas of concern was that, unlike in Article V(1)(a) of the NYC, Article 9(a) of the 2005 Convention provides that that the determination by the chosen court in favour of the validity of the forum selection agreement is conclusive. A recent discussion on the subject in the NY Bar Committee concluded that Articles 6(c) and 9(e) of the 2005 Convention offered sufficient safeguards to alleviate the concern. Article 6(c) would allow a party to demonstrate that it never consented to a putative choice of court agreement and that holding a party to such a clause would create manifest injustice or would manifestly violate the public policy of the non-selected court. Article 9(e) would also prevent the recognition or enforcement of a judgment when it would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State. Despite Article 9(a) of the 2005 Convention, the NY Bar Committee NY Bar was satisfied that Article 9(e) would allow the court to stop the effect of the finding by the allegedly selected court in favour of the validity of a bogus choice of court agreement. To strengthen this position, the NY Bar Committee recommended the introduction of federal legislation to reiterate the principles that voluntary consent to jurisdiction is an aspect of fundamental US public policy and an element of US constitutional due process, and also that US public policy requires a court to refuse to recognise or enforce a judgment obtained in a judicial system that does not afford impartial tribunal and judicial fairness. The Hartley and Dogauchi Explanatory Report was instrumental to reach this positive conclusion.

The Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL) is hosting a conference titled “Legal Protection of Vulnerable Adults in Central and Eastern Europe” on the 28 November 2023 at the University of Vienna.

The aging population and the rise of age-related diseases result in the urgent need to address the legal issues surrounding vulnerable adults. Beyond the challenges posed by the aging demographic, other vulnerable groups also warrant legal protection. Conducting a comparative analysis of the prevailing legal frameworks for protecting vulnerable adults becomes imperative to gain insights into effective solutions and identify areas requiring further attention.

This conference will therefore explore the protection of vulnerable adults in Central and Eastern Europe including cross-border issues. Masha Antokolskaia and Bea Verschraegen, renowned experts in the fields of comparative and private international law, will shed light on the complexities surrounding the protection of vulnerable adults.

The full programme of the conference and further information can be found here.

Participation is free of charge. Those wishing to attend the Conference online are invited to register by 27 November 2023 (office@igkk.org).

An online conference titled The Institution of the Family – Tradition, Reform, Uniformity and Perspectives will take place on 4 and 5 December 2023. The event, organized by a group of academic institutions, including the “Dunărea de Jos” University in Galați, the University of Caen Normandie, the Carlos III University of Madrid, the University of Murcia and the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos of Cuernavaca, aims to explore the evolving approach to family relationships as reflected in domestic, European and international rules.

Scholars interested in making a presentation at the conference have until 19 November 2023 to submit a proposal.

More information on the conference and the call can be found here.

This post has been written by Sanja Marjanović (Faculty of Law, University of Niš, Serbia) and Uglješa Grušić (UCL).


The 18th Regional Private International Law Conference will take place on 17 November 2023 at the Faculty of Law, University of Niš, Serbia, with the support of the Deutche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). The theme of the Conference is Private International Law and International Organizations – Achievements and Challenges.

The Conference will provide an opportunity to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the inaugural regional PIL conference, which was also held in Niš in 2003. These regional PIL conferences are a result of the vision of Professor Mirko Živković (Faculty of Law, University of Niš) to re-establish a regional PIL network that had been broken by the tragic dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. Although PIL scholars from countries stemming from the former Yugoslavia continue to be the nucleus of these conferences, they regularly attract PIL scholars from other countries as well.

The opening panel will feature the following topics and speakers:

  • Reflections on the Complementarity of Global and Regional Unification of Private International Law, Hans van Loon (Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), The Hague
  • Characterisation in the CJEU Case Law: Unity or Diversity?, Vesna Lazić, Utrecht University and Asser Institute, The Hague
  • Centennial of the Hague Academy of International Law, Maja Stanivuković, University of Novi Sad

The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The working language of the Conference will be English, and it will also be streamed online.

Those wishing to attend the Conference online are invited to register by emailing contact details and affiliation to antanasijevic@prafak.ni.ac.rs by 16 November at 12 CET.

Conference proceedings will be published in September 2024.

After the first successful conference in Aarhus in 2022, the next conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will be held from 6 to 8 June 2024 at the University of Wrocław, Poland. The local host will be Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska. 

The Wrocław conference will focus on Private International Law and Global Crises. The general question discussed is whether private international law can respond to crises, and if so, how. Four thematic blocks are planned, concerned respectively with war and armed conflict, the rule of law, climate change and global supply chains.

In addition, reports from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission will provide insights into current challenges in the creation and application of EU PIL.


Thursday, 6 June 2024

14:00
Registration

15:30
Welcome addresses

16:00
Keynote
Mateusz Pilich, University of Warsaw

17:00
Reports from Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels
Lucia Serena Rossi, Court of Justice of the European Union (tbc)
Raffaele Sabato, European Court of Human Rights
Andréas Stein, European Commission

19:00
Reception



Friday, 7 June 2024

9:00
Revisiting the Functions of Private International Law

Can Private International Law respond to crises and if yes, how?
Patrick Kinsch, University of Luxembourg
Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, University of Edinburgh

10.40
Private International Law, War and Armed Conflicts

Dealing with war-induced migration: Family law aspects
Iryna Dikovska, Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv

Dealing with war-induced effects: Contractual relationships
Tamasz Szabados, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University

13.00
Private International Law and the Rule of Law

Protection of the Rule of Law I: Jurisdiction and applicable law
Alex Mills, University College London

Protection of the Rule of Law II: Enforcement and mutual trust
Matthias Weller, University of Bonn

15.00
Private International Law and Climate Change

Liability for climate change induced harm: Jurisdiction and Applicable law
Eduardo Alvarez Armas, Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Olivera Boskovic, Université Paris Cité (France)

17:00
General Assembly (EAPIL members only)

19:00
Reception



Saturday, 8 June 2024

9:00
Private International Law and Global Supply Chains 

Protection of human rights in global supply chains I: Jurisdiction
Rui Dias, University of Coimbra

Protection of human rights in global supply chains II: Applicable law
Klaas Eller, University of Amsterdam

Protection of human rights in global supply chains III: Ordre public
Laura Carpaneto, University of Genova

10:00
Discussion

11.00
How Can Private International Law Contribute to a More Sustainable Life?
Roundtable

12.30
Lunch

13.30
End of conference

 

The website of the conference (including the registration form) will be available soon.

Information about the University of Wrocław is here and about the city of Wrocław is here.

The Roma Tre University and the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart have jointly organised a conference titled The Italian Scholars and The Hague Academy of International Law – A retrospective on the occasion of the Academy’s Centennial Anniversary, under the patronage of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Hague Academy itself.

The conference, due to take place on 30 November 2023 in Milan, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, will discuss the contribution provided by Italian scholars to the development of both public and private international law through courses delivered at the Academy since 1923.

A final roundtable will be devoted to the challenges that face, today, those teaching and researching public and private international law, including the law of international arbitration.

Speakers include: Giulio Bartolini, Tullio Treves, Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Robert Kolb, Sergio Marchisio, Marina Castellaneta, Francesco Salerno, Sara Tonolo, Pasquale De Sena, Beatrice Bonafè, Annamaria Viterbo, Paolo Palchetti, Chiara Tuo, Giuseppe Nesi, Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Attila Tanzi, Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Massimo Benedettelli, and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm.

A detailed programme can be found here.

The working languages will be English, French and Italian, with Italian presentations being simultaneously translated into English.

Attendance is on-site only. Prior registration is required through the form available here.

As announced on this blog, the inaugural edition of the European Association of Private International Law Winter School will take place in Como between 12 and 16 February 2024.

Organised by the University of Insubria, in cooperation with the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, the University of Murcia and the University Osijek, this year’s edition of the Winter School will be devoted to Personal Status and Family Relationships.

The lectures, in English, will discuss a range of issues relating to the cross-border continuity of status, filiation, and family relationships between adults. Both Hague conventions and EU legislative measures will be examined, with an approach combining theory and practice. There will be ample room for interaction with (and among) the participants.

The teaching staff consists of Silvia Marino (University of Insubria, director of the School), Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova), Javier Carrascosa González (Universidad de Murcia), Ester di Napoli (University of Ferrara), Cristina González Beilfuss (Unversity of Barcelona), Satu Heikkilä (LL.D., Administrative Law Judge), Katja Karjalainen (University of Eastern Finland), Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin), Etienne Pataut (University of Paris 1), Paula Poretti (University of Osijek), Nadia Rusinova (Hague University), Raffaele Sabato (Judge of the European Court Human Rights), Ian Sumner (Tilburg University), Camelia Toader (former-Judge of the Court of Justice), Ioan-Luca Vlad (University of Bucharest), Michael Wilderspin (EU Commission Legal Advisor), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University), Mirela Župan (University of Osijek).

The detailed programme can be found here.

The School is aimed primarily at law graduates, law practitioners and PhD candidates with an interest in private international law, EU law and human rights law.

Those interested in attending the School are invited to submit their application through this form before  25 January 2024.

Admission fees are as follows: early bird (by 12 December 2023): 180 Euros; ordinary: 250 Euros.

A reduced fee of 80 Euros is offered to one student from any of the Universities that are partners in the project  and one for a Ukrainian student. For the purposes of the reduction, a “Ukrainian student” is someone whose residence was in Ukraine on 24 February 2022, or shortly before that date, and is currently a student, including a PhD student, at a University, wherever located. A student from a Partner University is a PhD student enrolled in a PhD Course offered by either the University of Insubria, the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, the University of Murcia or the University Osijek, or a young scholar (below the age of 32) working in one of those Universities.

For information: eapilws@gmail.com.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2024.

The course will be opened by Lord Lawrence Collins of Mapesbury (Former Justice at the United Kingdom Supreme Court) with a lecture on Use and Abuse of Comity in International Litigation.

The general course, titled The Metamorphoses of Private International Law, will be given by Charalambos Pamboukis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens).

The special courses will be as follows: Jack Coe (Pepperdine Law School), Non-ICSID Convention Investor-State Awards in Domestic Courts; Andrew Dickinson (University of Oxford), Natural Justice in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments; Carlos Esplugues (University of Valencia), New Dimensions in the Application of Foreign Law by Courts (and Arbitrators) and non-Judicial Authorities; Eva Lein (University of Lausanne), Breathing Space in International Contractual Disputes; Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma (Director at the Attorney-General’s Chambers Singapore), The Singapore Convention and the International Law of Mediation; Alessandra Zanobetti (University of Bologna), The Effects of Economic Sanctions and Counter-Measures on Private Legal Relationships.

The directors of studies will be Kubo Macák (University of Exeter) and Jacco Bomhoff (London School of Economics and Political Science) for the English-speaking section, Alain-Guy Tachou Sipowo (Université de Montréal) and Fabien Marchadier (University of Poitiers) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee, scholarship, doctoral scholarship and Directed Studies applicants is between 1 November 2023 and 31 January 2024.

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

On 16 November 2023 the Lyon 3 University will host a colloquium on the French Draft Code of Private international Law, organised by Ludovic Pailler.

The presentation of the colloquium reads as follows:

Following a mission statement, the working group charged with considering the codification of private international law, chaired by Mr. Ancel, submitted its report to the Minister of Justice on 31 March 2022. This was followed by a public consultation and the announcement, by the Minister of Justice, that the project would come to fruition. This codification has already been the subject of two scientific events at our establishment (i.e. Lyon 3 University). One was devoted to the code’s construction model, the other to its content (see here). The third event, to be held on 16 November 2023 in Lyon, concerns a comparative law analysis of the draft code. 

The colloquium is divided into two parts. The first examines codification from the point of view of European Union member states. Both the value of this exercise and the practical ways in which it is carried out will be explored. Does French codification differ from its foreign equivalents? Is it expected? Doesn’t it run counter to European Union law? The second part of the presentation will be devoted to the point of views from outside the EU, with a view to testing the stated ambition of enhancing the attractiveness of French PIL, and analysing it in the light of experiences or initiatives undertaken in contexts where the subject is in decline (United States) or less integrated (Brazil).

The list of speakers and chairpersons includes : Olivier Gout, Cyril Nourissat, Ludovic Pailler, Frédérique Ferrand, Patrick Wautelet, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Pietro Franzina, Daniel Petrache, Hugues Fulchiron, Gian Paolo Romano, Yoko Nishitani, Chris Whytock, Gustavo Ferraz De Campos Monaco and Sabine Corneloup.

The event will be held in French and in English.

For registration see here. The full programme is available here.

A webinar on early marriages, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of SIDI, the Italian Society of international Law, will take place on 5 October 2023 at 4 pm CET.

The event will specifically concern the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, of 2023, on the constitutionality of the German law combating child marriages of 2017, and aims to provide comparative reflections on early marriages and their regulation in national and international law.

The main speaker will be Nadjma Yassari (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law), while Giacomo Biagioni (University of Cagliari) will act as a discussant.

The webinar, in English, will be broadcast through Microsoft Teams. Those interested in attending are invited to use this link to connect as the webinar begins. No registration is required.

Jacco Bomhoff (LSE), Manuel Penades (KCL), and I are pleased to announce that the LSE Law School will host a symposium to celebrate the scholarly work of emeritus professor Trevor C. Hartley.

Trevor has long been one of the world’s most distinguished scholars of Conflict of Laws (Private International Law), continuing a tradition started at the LSE by Professor Otto Kahn-Freund. For many decades, he has been at the forefront of developments in the field. As a prominent critic, notably of the Court of Justice’s efforts to unify European private international law. But also as an active participant in projects of legislation and modernization. And as author of authoritative treatises and clear and accessible student textbooks.

His publications include the Hartley & Dogauchi Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Hague lectures on ‘Mandatory Rules in International Contracts: the Common Law Approach’ and ‘The Modern Approach to Private International Law – International Litigation and Transactions from a Common-Law Perspective’, student textbook on International Commercial Litigation (CUP, now in its third edition from 2020), and monographs on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (OUP, now in its second edition from 2023) and Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments (OUP, 2013).

This Symposium will bring together colleagues and friends, from the UK and abroad, to celebrate and discuss Trevor’s many contributions. It is organised around some of the main themes of Trevor’s private international law scholarship.

The first panel will focus on global and comparative private international law. Paul Beaumont, Alex Mills, Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, and Koji Takahashi (chair Roxana Banu) will discuss the 2019 and 2005 Hague Conventions, common law and civil law traditions in private international law, and the role of private international law in protecting global commons.

The second panel will examine contemporary English conflict of laws, through the lens of Trevor’s famous ICLQ article on the systematic dismantling of the common law of conflict of laws. Eva Lein, Andrew Dickinson, Jonathan Harris, and Adrian Briggs (chair Pippa Rogerson) will discuss the ‘Italian torpedo’, anti-suit injunctions, forum non conveniens, and the residual influence (if any) of the Brussels I Regulation in English law.

The third panel will focus on dispute resolution. Alexander Layton, Richard Fentiman, Jan Kleinheisterkamp, and Linda Silberman (chair Yvonne Baatz) will explore the reflexive effect of EU private international law and dispute resolution clauses, the interplay between EU (private international) law and arbitration, and the comparison between the 2005 Hague Convention and the New York Convention.

In addition, Lawrence Collins, Hans van Loon, Damian Chalmers, and Carol Harlow will give keynote speeches, reflecting on Trevor’s influence on private international law, the work of the Hague Conference, EU law, and LSE.

This event is open to all, subject to capacity, but registration is required. Please follow this link for more information about the event, including programme and registration.

On 19 and 20 October 2023, the Academic Research Federation “Europe in Change” (University of Strasbourg) is organising a Symposium on Reparation for “Crimes of the Past” (Réparer les “crimes du passé) under the scientific coordination of Bénédicte Girard, Etienne Muller and Delphine Porcheron. The event will be held in French.

A number of presentations will focus on private international law issues, in particular international litigation on public and private liability (e.g., State immunity and private compensation).

Mass crimes, deportations, spoliations, colonial exploitation, slavery… The “crimes of the past” are first known as historical facts. Their protagonists have mostly disappeared; they have been documented by historians; almost all of them are mentioned in school textbooks. They have become part of our collective memory as disastrous episodes of a bygone past.

And yet, decades later, claims for reparation are initiated. Individuals and groups who have been materially, socially or psychologically affected by these events are turning to justice. They expect not just symbolic recognition, but genuine reparation for their losses, compensation for their suffering, and restoration of their social status.

But are State courts capable of responding appropriately to these claims? Are the law and litigation practice capable of delivering justice? What other institutional mechanisms can be implemented to this end?

These are the questions that the speakers at this symposium will attempt to answer, combining legal, historical and philosophical approaches by looking successively at “Jurisdictional avenues of reparation” (Part I) and “Alternative avenues of reparation” (Part II).

The list of speakers and chairpersons includes : Magalie Bessone, Jean-Sébastien Borghetti, Nicolas Chifflot, Marc Del Grande, Peggy Ducoulombier, Gabriel Eckert, Michel Erpelding, Etienne Farnoux, Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Antoine Garapon, Bénédicte Girard, Patrick Kinsch, Marc Mignot, Horatia Muir-Watt, Etienne Muller, Dorothée Perrouin-Verbe, Delphine Porcheron, Thibault de Ravel d’Esclapon, Mathieu Soula, Jeanne-Marie Tufféry-Andrieu, Patrick Wachsmann.

For registration and more information, see here. The full programme is available here.

On 21 September 2023 at 17 CET Lex&Forum, in collaboration with Εκδοσεισ Σακκουλα – Sakkoulas Publications, will be holding an online day conference titled Environmental claims in Private International Law.

The webinar aims to shed light on the intersection between environmental claims and private international law.

Charis Pamboukis (Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) will chair. Speakers include: Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven), Climate justice litigation and private international law; Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta), Collective redress in environmental matters: outlooks through the Volkswagen litigation saga; Komninos Komnios (International Hellenic University, Plenary of the Greek Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE)), The ‘Climate Trial’: Procedural Issues; Elina Moustaira (Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (EKPA)), Environmental claims in cross-border insolvency; Vasiliki Marazopoulou (PhD, Lawyer), Climate Change Resolution of Disputes: Identifying Legislative and Regulatory tools in international commercial arbitration.

Registration is free and open until 20 September 2023 at 11 CET.

In order to register for the webinar, click here.

For further information, see here.

The European Association of Private International Law, together with the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria (Italy), with the Law Faculty of the University of Murcia (Spain) and the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków (Poland), is organising the first EAPIL Winter School. This inaugural edition will be devoted to Personal Status and Family Relationships.  

The Winter School will be held on-site in Como, in the wonderful cloister of the Basilica di Sant’Abbondio, from 12 to 16 February 2024. 

The lectures will address recent aspects and new trends regarding personal status and family relationships in cross-border situations. The following topics, among others, will be discussed: the principle of mutual recognition, to the transnational safeguard of human rights in Europe, to the continuity of the status cross-border. Both Hague conventions and EU legislative measures will be examined, under an approach combining theory and practice, and making ample room for interaction with the attendees. 

The lecturers are academics, magistrates and practising lawyers. Among them: Paula Poretti and Mirela Župan (J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków), Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova), Cristina González Beilfuss (University of Barcelona), Etienne Pataut (University Paris 1 Sorbonne), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Silvia Marino (University of Insubria).

The Winter School is aimed at PhD students, young scholars, young practitioners and EU private international lovers!

Participation in the Winter School will additionally provide an opportunity to get in touch with colleagues from all over Europe, make new friends and enjoy the Como Lake! 

The final programme of the Winter School will be available shortly.

For information, please write an e-mail to Silvia Marino at silvia.marino@uninsubria.it.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the winter course on International Law of 2024.

The course will be opened by Yves Daudet (Hague Academy of International Law) with a lecture on Solidarity in International Law.

The general course, titled On the Interface between Public and Private International Law, will be given by Campbell Mclachlan KC (Victoria University of Wellington).

The special courses will be as follows: Ximena Fuentes (University of Chile), Defying Existing International Law as the Starting Point of the Formation of New Customary Law; Patrícia Galvão Teles (Autonomous University of Lisbon) The Advisory Function of International Courts and Tribunals; Maria Gavouneli (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) Energy in International Law; August Reinisch (University of Vienna) The Settlement of Disputes Involving International Organizations; Ben Saul (University of Sydney) The Special Regime of International Counter-Terrorism Law; Santiago Villalpando (Office of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO) The Practice of the Law of Treaties since the Vienna Convention.

The directors of studies will be Fuad Zarbiyev (Geneva Graduate Institute) for the English-speaking section, and Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida (Getulio Varga Foundation Law School in Rio de Janeiro) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee applicants is between 1 May 2023 and 1 October 2023. Selected attendees of the Winter Courses will also be able to participate in the doctoral networking sessions coordinated by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong (Leiden University), additional afternoon lectures, embassy visits, social activities,  and to register for an exceptional event: the “Hours of Crisis Simulation Exercise. The competition will be conducted in English only.

More information on the Academy’s programmes may be found here.

On 13 April 2023, the University Paris Dauphine hosted a conference on State Immunity from Enforcement (L’immunité d’exécution de l’Etat).

Speakers included Philippe Théry (Univ. Paris Panthéon-Assas), Louis Perreau-Saussine (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Gilles Cuniberi (Univ. Luxembourg), Sophie Lemaire (Université Paris Dauphine), Nathalie Meyer-Fabre (Avocate au Barreau de Paris), Duncan Fairgrieve (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Fabrizio Marrella (Univ. Ca’ Foscari), David Pavot (Univ. Sherbrooke), Mathias Audit (Univ. Panthéon-Sorbonne), Juliette Morel-Maroger (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Jérôme Chacornac (Univ. Paris Panthéon-Assas), Hélène Tissandier (Univ. Paris Dauphine), Victor Grandaubert (Univ. Paris Nanterre), Renaud Salomon (Cour de cassation).

The videos of the conference of the various sessions of the conference are freely available and can be accessed here.

The authors of this post are Bernadette Boehl, Sophie Dannecker, Larissa Grundmann, Maira Gabriela Nino Pedraza (all University of Bonn). A series of webinars took place in May 2023 under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analysing the EU Parenthood Proposal. Experts from various Member States discussed the main elements of the proposal and possibilities for improvement. The key issues addressed  in  each webinar are illustrated  below. Those interested in the PowerPoint presentations prepared by the speakers, are invited to follow this link


Session One

The first webinar (3 May 2023) started with a presentation by Jens Scherpe about Surrogacy in comparative perspective. 

Scherpe emphasized the impossibility of avoiding surrogacy as a worldwide phenomenon, hence the global surrogacy market which affects people on an international level.  He classified the jurisdictions into three categories. The jurisdictions that prohibit (e.g., France, Germany), tolerate (e.g. England), and regulate surrogacy.

For Scherpe, surrogacy tourism is a consequence of the prohibitive as well as the tolerant approach to surrogacy. Surrogacy plays an important economic role. It can be a multi-million-dollar business. This is especially true in countries whose jurisdictions follow a free market approach, such as some Canadian provinces, which could be described as “Rolls Royce” jurisdictions. This allows the intended parent to be recognised on the birth certificate from the outset. Countries that allow surrogacy in a way that the intended parents can be documented on the birth certificate beforehand but leave the process more or less unregulated tend to be attractive to a lot of people from prohibitive or tolerant countries. Those “Wild-West” jurisdictions, as Scherpe calls them, are much cheaper for future parents. But as a matter of fact, they are less protective of the surrogate and of children, and exploitation may occur. According to Scherpe, the achievement of the seemingly morally better approaches, the prohibitive and the tolerant, has the effect of exporting exploitation to those countries.

After signaling the experiences of countries like England and Denmark, the speaker concluded that both models, the prohibitive and the tolerant, have failed to prevent surrogacy by not recognising parenthood. In fact, a clear regulation is necessary and unavoidable and could solve some of the legal problems. He ends with the prediction that good regulation will not wipe out all exploitation in surrogacy matters but will, with no doubt, reduce the number of cases drastically.

Afterwards, Cristina González Beilfuss introduced the Parenthood Proposal and explained in her presentation (What’s in it? The subject matter, scope and definitions) four of the most important issues regarding the scope of the proposal.

(1) The substantive scope of the proposal is described in Article 1. “jurisdiction and applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in a Member State in cross-Border situations”. To understand parenthood is also to be seen from a sociological perspective, the definition in Article 4 can be used. Beilfuss expresses her sympathy with the term used in the Spanish draft, which is not “parentalidad” but “filiación” because it puts the child in the center of the law. Filiation should also be the preferred term in the English version, since it is a more child-centered concept than parenthood. For González, the contestation of parenthood, which is included, should have a more significant role in the proposal.

(2) Following the traditional practice of the European Commission, Article 3 defines the scope of application in a negative way. This Article confirms that the Proposal focuses on the bond of filiation but not on its consequences (Articles 3, 2. (b), (f) or (g)). Parental responsibility is not covered and should be consistently distinguished from filiation.

(3) Among the excluded matters is the existence, validity or recognition of a marriage. Marriage, however, regularly arises as a preliminary question in filiation matters. This is due to the significance of the mother´s civil status in establishing  a second child-parent relationship. It would therefore be important that the Regulation included a common rule on the preliminary question in order to ensure that it is solved uniformly across the Member States.

(4) Another exclusion that is problematic is that of adoption. The English text is more correct than the French or the Spanish.  Only intercountry adoptions, e.g. adoptions where the child is taken from their country of habitual residence to the country of habitual residence of those adopting are excluded, The Proposal is however wrong in assuming that all other adoptions are domestic adoptions that do not give rise to Private international questions. Whenever the child or the prospective adopters hold a foreign nationality there is a need to determine jurisdiction and the applicable law. The rules proposed are not well suited for adoption cases.

(5) The proposed rules only apply to the recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance of documents issued in a Member (see Article 3.3). Documents, in particular, birth certificates may however be issued after the recognition or acceptance of a decision or document issued in a Third State. This entails that the dividing line between Third State and European Union cases is far from clear.

In conclusion, the examination conducted by Cristina González Beifuss, as well as the questions left open, highlights the need for further discussion about the Proposal from the European Commission.

Session Two

The second webinar (10 May 2023) opened with a look at EU Primary law and a presentation by Susanne Gössl titled The EU Proposal and primary EU law: a match made in heaven?

The presentation started with an overview of the case law of the CJEU regarding the free movement of citizens (Article 21 TFEU), Article 18 TFEU (discrimination on grounds of nationality) and Article 20 (EU citizenship) in questions of status. According to that case law, a limping status constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of EU citizens and EU primary law requires the Member States to remove the obstacle.

To avoid a limping status, courts need to recognize at least parts of a status validly established in another EU Member State. The EU has two possibilities to legislate: harmonization of substantial law (as happened in Company Law) and the harmonization of private international law which is the approach the EU has taken in family law matters. The Proposal follows the second path and transforms the CJEU case law into EU secondary law.

In that reading, Article 2 of the Proposal (relationship with other provisions of Union law) seems mysterious, as EU primary law is at another level of hierarchy than EU secondary law.

One reading could be that the provision allows Member States to give more room to free movement if the national law is more generous than the proposal. Another interpretation could be that the Proposal does not understand itself as exhaustive in transforming the case law into secondary law. The latter could be the case if the scope of application does not extend to situations where EU citizens are not domiciled and therefore not registered in a Member State. They would fall under EU primary law as EU citizens but not under the proposal.

Furthermore, Gössl criticized Article 17 para. 2 (applicable law) as it contains alternative connecting factors and discretion to the court in case the main rule does not establish two parents. Discretion of the court means that EU primary law could give an obligation to recognize as father an EU citizen no matter whether this is in the best interest of the child. Finally, it remains unclear whether the conflict of laws rules of the proposal can be used in EU Member States to accept a status if they use the method of “recognition via conflict of laws”.

In Sahyouni I & II, the CJEU rejected the use of Rome III for such a national method. It would enhance the free movement of citizens if the Parenthood Proposal allowed Member States to use the Proposal for that way of acceptance. At least a clarification would be helpful.

In this order of ideas, the relationship between the draft and European private law is, for Gössl, not a match made in heaven, but at least a match.

Afterwards, Tobias Helms talked about The law governing parenthood: are you my father?.

Helms emphasized in advance that the initiative of the European Commission is to be welcomed. However, there would still be room for improvement in detail. During his presentation, Tobias Helms mainly analysed Article 17 of the Proposal.

The primary connecting factor for the establishment of parenthood is, according to para. 1, the law of the state in which the person giving birth has their habitual residence at the time of birth. As Tobias Helms pointed out, this connecting factor would be particularly friendly to surrogate motherhood. However, the connecting factor is unchangeable because it is fixed forever at the time of birth, which is problematic. Therefore, Article 17 para. 1 of the draft should be applied only with regard to the time of the child’s birth; thereafter, the child’s habitual residence should be decisive.

Also, Article 17 would have to be supplemented by establishing an Article 17a concerning the termination of parenthood. Additionally, a new Article 18a should be introduced regarding adoptions. An extra Article 22a could deal with overriding mandatory provisions.

Session Three

The third webinar (17 May 2023) started with a presentation by Alina Tryfonidou on The mutual recognition of decisions under the EU Proposal: much ado about nothing?

Tryfonidou provided an overview of the EU provisions regarding the recognition of decisions concerning parenthood. The provisions broadly follow the approach of other EU private international law regulations in the field of family law.

Article 4 of the proposal defines court and court decisions. The definitions are more abstract than those used in other EU private international law provisions in family law. Therefore, further clarification is desirable. The EU proposal is only applicable to cases with cross-border elements between member states. Decisions in third-party states are excluded from the scope of the application (Article 3(3)). Recognition of those decisions remains a question of national law. Children subject to decisions in third states are at least protected by the ECHR.

The central provision regarding the recognition of decisions is Article 24(1). It states that a court decision on parenthood given in a Member State shall be recognized in all other Member States without any special procedure being required. Article 24(3) allows the court to determine the issue where the recognition of a court decision is only raised as an incidental question.

Article 26 specifies the documents to be produced for recognition of a decision. The required attestation is supposed to enable the authority to determine whether there are grounds for refusal. The exhaustive list of such grounds is laid down in Article 31(1). The most famous ground allows the refusal if the recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought. The provision must be applied in observance of fundamental rights and principles laid down in the CFR. Articles 32 and 25 regulate applications for the refusal of recognition or the decision that there are no grounds for the refusal of recognition.

The next presentation was given by Maria Caterina Baruffi on Who decides on parenthood? The rules of jurisdiction.

Baruffi started by referring to the heavy criticism aimed at the proposal. Although she admitted that some of these criticisms are partly justified, she emphasized the positive aspects, namely the protection of children and fundamental rights.

The general system of jurisdiction is laid down in Article 6 of the proposal. It lists six grounds for jurisdiction alternatively. That allows for additional flexibility and facilitates access to justice.

On the other hand, a different approach may have reduced the possibility of parallel proceedings and forum shopping. Article 7 combines the presence rule with these grounds. According to recital 42, this is supposed to allow the courts to exercise jurisdiction regarding third-country national children. Article 8 states that where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 6 or 7, jurisdiction is determined by national law. Article 9 adds the forum necessitatis rule. Articles 6 to 9 could be called exorbitant when combined. The reference to the national law of member states in Article 8 creates the additional possibility of taking recourse to exorbitant rules of jurisdiction in national law. However, the broad approach further facilitates access to justice and protects children’s fundamental rights.

Following this, Maria Caterina Baruffi briefly introduced Articles 10 and 14 which mirror the Brussels IIb Regulation, Article 15 which specifies the child’s right to be heard. She then touched on the child’s right to know its origin. This right was excluded from the proposal. Maria Caterina Baruffi argued that the Union does not have the competence to include such a right. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the proposal. It is a good starting point for a reasonable solution.

Session Four

The last webinar started with Patrick Wautelet who talked about Authentic documents and parenthood: between recognition and acceptance.

Wautelet discussed the recognition of court decisions in another Member State (Chapter IV, Section 1-2) together with the acceptance of other authentic instruments with either binding legal effect (Chapter IV, Section 3) or those with no binding legal effect (Chapter V) in the Member State of origin.

The most critical point of the proposal regarding Chapters IV and V is the distinction between the authentic instruments with binding or no binding legal effect since the question of whether an instrument has legally binding effect or not is a matter for the national law of the Member State in which the instrument was issued. It may therefore be answered differently in each Member State.

Wautelet illustrated the difficulties which this diversity may cause with an example from practice: when a child is born in France to married parents, the birth certificate drawn up must, of course, be regarded as an authentic instrument. Whether it also has a “binding legal effect” must be determined according to French family law. This question must be answered differently in France regarding maternity and paternity. However, this does not apply equally to every Member State, which means the question which category is relevant may not be answered in general for all birth certificates.

In the presentation and the following discussion, it was underlined that drawing the line between authentic instruments with binding and no binding legal effect can be complex, not least regarding other existing family arrangements (same-sex parenthood).

Furthermore, it was suggested that the terms used in the Proposal lack precision: even if an authentic act has a binding legal effect, it may be that it is not completely binding, as it may be amenable to challenge. The  term ‘no legal binding effect’ suggests further that the instrument is not legally effective although it actually is. Those labels are therefore confusing and should either be reconsidered or at least explained further. His preferred choice is to not differentiate between the two categories but to merge the two.

Another topic was the acceptance of authentic instruments with no binding legal effect, as stated in Article 45 of the Proposal. There are two options for an evidentiary effect of those documents: the text may provide that the effects the original instrument has in the Member State of origin will be extended to other Member States (“same evidentiary effects”). Article 45, however, also includes another possibility, i.e. that an instrument be giventhe “most comparable effect”. Understand the evidentiary effect exiting in the state of origin requires extensive and difficult work. Patrick Wautelet proposes simplifying the Regulation with regard to the comparable effect by striking it out.

To conclude, the speaker presented four points to be considered for further reflection. Firstly, it is important to work on the language, ensuring that all terms are clearly defined. Secondly, the alternative rules for acceptance and the relationship with public policy need to be cleared. Thirdly, it is advisable to merge the two categories of authentic instruments, which should help avoid confusion or ambiguity in their application. Finally, he would like to strive for a less complex regulation – not at least to keep the users in mind.

The very last presentation, given by Ilaria Pretelli, concerned The European certificate of Parenthood: a passport for parents and children?.

The last presentation refers to Chapter VI of the proposal and the creation of a “European Certificate of Parenthood”. The certificate is supposed to make a binding presumption of the status, which results only from the certificate itself. This certificate may not make a decisive difference in numerous cases because birth certificates are widely accepted even today. But especially for cases of co-maternity, it will help with an easier recognition of co-maternity and support same-sex couples by setting a reliable framework. Additionally, this framework will be useful regarding contractual arrangements, such as surrogacy. It eliminates the risk of the child being stateless.

The similarity between the proposed “European Certificate of Parenthood” and the “European Certificate of Succession” regarding the presumption of status should not be seen as extensive as it may seem at first sight. The presumption of the status of parenthood stated by Article 53 para. 2 of the proposal differs not in the wording but in the meaning, from the presumption of status regulated by the Certificate of Succession (Article 69 para. 2). According to Ilaria Pretelli there is a huge difference in the meaning of the “presumption of status” as it is used by the proposal, because of how it can be challenged. The granted status by the proposal states a much stronger binding effect than the certificate of succession. This she concludes from seeing the explanatory memorandum, which stresses the evidentiary effects of established parenthood in another Member State. But she suggests that this matter should be clarified because of the identical and therefore misleading wording. She points to the unanswered question about the possibility of challenging the certificate by another Member State as a main problem in the proposal.

Also, Ilaria Pretelli explained the background of the numerous specifications of the certificate’s content. The purpose of those elaborate regulations is to prevent attempts of manipulation. In this respect, the rights of the child should be more in the focus of the regulations, especially the right of the child to know their origin. To do so, appropriate safeguards could be introduced by means of ad hoc rules specially designed to meet the need of pursuing the best interests of the child.  In this matter, she points out that the language of the whole proposal is not focused enough on the child. She suggests to change the wording of the English version of the proposal, e.g. “filiation” instead of “parenthood”.

“Wishes” of the Organisers of the Series of Webinar

At the end of the seminar, the five organizers of the Webinars concluded the last session by expressing their “wishes” for improvement of the proposal.

These wishes were:
– Further definition of the concept of Court (Cristina Gonzalez Beilfuss);
– If the Regulation keeps the distinction between 2 types of authentic acts, that Member States and the Commission find a better way to distinguish them (Patrick Wautelet);
– Restrict the existing rule on the applicable law to designating the applicable law at the time of birth and find other rules for the time after birth (Tobias Helms);
– Introduce safeguards to prevent child-trafficking or exploitation (e.g. right of the child to know their origins or rules as those preventing illegal adoptions) (Ilaria Pretelli);
– Define the concept of “establishment” of parenthood in cases parenthood is established by the law and not by courts or authentic acts with binding effect (Susanne Gössl).

The University of Kiel will host a conference on EU Insolvency Law and Third Countries: Which Way(s) Forward? on 26-28 October 2023. A special forum for young scholars is scheduled to take place on 26 October 2023 .

The conference is part of a coordinated research project on this topic endorsed by Uncitral and conducted in cooperation with representatives of the European Commission and the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The goal of the conference, and of the underlying research project in general, is not so much to analyse the law as it stands today, but to discuss ideas how to further develop rules on coordination of EU insolvency law with insolvency law or insolvency proceedings in non-EU countries (e.g. the UK, Switzerland, the US, China and others).

The conference will be organized in a hybrid format, in presence in Kiel and online via Zoom. The deadline for registrations for the conference is 1 October 2023. The deadline to propose papers for oral presentations is 31 July (15 September for the Young Researchers Forum).

Further info on the project and the conference is available here.

Queries can be addressed to the organisers of the conference, Alexander Trunk and Jasnica Garašić, at office-eastlaw@law.uni-kiel.de or at intins@law.uni-kiel.de.

The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law is organising its 18th annual colloquium on 6 and 7 September 2023 in Swansea. The topic of the event this year is on Commercial Disputes- Resolution and Jurisdiction.

Delegates can attend both in person and online. Early bird registration is available by the end of June.

The list of speakers and chairpersons confirmed includes Masood Ahmed, Simon Baughen, Michael Biltoo, William Blair, Ruth Hosking, John A. Kimbell KC, Monica Kohli, George Leloudas, Aygun Mammadzada, Karen Maxwell, Francesco Munari, Brian Perrott, Marta Pertegas Sender, Richard Sarll, David Steward, Andrew Tettenborn and Patricia Živković.

For registration and further info, see here.

In June 2022, this blog posted about a joint webinar between the Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on the Choice-of-Court and Judgments Conventions. The two organizations return this year with their third joint session, this time on the 1965 Service Convention. ABLI has been engaging in work related to judgments recognition and enforcement in Asia for some time.

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 1965 Service Convention, the webinar will take place on 27 June 2023 between 4 to 5:10pm (Singapore time) or 10 to 11:10am (CEST), and is expected to discuss, among others, the actual operation of the Service Convention in practice, how the Service Convention works with the other HCCH Conventions for cross-border dispute resolution, and Singapore’s accession to and upcoming implementation of the Service Convention.

Invited speakers include Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), Melissa Ford (Secretary, HCCH), Delphia Lim (2Director, International Legal Division, Ministry of Law, Singapore), Professor Yeo Tiong Min (Singapore Management University), and Professor Yun Zhao (University of Hong Kong and Representative of Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, HCCH).

For more information or to register, click here. Queries about the webinar can be directed to ABLI at info@abli.asia.

Registration is open for the 9th Journal of Private International Law Conference.

The conference will be held on 3 to 5 August 2023 at the Yong Pung How School of Law at the Singapore Management University. The keynote address will be delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam, President of the Singapore International Commercial Court.

The deadline for speakers to register is 30 May 2023. The deadline for other registrants is 25 June 2023.

Registration is complimentary for speakers, Journal of Private International Law editorial board members and SMU faculty, staff and students. Preferential rates apply for academics, government officials, SMU alumni and non-SMU students – register with your institutional e-mail to enjoy the preferential rate.

More information, including the draft programme and link to register, can be found here.

A Summer School on Cross-border litigation and international arbitration will take place between 17 and 22 July 2023 both on-site at the Ravenna Campus of the University of Bologna and on-line, under the direction of Michele Angelo Lupoi (University of Bologna) and Marco Farina (LUISS, Rome).

The course will address a broad range of issues relating to transnational litigation, as they arise in contexts as diverse as climate change litigation, commercial and maritime litigation, and family and succession disputes. International arbitration will also be covered.

The lecturers include Apostolos Anthimos, Giovanni Chiapponi, Elena D’Alessandro, David Estrin, Francesca Ferrari, Chris Helmer, Albert Henke, Emma Roberts, Marco Torsello, Stefano Alberto Villata, and Anna Wysocka-Bar.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and practitioners.

Registrations are open until 6 July 2023. Further information are found here.

As noted earlier on this blog, on 24 May 2023, from 6 pm to 8 pm CEST, the forth and last webinar of the series that has been organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analyzing the EU Parenthood Proposal will take place. The webinar, chaired by Steve Heylen, will deal with the following relations:  Authentic documents and
parenthood: between recognition and acceptance
(Patrick Wautelet), and The European certificate of Parenthood: A passport for parents and children? (Ilaria Pretelli).

Those wishing to attend have time until 23 May 2023 at noon to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the webinar by e-mail (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

The updated and final version of the program is available here.

On 30 June 2023, the second edition of the Austrian Private International Law Workshop will take place in Innsbruck. The organisers cordially invite all interested researchers and practitioners to participate and register via evip@uibk.ac.at. Participation is free of charge. The workshop will be conducted in German and will consist of two sessions, chaired by Florian Heindler and Andreas Schwartze, respectively.

Presentations will discuss, inter alia: Current trends in the case law of the CJEU on conflict of laws (Marlene Brosch, ECJ); The EU Succession Regulation and the Austrian Supreme Court – where it should have applied for a preliminary ruling (Gottfried Musger, Austrian Supreme Court); Parent in one country, parent in every country: The proposal for an EU Parenthood Regulation (Martina Melcher, University of Graz); International enforcement of legal rules on social networks (Brigitta Lurger, University of Graz); The corporation seat theory between connecting factor and domestic nexus (Chris Thomale, University of Vienna); Crypto assets in private international law (Matthias Lehmann, University of Vienna/Radboud University Nijmegen).

A forum chaired by Bernhard A. Koch (University of Innsbruck) and Simon Laimer (University of Innsbruck) on the the most pressing challenges for private international law in the coming years and decades will conclude the event.

The updated and final version of the program is available here.

As noted earlier on this blog, on 17 May 2023, from 6 pm to 8 pm CEST, the third webinar of the series that has been organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analyzing the EU Parenthood Proposal will take place. The webinar, chaired by Nadia Rusinova, will deal with the following relations: The mutual recognition of decisions under the EU Proposal: much ado about nothing? (Alina Tryfonidou), and Who decides on parenthood? The rules of jurisdiction (Maria Caterina Baruffi).

Those wishing to attend have time until 16 May 2023 at noon to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the webinar by e-mail (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

The form, then, will remain open for registration for the last webinar of the series.

The updated and final version of the program is available here.

As noted earlier on this blog, on 10 May 2023, from 6 pm to 8 pm CEST, the second webinar of the series that has been organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analyzing the EU Parenthood Proposal will take place. The webinar, chaired by Fabienne Jault-Seseke, will deal with the following relations: The EU Proposal and primary EU law: a match made in heaven? (Susanne Gössl), and The law governing parenthood: are you my father? (Tobías Helms).

Those wishing to attend have time until 9 May 2023 at noon to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the webinar by e-mail (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

The form, then, will remain open for registration for the subsequent webinars of the series.

The updated and final version of the program is available here.

The Special Interest Group on Family and Succession Law of the European Law Institute invites everyone interested to participate in the webinar titled Application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States.

The webinar will present the results gathered during the five webinars on the application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States organized in 2022 ( which EAPIL blog covered here).

The webinar will take place on 15 May 2023 between 3 and 5 pm CET.

Attendance is free of charge. A Zoom link will be sent to those who register by sending an e-mail to: zivilrecht@uni-graz.at.

As noted earlier on this blog, on 3 May 2023, from 6 pm to 8 pm CEST, the first webinar of the series that has been organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analyzing the EU Parenthood Proposal will take place. The webinar, chaired by Claire Fenton-Glynn, will deal with the following relations: Surrogacy in comparative perspective (Jens Scherpe), and The EU Proposal on Parenthood: What’s in it? Subject matter, scope and definitions (Cristina González Beilfuss).

Those wishing to attend have time until 2 May 2023 at noon to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the webinar by e-mail (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

The form, then, will remain open for registration for the subsequent webinars of the series.

The updated and final version of the program is available here.

The Swiss Institute of Comparative Law in Lausanne will host its 34th Private International Law day on 1 June 2023, under the title Personal Identity and Status Continuity – A focus on Names and Gender in the Conflict of Laws.

The event continues a series inaugurated last year with two webinars on filiation and same-sex marriage, respectively.  The programme and materials of those webinars can be found here and here (under media & fichiers).

The three panels are co-organised with ELI special interest group on family and succession law.

The day before the conference, a special side event organized by the Institute with the collaboration of Walter Stoffel, University of Fribourg, and Lucie Bader, film and media scholar, Bern, will introduce the topic of Law and Gender.

More details here.

Within the framework of the Jean Monnet Module “CoRiMaR” (2020-2023), the University of Udine, in cooperation with a consortium of European universities, now including University of Essex , De Montfort University, Universitatea de Vest din Timisoara, East Anglia University, University of Rijeka, University of Belgrade and University of Szeged, organizes the 16th edition of the Summer School on Consumer’s Rights and Market Regulation in the European Union, to be held 12-21 July 2023 in Udine.

The 2023 Summer School will consist of 40 hours of lectures, a workshop and a moot court. It aims to provide a comprehensive training on the legal discipline of consumer protection and market regulation in the European Union Law, with a particular reference to digital technologies, the following relevant aspects: consumer protection and empowerment; private international law; dispute resolution and redress; market regulation.

The call for application and the brochure are respectively available here and here.

The application deadline is 31 May 2023.

For further info, please write an email to ip.europeanlaw.uniud@gmail.com.

As announced on this blog, the IX Congress of Private International Law of the University Carlos III of Madrid will take place on 4 and 5 May 2023.

It will be devoted to the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood, presented by the European Commission on 7 December 2022.

The speakers include: Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo, Ilaria Pretelli, Estelle Gallant, Antonia Durán Ayago, María José Castellanos Ruiz, Aurora Hernández Rodríguez, Javier Carrascosa González, Asunción Cebrián Salvat, Isabel Lorente Martínez, Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, Emelina Santana Páez and Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca.

The programme and further information are available here.

Judge François Ancel (Cour de cassation) and Professor Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nice) are the editors of a book on the Respective Roles of (French) Courts and Parties in the Application of Choice of Law Rules (L’office du juge et la règle de conflit de lois).

The book collects the proceedings of a conference held at the Cour de cassation in May 2021.

A summary of the conference is available on the website of the court in French and in English.

The University of Urbino will host on 17 May 2023 a conference on the international aspects of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in a hybrid way.

The speakers include Marie-Elodie Ancel, Basile Darmois, Federico Ferri, Valère Ndior, Edoardo Alberto Rossi, Massimo Rubechi and Maria Isabel Torres Cazorla.

For registration and the full programme, see here.

For further info, write an email at edoardo.rossi@uniurb.it.

The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law (Swansea University) and UCL Centre for Commercial Law have joined forces to organise a day event on 19 April 2023 at the UCL Faculty of Laws in London. The conference is devoted to a very contemporary topic with the objective of generating debates that can inform policy making and future direction of law and regulation in the green transition of the shipping industry.

Session chairs include Michael Biltoo and Cathal Leigh-Doyle. The list of speakers includes Lia Amaxilati, Lia Athanasiou, Simon Baughen, Gabriel Castellanos, Grant Hunter, Jolien Kruit, Alicia Mackenzie, Aygun Mammadzada, Melis Ozdel, Tristan Smith, Sam Strivens, B. Soyer, Andrew Tettenborn, Vibe Garf Ulfbeck and Haris Zografakis.

For further info on the conference, and in order to book your place, see here.

As announced on this blog, a series of webinar has been organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analyzing the EU Parenthood Proposal to discuss the issues that surround the proposal of the European Commission for a Regulation dealing with the private international law of parenthood (COM (2022) 695 final).

Registrations are now open through the form available here.

Each webinar will start at 6 pm and end at 8 pm CEST, and will focus on two topics, each presented by one expert, who will discuss the content of the proposal and examine the questions and possible improvement it raises. There will be ample room for discussion.

The programme of the series is as follows:

  • 3 May 2023, webinar chaired by Claire Fenton-Glynn: The EU Proposal on Parenthood: lessons from comparative and substantive law (Jens Scherpe), and What’s in it? Subject matter, scope and definitions (Cristina González Beilfuss)
  • 10 May 2023, webinar chaired by Fabienne Jault-Seseke: The EU Proposal and primary EU law: a match made in heaven? (Susanne Gössl), and The law governing parenthood: are you my father? (Tobías Helms)
  • 17 May 2023, webinar chaired by Nadia Rustinova: The mutual recognition of decisions under the EU Proposal: much ado about nothing? (Alina Tryfonidou), and Who decides on parenthood? The rules of jurisdiction (Maria Caterina Baruffi)
  • 24 May 2023, webinar chaired by Steven Heylen: Authentic documents and parenthood: between recognition and acceptance (Patrick Wautelet), and The European certificate of Parenthood: a passport for parents and children? (Ilaria Pretelli)

The series of webinars is organized by Cristina González Beilfuss (Universitat de Barcelona), Susanne Gössl (Universität Bonn), Ilaria Pretelli (Institut Suisse de Droit Comparé), Tobias Helms (Universität Marburg) and Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège) under the auspices and with the support of EAPIL, the European Association of Private International Law.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required.

On 26 May 2023 the Center for the Future of Dispute Resolution (Ghent Univeristy) in collaboration with leading organizations, including ArbTech, Arbitrate.com, Cepani, Cepani40 CyberArb, MetaverseLegal, and UNCITRAL will bring together leading voices in technology and dispute resolution to discuss how blockchain, the metaverse and Web3 affects and will transform arbitration

The conference proposes five panels that will debate the impact of the blockchain, the metaverse and Web3 technologies on the fundamentals of arbitration and explore how arbitration practitioners and arbitration institutions have to adjust to stay relevant.

The blockchain, the Metaverse, and Web3 have become part of the conversation in the arbitration community, but few understand their true significance and potential impact. That is why this conference aims to explore how these technologies will transform arbitration and how practitioners and institutions can adapt to stay relevant.

The questions to be addressed are:

  • Blockchain: what is it and (why) should the arbitration community care?
  • Metaverse: what is it and (why) should the arbitration community care?
  • Bringing down the house: How a new architecture (may) affect the fundamentals of arbitration
  • A role and place for lawyers: Is the legal market prepared for this new dispute resolution constellation?
  • Arbitration institutions in an era of decentralized spaces: on the cutting edge (or falling off)?

Additionally, UNCITRAL will present its insights and work in the area of blockchain and arbitration.

The list of confirmed speakers includes Mihaela Apostel, Pedro Arcoverde, Elizabeth Chan, Paul Cohen, Dirk De Meulemeester, David Earnest, Elizabeth Zoe Everson, Anna Guillard Sazhko, Wendy Gonzales, Emily Hay, Cemre Kadioglu Kumptepe, Crenguta Leaua, Matthias Lehman, Niamh Leinwather, Aija Lejniece, Maud Piers, Colin Rule, Sean McCarthy, Sophie Nappert, Ekaterina Oger Grivnova, Pietro Ortolani, Amy Schmitz, Takashi Takashima, David Tebel, Leandro Toscano, and Dirk Van Gerven.

The conference will take place at Ghent University (Belgium). Additional details related to the event and the speakers can be found here.

For registration, information can be found here.

The European Commission has published in December 2022 an ambitious proposal for a new Regulation dealing with the private international law of parenthood (COM (2022) 695 final).

With this proposal, the EU could for the first time adopt a private international law instrument dealing with the creation (and not only the effects) of a family status. While both the CJEU and the ECtHR have somewhat limited the freedom enjoyed by States faced with parenthood established abroad, there is not yet any precedent of an international instrument dealing with all issues arising when parenthood crosses national borders.

The proposal is currently being discussed in the Council, with the assistance of the Commission. There is no guarantee that a Regulation will effectively be adopted. Nor is it possible to tell at this stage how much a future Regulation will deviate from the proposal.

The proposal raises, however, many intriguing questions which are likely to trigger an intense debate. It offers a unique opportunity to discuss the private international law treatment of parenthood with a special focus on the proposal.

During four sessions in May 2023, experts from various Member States will discuss the main elements of the proposal, find weaknesses and possibilities of improvement. Each webinar will start at 6 pm and end at 8 pm CEST, and focus on two topics, each presented by one expert, who will discuss the content of the proposal and examine the questions and possible improvement it raises. There will be ample room for discussion.

The programme of the series is as follows:

  • 3 May 2023, webinar chaired by Claire Fenton-Glynn: The EU Proposal on Parenthood: lessons from comparative and substantive law (Jens Scherpe), and What’s in it? Subject matter, scope and definitions (Cristina González Beilfuss)
  • 10 May 2023, webinar chaired by Fabienne Jault-Seseke: The EU Proposal and primary EU law: a match made in heaven? (Susanne Gössl), and The law governing parenthood: are you my father? (Tobías Helms)
  • 17 May 2023, webinar chaired by Nadia Rustinova: The mutual recognition of decisions under the EU Proposal: much ado about nothing? (Alina Tryfonidou), and Who decides on parenthood? The rules of jurisdiction (Maria Caterina Baruffi)
  • 24 May 2023, webinar chaired by Steven Heylen: Authentic documents and parenthood: between recognition and acceptance (Patrick Wautelet), and The European certificate of Parenthood: a passport for parents and children? (Ilaria Pretelli)

The series of webinars is organized by Cristina González Beilfuss (Universitat de Barcelona), Susanne Gössl (Universität Bonn), Ilaria Pretelli (Institut Suisse de Droit Comparé), Tobias Helms (Universität Marburg) and Patrick Wautelet (Université de Liège) under the auspices and with the support of EAPIL, the European Association of Private International Law.

A post on this blog will announce the opening of registrations in mid-April 2023 and provide further details.

For inquiries, please contact sgoessl@uni-bonn.de.

The issues surrounding the possible extension of the rules of jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation to non-EU domiciliaries will be discussed at a conference that will take place in Turin on 3 May 2023.

The topic formed the object of the third project of the EAPIL Young Research Network, which resulted in a collection of essays due to be published in the coming weeks by Bloosmbury. One of the purposes of the Turin conference is to present the results of that project.

Speakers include Marisa Attollino, Silvia Bortolotti, Raffaele Caterina, Stefano Dominelli, Pietro Franzina, Enrico Maggiora, Ennio Piovesani, Margherita Salvadori and Dora Zgrabljić Rotar.

The conference will be held mostly in Italian. Both on-site and on-line attendance are possible. Those wishing to attend remotely should write to Ennio Piovesani at ennio.piovesani@unito.it.

For further information see here.

A conference on the codification of European private international law will take place on 21 April 2023 at the Université Catholique de Louvain. The conference, titled Vers un code Européen de droit international privé, is meant to be a tribute to Marc Fallon.

The working language will be French and English.

Speakers and moderators include: Jean-Yves Carlier, Stéphanie Francq, Pietro Franzina, Cristina González Beilfuss, Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Thomas Kadner Graziano, Catherine Kessedjian, Patrick Kinsch, Thalia Kruger, Paul Lagarde, Johan Meeusen, Marie-Laure Niboyet, Etienne Pataut, Fausto Pocar, Sylvie Sarolea, Andreas Stein, Jinske Verhellen, Pieter-Augustijn Van Malleghem, Melchior Wathelet, Patrick Wautelet, Alain Wijffels, Dai Yokomizo. The concluding remarks will be offered by Marc Fallon.

The concept is as follows.

Why and for what purpose should European private international law be codified? This twofold question will be at the heart of the discussions on April 21, 2023, during a colloquium paying tribute to the remarkable work of Professor Marc Fallon in the fields of private international law and European law, and in particular to his involvement in the Belgian and European codification of private international law.

How did we come to envisage a European codification of private international law? What do we expect from it? Does an EU codification have the same ambitions as national codifications? Do these ambitions not vary according to the place, the time and the context of international constraints imposed on the legislator? Does a codification at the European level, and at the present time, imply specific needs, challenges and consequences, even dangers, for both the national and the European legal orders?

And above all, does it offer new prospects or hopes for the European project and for the discipline of private international law?

The full programme is available here, together with the registration form.

As already announced on this blog, the University of Bonn will host a two-day conference titled The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook, 9 and 10 June 2023.

The event, organised in cooperation with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, is meant to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, and to assess its possible implications in various regions of the world.

Opened by welcome addresses by Matthias Weller (University of Bonn) and Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), the conference will feature panels  moderated by Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, nd Melissa Ford. Speakers include Xandra Kramer, Wolfgang Hau, Pietro Franzina, Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, Cristina Mariottini, Paul Beaumont, Andreas Stein, Linda J. Silberman, Geneviève Saumier, Ilija Rumenov, Burkhard Hess, Béligh Elbalti, Abubakri Yekini, Chukwuma Okoli, Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Adeline Chong, Zheng (Sophia) Tang, Ning Zhao, José Angelo Estrella-Faria, and Hans van Loon.

Registrations are still open. Those willing to attend are invited to write an e-mail to sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de.

The full programme, together with information concerning the registration fees and other practical aspects, can be found here. See also the conference poster here.

A collection of essays on the Judgments Convention, written by the experts involved in the conference, is due to be published by Bloosmbury in May 2023.

 

It has already been announced on this blog that a conference on The Law of Treaties as Applied to Private International Law is set to take place in Milan, on 5 and 6 May 2023, under the auspices of SIDI, the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law, and EAPIL.

The early bird period, which was initially meant to end on 6 March, has been extended until 20 March 2023. Those registering before the latter date will benefit from a discounted registration fee of 80 Euros (further reduced to 50 Euros for PhD students and those who earned their PhD over the last few weeks).

For more information, and the registration form, see here.

On 13 April 2023, the University Paris Dauphine will host a conference on State Immunity from Enforcement (L’immunité d’exécution de l’Etat).

The conference will be divided in four parts. The first will discuss the interaction of the various sources of the immunity from enforcement. The second will discuss the influence of human rights and arbitration. The third part will be a round table offering comparative insights from England, Italy and Canada. Finally, the fourth part will discuss the scope of the immunity, with a panel composed of academics and a second panel composed of judges and practitioners.

Speakers will include Philippe Thery, Catherine Kessedjian, Louis Perreau Perreau-Saussine, Juliette Morel-Maroger, Sophie Lemaire, Arnaud De Nanteuil, Louis d’Avout, Duncan Fairgrieve, David Pavot, Mathias Audit, Jérôme Chacornac, Helene Tissandier, Etienne Farnoux, Renaud Salomon, Jérôme Ortscheidt, Guillaume Tapie,  Victor Grandaubert, Francoise Moneger, Gilles Cuniberti, Fabrizio Marrella and Jacques Alexandre Genet.

The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The conference will be held in the context of the 150th anniversary of the International Law Association.

Participation is free, but registration is compulsory.

The INSOL Europe Academic Forum (IEAF) is inviting submission for its 19th annual conference, taking place on 11-12 October 2023 in Amsterdam. Expressions of interest are invited for the delivery of research papers within the overall theme of the academic conference The Perpetual Renewal of European Insolvency Law.

Submissions are welcome dealing, for instance, with (i) Public and social policy and the impact on corporate rescue, and vice versa, (ii) Pre-packs rehabilitated, (iii) Modern issues surrounding directors’ duties to file for insolvency and (iv) EU Preventive Restructuring Directive and European Insolvency Regulation.

Expressions of interest in delivering a paper should be sent by email on or before 1 March 2023 to the IEAF’s Deputy Chair, Dr. Jennifer Gant, at jenniferl.l.gant@gmail.com by using the form available here.

The call for papers is available here. For further information on the conference, see here.

This post has been written by Silvana Canales Gutiérrez, who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Rovira i Virgili University (Tarragona).


The “First International Seminar on rights in rem in the European Union: General Aspects and International Jurisdiction”, directed by Georgina Garriga (Universitat de Barcelona) and Maria Font (Universitat Rovira i Virgili), took place at the Faculty of Legal Sciences of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, on 10 and 11 November 2022.

The conference focused on rights in rem, approached from the standpoint of EU private international law (EUPIL) and comparative law, trying to identify the problematic aspects of the “in rem” qualification under the regulatory instruments applicable in the EU (mainly, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012), as well as under Spanish domestic law, owing to the plurilegislative nature of its legal system.

A. The Contents of Rights in Rem from a Comparative Law Perspective

The conference was permeated by an analytical and comparative approach that began with the presentation by Héctor Simón Moreno (Universitat Rovira i Virgili) on “Rights In Rem in Europe: A Comparative Perspective”.  The speaker explained the essential differences in the conception of rights in rem existing in common law and civil law legal systems. He argued that these differences affect the dimension of these rights and directly influence their material content, as well as the ways of acquiring, transmitting, or losing these rights, their effects on third parties and the legal actions for claiming them, which can change from system to system.

In the same line of thought, Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) pointed to the difficulties in delineating rights in rem in the EU legal order. These difficulties stem from the uncertainties that surround the definition and the terminology relating to this subject-matter both in the normative instruments and in the case law of the EU. However, the speaker deemed it possible to identify certain “key points” of rights in rem, such as the right of ownership and their enforceability against third parties. It is even possible to shape a relatively consistent general definition of rights in rem: although such exact definition cannot be directly extracted from normative texts, it is possible to identify the essential attributes of these rights, that could help in their characterization.

Eva-Maria Kieninger (Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg), addressed the traditional distinction between rights in rem on movable and immovable property. The speaker explained that the general idea of rights in rem existing only on immovable property can also be extended to movable property, through a legal fiction which portrays them not only as an accessory, but also as an integral part of a piece of land. In this regard, the speaker gave the example of solar panels: according to Dutch case law, if their vocation is to remain in the real estate, they can change their status of movable property and become part of the land where they are located. However, the criterion to determine the legal conversion of movable property into real estate presents difficulties in the EU, taking into account that there are neither proposals for unification of the Member States’ land laws, nor domestic proposals within each State to define or regulate such conversion. To solve this legal vacuum at a global level, UNIDROIT developed a proposal for a convention that was adopted in 2019, the “Protocol to the convention on international interests in mobile equipment on matters specific to mining, agricultural and construction equipment” (MAC protocols), which, as of 20 September 2022, has only been signed by six countries and has been ratified by none.

B. The Contents of Rights in Rem in Plurilegislative Legal Systems

From a comparative perspective, rights in rem can be regulated in different ways, especially when dealing with plurilegislative legal systems. This premise was developed by Ángel Serrano Nicolás (Notary in Barcelona), who presented a comparative analysis of the different legal systems coexisting in Spain to regulate rights in rem. In particular, he explained the differences between the Spanish Civil Code and the foral civil regulations of Catalonia, the Basque Country and Navarra, in relation to legal institutions such as usucapio, surface rights, easements, the right of withdrawal and first refusal, and the right of use and habitation, among others.

In the same line of argument, but from a conflict-of-laws perspective, Albert Font i Segura (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) highlighted the exclusive competence of the State in registry matters. This exclusive competence unifies the access, publicity and regulation of rights in rem, facilitating their homogeneity of treatment despite the diversity existing in the Spanish civil regulations. This diversity impacts, in particular, on the regulation of inter-local conflicts (Basque Country), on the administrative control of the registry qualification, on procedural legislation and on the guarantees of the rights in rem. The application of one regulation or another is not easy to establish and this problem cannot always be avoided by means of an agreement on the applicable law. These legal frictions create an inter-regional conflict of laws that is at least debatable, and which has been the subject of decisions by the Constitutional Court on several occasions.

The analysis of the current situation of rights in rem within this panel revealed that there are different ways of conceiving their constituent elements. At the same time, it is not possible to say that there are currently new rights in rem, which are excluded from the applicable regulations, even where they involve electronic contracting with innvoative elements, such as transactions with cryptocurrencies or 3D property rights.

C. International Jurisdiction

Moving on to the subject of international jurisdiction, specifically on Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, the remaining speakers analyzed the most important aspects of this Regulation, pointing to the problems of application of certain of its articles, the alternative interpretations of some of its provisions and, in some cases, making proposals on how to improve its wording or application to meet its objectives in the light of the new challenges facing EUPIL.

Ilaria Pretelli (Institut Suisse de Droit Comparé) began by explaining that the maxim forum rei sitae applies when it comes to actions related to determining the extent, content, ownership or possession of property. This classic relationship between jurisdiction and the place where the property is located is justified by the fact that, for evidentiary purposes, it is necessary to carry out verifications, investigations and expert opinions in the place where the property is located, provided that the claim involves an assessment strictly linked to such place, in accordance with the doctrine developed by the CJEU. However, as regards mixed actions, these may generate a conflict of jurisdictions when they involve a personal right and a right in rem, taking into account that these actions are predominantly in personam. The fact that the contract in dispute concerns immovable property is irrelevant, the immovable nature of the subject matter of the contract being of marginal importance only (e.g. Case C-417/15). This being so, it may be necessary to reconsider the applicability of the forum rei sitae rule in cases where the main object of the action is the claim of a personal right and not of a right in rem.

Ivana Kunda (University of Rijeka) gave an interesting explanation on the recovery of cultural objects under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012. The speaker explained that cultural objects have a special protection, as they are part of the heritage and history of mankind, which means that they do not theoretically belong to a State, but are goods of interest to the society as a whole. Taking the above into consideration, art. 7.4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, whose intention is to protect cultural objects located in the Member States by establishing a specific forum to recover them, has a limitation that is not in line with the objectives of the special protection needed by  this type of property. In fact, this provision requires both the defendant and the cultural object to be located in the Member States for the Regulation to be applicable. The speaker proposed a change of this provision, modeled on other RBIbis protective fora, in which the defendant is not required to be domiciled in the Member States in order to be sued in the EU. This same model could be replicated for Art. 7.4 of the Regulation.

Cristina González Beilfuss (Universitat de Barcelona) focused on the problematic assimilation (for civil law) of the trust. In English and Anglo-American law, it is not clear whether the trust is a right in rem: while being included within the property right, there is a split between the rights of the beneficiary and those of the trustee. In contrast, in civil law, the property right is absolute, which makes it necessary to adapt the trust. These different understandings of the trust in civil and common law systems have an impact on the determination of international jurisdiction, since it must be established whether it is an action related to a  right in rem, or whether the subject matter of the claim falls under the scope of personal rights. This distinction affects the determination of the forum (Articles 7 and 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012). Additionally, other interpretative doubts arise, concerning, for example, the lack of uniformity and the difficulties in determining the domicile of the trust, or the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 to testamentary trusts (considering that wills are excluded from the scope of application of the Regulation).

Carmen Parra Rodríguez (Universitat Abat Oliba CEU) put forth a proposal for improving Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 as concerns rights in rem over movable property. The speaker remarked that the concept of movable property is not defined in this Regulation, which does not contemplate a specific forum in this respect. Due to this, there are proposals that regard the forum rei sitae as a potential alternative for actions involving movable property, although the mobility of such assets generally makes it difficult to definitively determine the place where they are located. Thus, other fora may be more appropriate to the nature of movable property, such as the defendant’s domicile, the place where the property is registered, the court with the closest ties, or determining jurisdiction by express or implied submission.

Josep Maria Fontanellas Morell (Universitat de Lleida), argued for a relaxation of the exclusive forum of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012. The speaker argued, on the one hand, that the qualification adopted by the CJEU in this respect needs clarification, insofar as it should better delimit the category to distinguish it from other adjacent ones, such as contractual obligations or delictual or quasi-delictual matters. On the other hand, the arguments that justified, at the time, the creation of an exclusive forum should be reconsidered, as they have now partly lost their raison d’être.

D. Future Events

The ideas put forward in the Seminar are the beginning of a debate on the Private International Law of rights in rem, which will continue in the near future. Two other events (open to the general public) on this same subject are scheduled: the first is especially devoted to the perspective of the Spanish and European notary’s office and it will be held (in Spanish) on 13 and 14 June 2023 at the College of Notaries of Catalonia (Barcelona, Spain). The second will be focused on a future instrument on the law applicable to rights in rem. It will take place in 2024 at the University of Barcelona and it will be held entirely in English.

A conference on The Law of Treaties as Applied to Private International Law is scheduled to take place in Milan on 5 and 6 May 2023, under the auspices of the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law (SIDI) and the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL).

The conference will be opened by two general presentations. Catherine Brölmann (University of Amsterdam) will present the rules of public international law relating to treaties and discuss the manner in which, and the extent to which, they can reflect the specificities of the subject-matter of the treaty concerned. Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg) will outline the relevance of the law of treaties to the development and implementation of international conventions in the field of private international law.

Five thematic panels will follow, each featuring a discussion between experts in the law of treaties and speakers familiar with the practice relating to private international law treaties, respectively.

The first panel, on The conclusion and entry into force of private international law treaties, will be chaired by Hans Van Loon (former Secretary-General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law). The discussion will involve Jean-Marc Thouvenin (University of Paris Nanterre; Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law) and Antonio Leandro (University of Bari).

The second panel, chaired by Sergio Carbone (University of Genova, Emeritus), will be devoted to The observance, application and interpretation of private international law treaties. Luigi Crema (University of Milan), Pedro De Miguel Asensio (Complutense University of Madrid) and Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) will speak on the topic.

The third panel will be about The amendment and succession of private international law treaties: Catherine Kessedjian (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Emerita) will moderate a discussion between Jan Wouters (KU Leuven) and Andrea Schulz (German Federal Ministry of Justice).

Burkhard Hess (Director of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law) will chair the fourth panel, on The management of conflicts between private international law treaties, with Jan Klabbers (University of Helsinki, TBC) and Alex Mills (University College London) as speakers.

Finally, with Etienne Pataut (University Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne) chairing, Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary University of London), Chiara Tuo (University of Genova) and Zeno Crespi Reghizzi (University of Milan) will discuss issues in connection with Avoiding, exiting and litigating commitments arising from private international law treaties.

A roundtable on The role of IGOs in the elaboration, implementation and coordination of private international law treaties, chaired by Fausto Pocar (University of Milan, Emeritus), will follow. Participants will include: Nicolas Nord (Secretary-General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Andreas Stein (Head of Unit (Civil Justice) at the European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers – Civil and commercial justice), Ignacio Tirado (Secretary-General of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit), and Luca Castellani (Secretary of Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce) – Uncitral).

The conference, which will also feature a key-note speech by Maciej Szpunar (Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union, TBC), will be closed by remarks by Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan).

The conference is organised by a scientific committee consisting of Stefania Bariatti, Giacomo Biagioni, Pietro Franzina and Lorenzo Schiano di Pepe, and will take place at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart.

The full programme can be found here, together with additional practical information. Those wishing to attend must fill in the registration form available here. Early bird rates are offered to those registering before 6 March 2023.

For further information, please write an e-mail to: pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

As announced on this blog, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, in Milan, will host, on 3 March 2023, a conference on the operation of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure, in light of practice and case law.

The working languages of the conference will be English and Italian, with simultaneous interpretation.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required. The registration form can be found here.

Speakers include Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Elena D’Alessandro (University of Torino), Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University, Madrid), Katharina Lugani (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari), Raffaella Muroni (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart), Elena Alina Ontanu (Tilburg University), Carlos Santalò Goris (Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg), María Luisa Villamarín López (Complutense University, Madrid), and Caterina Benini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart).

The conference will also offer an opportunity to present an article-by-article commentary of the EAPO Regulation, edited by Elena D’Alessandro and Fernando Gascón Inchausti, recently published by Edward Elgar in its Commentaries in Private International Law series. Augusto Chizzini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Luca Radicati di Brozolo (formerly professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, now partner at ArbLit, Milan) will exchange views on this work.

The full programme of the conference is available, with additional details, on the event’s dedicated website.

On 20 January 2023, the University of Strasbourg will host a conference on the private international law aspects of the Digital Market Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) organised by Etienne Farnoux, Nicolas Gillet, Kansu Okyay and Delphine Porcheron.

This conference is structured in two parts. The first part will be dedicated to general presentation of the new regulations. The second will address specific topics in private international law.

Speakers include Frédérique Berrod, Stéphanie Carre, Tobias Lutzi, Yves El Hage and Nurten Kansu Okyay.

The conference will be held both in site and online. The full program and details about the location and registration can be found here.

The University of Coimbra will host, on 27 and 28 January 2023, a conference in English on the Brussels II ter Regulation.

The speakers include Antonio Fialho, Cristina González Beilfuss, Dário Moura Vicente, Geraldo Rocha, João Gomes de Almeida, Maria dos Prazeres Beleza, Paula Távora Vitor, Philippe Lortie, Pietro Franzina, Rosa Lima Teixeira, and Samuel Fulli-Lemaire.

Chandra Gracias, Dulce Lopes, Helena Mota, Rui Dias and Rui Moura Ramos will serve as discussants.

For further information, including the full programme, see here.

The Young Property Lawyers’ Forum (YPLF) invites junior researchers to submit proposals for presentations given at its 12th annual meeting, to take place at the European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Germany, on 1 and 2 June 2023.

The theme of this year’s conference is Property Law and Its Boundaries and it can be dealt with from a wide range of perspectives, including but not limited to, doctrinal, theoretical, and comparative. Topics can cover, e.g., core areas of property law doctrine, intellectual property, or property law’s intersections with environmental law, family law, criminal law, administrative law, etc.

Junior researchers (graduate level up to 5 years after conferral of doctoral degree) are invited to submit abstracts of presentations to be given at the conference. Abstracts can be of completed (but unpublished) drafts and, in keeping with the YPLF’s mission as an informal network to exchange ideas, abstracts on works in progress are encouraged.

Abstracts should be sent via email to yplf@yplf.net by 1 February 2023.

The call for papers can be found here. For more information on the conference, see here.

Almost six years have passed since 18 January 2017, when Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters became applicable in full.

A conference will be held in Milan, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, on 3 March 2023, from 9.45 to 17, to discuss the operation of the EAPO Regulation in light of practice and case law.

Speakers include Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Elena D’Alessandro (University of Torino), Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University, Madrid), Katharina Lugani (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari), Raffaella Muroni (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart), Elena Alina Ontanu (Tilburg University), Carlos Santalò Goris (Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg), María Luisa Villamarín López (Complutense University, Madrid), and Caterina Benini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart).

The conference will also offer an opportunity to present an article-by-article commentary of the EAPO Regulation, edited by Elena D’Alessandro and Fernando Gascón Inchausti, recently published by Edward Elgar in its Commentaries in Private International Law series. Augusto Chizzini (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Luca Radicati di Brozolo (former professor of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, now partner at ArbLit, Milan) will exchange views on this work.

Some of the presentations will be delivered in English, others in Italian, with simultaneous interpretation.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required. Details regarding registration will be provided in early January 2023, together with the detailed programme of the event.

For information, please write an e-mail to Pietro Franzina at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The programme for the fourth German Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law has been released.

The conference will be held at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna, 23-24 February 2023.

The speakers will present papers in German and English on different aspects of the general topic “Deference to the foreign – empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?”.

The keynote speech will be delivered by Professor Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po) and a panel discussion will provide practical insights.

Please register here in order to participate. Attendance will be in-person only, free of charge. The organisers can be contacted at ipr@sfu.ac.at.

As announced on this blog, the 9th Journal of Private International Law conference will be hosted by the Yong Pung School of Law, Singapore Management University from 3 to 5 August 2023.

A reminder that the deadline to submit abstracts is Friday 16 December 2022 at jpil2023@smu.edu.sg. The Call for Papers is available here.

More information on the conference and the related registration can be found here.

As announced in an earlier post, the International Law Association will celebrate its 150 anniversary next year through a number of events.

The celebration will start with an inaugural conference which will take place on line on 12 January 2023 and will discuss the role of parliaments in the creation of International Law so that to increase its legitimacy.

Throughout 2023, webinars will be organised on a variety of topics, including Democracy, Governance, Digital challenges, Civil Status, Anthropocene, Taxation and many others. Each of these webinars is prepared by a White Paper, which will be the focus of the webinar. Members of the public are invited to review the White Papers and comment on them until 31 December 2022 or 31 January 2023.

The organisation has already issued 10 Newsletters, which can be found here.

The programme of the webinars is available here. The White Papers can be accessed here. Registration for these events can be made here.

The Research Group on Private International Law of the University of Silesia (Poland) organizes a conference titled Ukraine-Poland. The Choice of Law Aspects of War and Forced Displacement.

The event will be held on 8 December 2022 from 9:00 – 17:30, in a hybrid formula: at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Silesia in Katowice and online. It will focus on personal, family, inheritance matters. The detailed conference program is available here.

Those interested in attending are must register via an online form. Online participation in the conference is free of charge. The conference will be held in Polish, Ukrainian and English.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2023.

The course will be opened by Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University) with a lecture on Women’s Rights in a World in Transition: The Challenges of Private International Law.

The general course, titled Responses to a Legally Fragmented World: A Private Law Perspective, will be given by Francisco Garcimartín (Autonomous University of Madrid).

The special courses will be as follows: Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité), Tortious Liability in Contemporary Private International Law; Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna), Crypto Economy and International Law;  Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga (New York University – School of Law), Evidence-Gathering, Transparency, and Risk Assessment in International Commercial Arbitration; Anselmo Reyes (Singapore International Commercial Court), The Use of Domestic Law to Regulate the Conduct of Individuals, Corporations and Governments Extra-Territorially; Geneviève Saumier (McGill University), Specialised National Courts and International Business Disputes;  Maja Stanivuković (University of Novi Sad), Property Rights of Individuals After Changes of Territorial Sovereignty.

The directors of studies will be Philippa Webb (King’s College London) and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) for the English-speaking section, Lucie Delabie (Université de Picardie Jules Verne) and Malik Laazouzi (Université Paris 2 – Panthéon-Assas) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee, scholarship, doctoral scholarship and Directed Studies applicants is between 1 November 2022 and 31 January 2023. Attendees will also be able to participate in the doctoral networking sessions coordinated by Vaios Koutroulis (Univesité libre de Bruxelles) and Alexia Pato (University of Girona), additional afternoon lectures, embassy visits and other social activities.

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

Prompted by a kind invitation to participate in the International Weekend  of ABILA (American Branch of the International Law Association, NY, 20-22 October 2022), I took a moment to reflect about past achievements and future challenges for private international law (PIL) in the European Union.

We were three speakers in the panel (Karin Kizer and David W. Rivkin  also took part), introduced and moderated by Ronald A. Brand, Michael S. Coffee and Louise Ellen Teitz. The description of the panel read:

This panel will focus on the institutions, players, and issues that are important in the global development of rules of private international law. The panelists will include a global representation of institutional and practitioner perspectives. The discussion will be built around a set of questions dealing with both current practical issues raised by private international law developments and projections for the future.

We were asked to include arbitration in the presentations.

The assignment proved not easy. I confess I got stuck at the very first stage, i.e., how to define ‘achievements’ and ‘challenges’ in PIL: are they different when the ‘PIL’ under examination is of European source?  I guess the answer is that, indeed, EU instruments and case law (of the Court of Justice) in PIL exist as part of a bigger plan: they serve European integration. By way of consequence, assessing PIL developments requires evaluating whether they promote integration or, on the contrary, act as a hindrance to it.

The next question would then be what ‘integration’ entails, how to measure recent PIL contributions of the EU legislature and of the Court thereto, and what future challenges to integration, posed specifically in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and judicial matters, can be predicted at this stage.

As fascinating as (for instance) the impact on mutual trust of the threats to courts and judges’ independence in some EU countries may be, or whether imposing informational obligations to the Member States creates more transparency or is rather counterproductive, upon reflection a pure ‘European-integration’ approach seemed unfit for the purposes of the ABILA invitation. I gave it up; the topic may still be worth for further thought in another context. Considering the likely (American) audience attending the ILW of ABILA, a walk through the latest developments in EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice looked more appropriate – and already proved too much for the time I had .

From this point of departure, I was happy to report that the political attention to judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters has not declined in the last years. The legislature has obliged adopting new regulations (Regulation 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes; Regulation 2016/1104 on the property consequences of registered partnerships), amending  existing ones (Regulation 2015/2421 amending the Regulations on the small claims and the order for payment procedures), and also recasting some (Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings; Regulation 2019/1111 on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility; Regulation 2020/1783 on taking of evidence; Regulation 2020/1784 of the European Parliament on service of documents).

Indeed, most of the legislative activity of the last decade in the field of PIL is inward-looking. It focuses on strengthening judicial cooperation in the ‘inner circle’ composed of Member States: the task is far from being complete.

From a purely legal (as opposed to political) standpoint, a little bit more surprising is that in some legal instruments a concern for the EU-citizens is made explicit, even where the rules at hand would apply almost equally to non-EU-rooted claimants or defendants: see recital 1 of Regulation 2019/1111; or recitals 8, 32 or 35 of Regulation 2016/1103.

In comparison, the outward-looking activity of the EU lawmaker remains restricted. That is not to say that it has not progressed, both in quantity (meaning, accession to international conventions on PIL, as well as decisions on acceptance of accession of other countries), and in approach. When adopting new legal acts, in addition to resorting to laconic compatibility clauses, the EU legislature keeps an eye on being consistent with existing international conventions: Regulation 2019/1111 is a proof. A wish for judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters appears in (some) agreements of a general scope, such as the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part, in force since 22 October 2022: see its Article 32, comprising a specific mention to facilitating and encouraging the arbitral resolution of international civil and private commercial disputes.

That attention has been given to the civil prong of the European area of justice must be taken as good news.

Visiting the EU Parliament Legislative Train Schedule, the future looks not so promising. And yet there is much to do. There is definitely no PIL legislative overproduction in the Union; however, already with what exist it is easy to get lost.

One of the greatest difficulties in presenting European PIL as a true system to a third-State audience derives from the asymmetries of the instruments as regards geographical scope. The fact that there are several ‘Europes’ in Europe does not only impact on the practical manageability of the rules; it also jeopardizes declared valuable objectives, such as the concentration of closely related claims before the courts of a single Member State. This puzzling situation resulting from a variety of political motives affects above all family matters (in a large sense), but not only. The state of affairs is not likely to change any soon. For the future, the lawmaker should at least take care of making it visible. Sometimes he already does: because of the particular position of Denmark, Article 122, para 3, of the 2017 EU Trademark Regulation clarifies that reference to the Brussels regulation shall include, where appropriate, the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark. Sometimes he does not: a provision similar to the one just referred to is missing in the GDPR.

Moving to the rules themselves, the newest ones on jurisdiction show an increasing degree of sophistication.

To ABILA I mentioned, by way of example, the provisions allowing for the limitation of proceedings (ad. ex., Article 13 of Regulation 2016/1103), which I see as a ‘distant cousin’ of the forum non conveniens doctrine. I also described the EU fora as being predictable, an assertion which was met with some skepticism in the panel. It is understandable. On paper, all grounds for jurisdiction in the European instruments obey to typical values (certainty, proximity) and reflect the outcome of balances (between the right of access to court of the claimant, and the right to a due process of defendant, with the necessary bias to protect one of the parties or to promote a particular substantive policy, as the case may be). In practice, reality beats the imagination of the legislator and puts the system continuously to a test.

Faced with a problem common to all legal systems, what still makes the European Union unique is the preliminary ruling mechanism (beyond the rightness or wrongfulness of the rulings: the Court can’t please everyone). Its very existence opens up the possibility of reacting to changes uniformly and in a relative short time. When requested by a national jurisdiction, no matter whether first instance, first or second appeal, the Court of Justice’s intervention to adjust the written rules or to shed light on their limits is not a choice – no certiorari.

In civil and commercial matters, the prototypical example of a need for constant adaptation are torts in the internet. Strings of requests for preliminary rulings get to Luxembourg based on variations of very similar facts, pushing the task of the Court of Justice to the verge of the distinction between interpretation and application of the European rules (see C-172/18, AMS Neve, and C-104/22, Lännen, as an example). That the workload of the Court does not decrease, but just the opposite, is to me a sign of trust and of good health of the system, thus an achievement.

In the area of enforcement there is much pending. The big European accomplishments in the last years remain confined to the free movement of titles from and to Member States. The (partial) abolition of exequatur, the possibility to ask for a European account preservation order, the availability of certificates and standards forms to  ease and speed the application for enforcement in a country other than that of delivery of the judgement… benefit Member States’ decisions.

Creditors should be aware that the recent ruling of the Court of Justice in C-568/20, H Limited, does not open wide a door to titles from third States. In my reading of the Court’s decision (which may be wrong), the Brussels I bis Regulation is still limited to the recognition and enforcement in a Member State of decisions of other Member States. It applies, after a foreign judgement has been recognized, to the steps following said recognition, such as an order for payment (if adopted in full compliance with the conditions set forth in the EU regime). The entry into force of the 2019 Hague Convention, when it takes place, will ease the enforcement of non-European titles only to some extent. No doubt there is room for improvement.

Finally, there was, of course, arbitration. In the panel, the discussion revolved around arbitration in the aftermath of the Achmea (C-284/16) and Komstroy (C-741/19) rulings.

I fail to see a difference for commercial arbitration in the pre- and post-Achmea scenarios (in this line, para 54 of C-284/16, resumed in C-741/19): at least, in theory. In any event, decisions such as C-700/20, London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association and earlier ones indicate that the main game is played elsewhere.

Among the many doctrinal suggestions for the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation some focus on arbitration. Personally, I doubt the Commission wants to engage once again in the debate. Whatever the outcome of the ongoing revision of the Regulation, I presume Article 73, para 2, will remain. If this is so, a general line of reasoning of the Court regarding compatibility clauses is worth recalling: said clauses ‘cannot have a purport that conflicts with the principles underlying the legislation of which [they are] part’ (C‑533/08, TNT Express Nederland, at 51, and C- 452/12, Nipponkoa, at 37, on the relationship of the Brussels regime and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)). Difficult to imagine that Article 73 could constitute an exception in this regard, or the reasons why.

I did not have the time to present these thoughts in detail, nor other reflections regarding, among other, conflict of law rules. In exchange, I had the pleasure to listen to my two co-panelists on developments in the US and, quite intensively, in the already mentioned concerns of the arbitration world. A summary by S. Labi can be found in Oil-Gas-Energy-Mining-Infrastructure Dispute Management (OGEMID).

The author of this post is Michele Casi, Post-doc, DILHPS Università degli Studi di Milano, and researcher involved in the EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) project.


The Final Conference of the EFFORTS Project (JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802) took place on 30 September 2022 at the Sala Napoleonica of the Università degli Studi di Milano. More than 160 participants attended the Conference, either online and in presence.

Francesca Villata, Coordinator of the Project, opened the conference by outlining the scope, the objectives, and the results of the EFFORTS Project.

The challenges that the EFFORTS Project has aimed at addressing include gaps and divergences in Member States implementing legislation and enforcement procedures, the lack of transparency in the overall system of cross-border enforcement, the lack of (mutual) trust, and the limited use of the EFFORTS Regulations. The objectives of the Project have been tackled by dialoguing with operators, sharing good practices, drafting analytical activities and testing the outcomes, with the help of the Academic Advisory Board, the Stakeholders Cross-Border Committee, the National Working Groups and a Professional Evaluator.

At its core, the Project has produced a wide variety of outputs that:

(i) identify the difficulties users encounter and how the practice is addressing them (seven Reports on national implementing rules, seven Reports on national case-law, seven National Exchange Seminars, one International Exchange Seminar, one Report on practices in comparative and cross-border perspective, and one Report on the digitalization of the enforcement procedures and of cross-border cooperation);

(ii) provide support and guidance (Bilingual Practice Guides for the application of the EFFORTS Regulations in the targeted Member States, complemented by Annexes on national enforcement procedures, for a total of 35 Guides and seven Annexes, seven Policy Recommendations for national legislators and one EU Policy Guidelines); and

(iii) spread awareness, knowledge and trust (see further the Project’s website, the Project LinkedIn and Facebook accounts, the Final Conference, the Final Study (soon available on the website) and the EFFORTS Network).

The presentations of the Final Conference were divided into three panels, respectively chaired by Ilaria Viarengo (Director of the Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies of the Università degli Studi di Milano), Burkhard Hess (Director of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law), and Fausto Pocar, (Emeritus of International Law, Private International Law and European Law at the Università degli Studi di Milano).

During the conference, the speakers discussed a wide variety of topics relating to the cross-border enforcement of claims in civil and commercial matters within the EU, concerning the EFFORTS Regulations – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 on the European Enforcement Order (EEO), Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 on the European Payment Order (EOP), Regulation (EC) 861/2007 on the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP), and Regulation (EU) 655/2014 on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) – such as: the certification of judgments, the effectiveness of the regulations on cross-border enforcement and national implementing rules, the suspension of the enforcement proceedings under the Regulations, the digitalization of cross-border enforcement procedures, cross-border provisional measures and the European Account Preservation Order, policy options for the re-drafting of the EFFORTS Regulations, and many others.

The discussion benefited from the interaction between national legislators, judges, lawyers, academics, in-house counsels, notaries and enforcing agents, showing once again the EFFORTS Project’s practice-driven approach and the interest of various professionals. In fact, to give one example, during the final debate the case of a lawyer working in the field of commercial cross-border transactions was brought up. The case concerned the payment of invoices, and the lawyer would advise his client to proceed in obtaining an Italian decreto ingiuntivo di pagamento rather than using the EOP procedure. According to the discussion, the Italian order for payment would be more convenient considering that the procedure is more familiar to practitioners and could be later certified for enforcement under one of the other EFFORTS Regulations (under Article 53 Brussles I-bis or as an EEO).

This observation meets, at its core, one of the issues that have been discussed amongst the EFFORTS research groups, and has been reflected in the EFFORTS EU Policy Guidelines: i.e. the differentiation among the existing Regulations. In order to expand ‘the role of uniform European procedures in this area of the law‘, it has been observed, ‘domestic orders for payment procedures would need to be excluded from the scope of the BI bis (n.n. Brussels I bis) and EEO Regulations – a solution which would at the same time reduce the difficulties related to the existence of a wide variety of simplified procedures across the different Member States and encourage economic operators to turn themselves to the EPO and the ESCP‘ (page 28 of the Report). This has further confirmed the practice-driven approach that has shaped the EFFORTS Project’s objectives and results during its implementation.

The activities of the conference lasted the entire day and included several presentations as well as formal and informal discussions and Q&A from the participants, showing that the topics presented at the Conference have captured the attention and the interest of the public.

The contents extensively discussed at the Final Conference will be reflected in the upcoming and conclusive deliverables of the Project: the EU and national Policy Recommendations and the Final Study, soon to be published on the Project’s website.

On Friday, 2 December 2022, at 4 pm, EAPIL will hold an online seminar on the Rome II Regulation.

The seminar will shed light on the Study that was prepared in 2021 by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) in consortium with Civic Consulting to support
the preparation of the report on the application of the Rome II
Regulation.

The speakers will be: Eva Lein (BIICL / University of Lausanne), Constance Bonzé (BIICL), Xandra Kramer (University of Rotterdam), Martin Ebers (University of Tartu), Marie Louise Kinsler (2 Temple Gardens, London).

More information (including a detailed program and registration
information) will be made public on this blog in November.

Between 24 and 27 October 2022, an international congress on the impacts of the war in Ukraine will take place at the University of Barcelona, organized by Cristina González Beilfuss and Xabier Fernández Pons.

On the face of the program, it looks as if most of the interventions are devoted to public law-related aspects of the war. There is nevertheless an open call for papers which may be taken up to present a couple of specific private law problems likely (unfortunately) to result from the war.

In a wider perspective, the event may be an occasion to reflect on cross-border cooperation in civil and commercial matters, family and successions included, in relation to Ukraine. I definitely think it worth to explore the landscape as far as the European Union is concerned, not only with a view to a possible accession in the future. This being said, I fear that many of us (scholars of EU Member States) are not in a position to conduct a deep research, lacking the necessary language skills.

Having this in mind, the purpose of this post is to draw the attention of Ukrainian scholars staying in Europe (let’s hope on-going funding programs will not stop) to address the topic, that is, to walk us into the PIL of a country to which the EU is already linked by projects and conventions.

This can perfectly be done through contributions to this blog. In this sense, by way of example I would like to propose two topics that could be briefly addressed.

The first one would delve into the civil cooperation aspects of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. The original document was signed on March 21 and 27 June 2014; it has been amended several times, the last consolidated version being of 22 November, 2021. It appears that only one provision of the Agreement focuses directly on judicial cooperation on civil matters, namely Article 24 paragraphs 1 and 2 in Title III, ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’:

‘Legal cooperation

  1. The Parties agree to further develop judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, making full use of the relevant international and bilateral instruments and based on the principles of legal certainty and the right to a fair trial.
  2. The Parties agree to facilitate further EU-Ukraine judicial cooperation in civil matters on the basis of the applicable multilateral legal instruments, especially the Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the field of international Legal Cooperation and Litigation as well as the Protection of Children.’

Research could be done on the actual scope of the provision, its background, whether it has already crystallized on specific proposals or, simply, on how much judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is already covered by Hague conventions.

In addition to this topic, another one of narrower scope is suggested by the case of OKR, C-387/20, a preliminary reference submitted to the Court in 2020 on the Succession Regulation. The second question referred to the Court read

‘Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of [the Succession Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?

and in particular:

–        must a bilateral agreement with a third country expressly exclude the choice of a specific law and not merely govern the lex successionis using objective connecting factors in order for its provisions to take precedence over Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation]?

–        is the freedom to choose the law governing succession and to make the applicable law uniform by making a choice of law – at least to the extent determined by the EU legislature in Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation] – one of the principles underlying judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union, which may not be infringed even where bilateral agreements with third countries apply which take precedence over [the Succession Regulation]?’

The ’third country’ was the Ukraine; at stake was whether a Polish notary could draw up a notarial will with a clause stipulating that the law applicable to the succession would be Ukrainian law, i.e., the national law of the grantor. The request was declared inadmissible on 21 September 2021 under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, after the Court got from the notary an explanation in relation to his duties in the context of the procedure in order to determine whether or not he had, in the present case, the status of a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU. The substantive question remains thus to be answered – and it probably will, for the request is back before the Court, this time sent by the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu. While Ukrania is, for obvious reasons, not a country presenting observations, nor can scholar Ukranian views of the problem be determinant , it is not without interest to learn how Article 75 of the Succession Regulation is seen from the non-EU signatory countries to the bilateral agreement.

The Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 9th Conference at the Singapore Management University from 3 to 5 August 2023.

All those interested in making a presentation at the conference and in producing a final paper to be submitted for publication in the Journal are invited to provide for an abstract that should be up to 500 words in length and should clearly state the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s). Abstracts can fall within any subject matter the Journal deal with and can be offered by people at any stage of their career, including postgraduate students.

Since there will be a mixture of plenary (Friday) and parallel panel sessions (Thursday afternoon and Saturday morning), it is to be indicated on the abstract whether you are willing to present in either or are only willing to do so in one or the other.

Presentation at the conference will depend on whether your abstract is selected by the Editors of the Journal (Jonathan Harris KC, King’s College, and Paul Beaumont FRSE, University of Stirling) and the Conference Organiser (Adeline Chong, Singapore Management University). The subsequent article should be submitted to either of the editors of the Journal before the end of 2023. Publication in the Journal will be subject to the usual system of refereeing by two experts in the field.

Abstract shall be submitted by 16 December 2022 at jpil2023@smu.edu.sg.

More information on the conference and the related registration can be found here.

The International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS) will host a conference, jointly organised with the Société de Législation Comparée, under the title Plurilingual Forms – Present and Future of International Cooperation in Civil Status Matters.

The conference will take place in Strasbourg on 21 September 2022.

Speakers (and chairs) include Hans Van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Paul Lagarde (Emeritus Professor at the University Paris I, former secretary general of the ICCS), Patrick Wautelet (University of Liège), Bojana Zadravec (President of the Slovenian Association of Administrative Staff, EVS -European Association of Registars), Olivier Guillod (University of Neuchâtel), Laura Martinez-Mora (Hague Conference on PIL), Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the ICCS), Anatol Dutta (University of Munich), Camille Reitzer (Deputy Secretary General of the ICCS), Marie Vautravers (European Commission), Guillermo Palao Moreno (University of Valencia), Alexander Schuster (University of Graz), Andreas Bucher (Emeritus Professor at the University of Geneva).

The working languages will be French and English (presentations made in one language will be simultaneously translated into the other).

Further information can be found here.

The conference comes only a few weeks after the Strasbourg Convention of 14 March 2014 on the issue of multilingual extracts from civil status acts came into force internationally (on 1 July 2022), for Germany, Belgium and Switzerland.

On 19 September 2022, within the framework of the EU-FamPro Project, a conference titled Couples’ Property with Cross-Border Implications: Uniting Academic Discussions and Practical Concerns will be held in Almeria, followed by a seminar on Practical Challenges in the Application of the Twin Regulations. Remote participation is also available.

The conference and the seminar are the two main parts of an event of the EU-FamPro (E-training on EU Family Property Regimes) Project, co-funded by the European Union and conducted by the University of Camerino (coord.), the Law Institute of Lithuania, the University of Almeria, the University of Ljubliana, and the Rijeka University.

The Conference will provide an international forum where the Partners of the Project illustrate the contribution of the E-learning experience to the dissemination and understanding of the recent EU regulations on matrimonial property and property of registered partnerships (Twin Regulations), while academics, policymakers, and practitioners exchange their views on the different roles of legal professionals applying EU family property law.

The Seminar will focus on specific and cross-cutting issues related to the application of the Twin Regulations. The presentations are planned to cover the application of the Twin Regulations in the different national experiences, especially with regard to jurisdictional rules, determination of applicable law and party autonomy. Specific attention will also be given to the interaction of property regulations and Regulation on Succession.

Further info on the event is available on the Project website and the event programme is available here.

A conference titled The Brussels I bis Reform will take place on 9 September 2022, between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm (CEST), organised by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 is the fundamental reference-instrument of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil matters within the European Union. It provides rules on jurisdiction, pendency, recognition, and enforcement of judgments and other enforceable titles. Since its establishment in 1968, it has been a constantly evolving instrument. At present, the European Commission is required to present a report on the application of the Regulation and to propose improvements. Against this background, a Working Group was set up within the network of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) to draft a position paper. The group is led by Burkhard Hess (Luxembourg) and Geert van Calster (Leuven). Members of the working group answered a questionnaire, reporting the application and possible shortcomings of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in their respective jurisdictions.

Speakers include Dario Moura Vicente, Björn Laukemann, Vesna Lazić, François Mailhé, Stefaan Voet, Camelia Toader, Chrysoula Michailidou, Alexander Layton, Matthias Weller, Krzysztof Pacula, Marta Requejo Isidro, Viktória Harsági, Gilles Cuniberti and Marco Buzzoni.

The topics of the conference are based on the reports received from working group members and observers. Many of the reporters will have the opportunity to take up issues they indicated as important. Additional experts will present topics ranging from insolvency proceedings to third state relationships. Most importantly, the conference will provide a forum for all attendees to discuss the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation up until now and the need for future improvements. The aim of the conference is to prepare a position paper.

The paper will be presented to the European Commission to advise it in the evaluation process.

The conference, which is organised in collaboration with the European Association of Private International Law and the University of Leuven, will take place at the premises of the MPI Luxembourg. Digital participation is possible. Registration is on a first come, first served basis.

Those interested in participating are required to register before 26 August 2022.

The 9th Annual International Arbitration Lecture organised by Roma Tre University and Unidroit, will be held at Unidroit, in Rome, and online on 30 September 2022.

The lecture, titled Beyond Nationalists Mirages in Arbitration: The Inescapable Transnational Approach, will be delivered by Diego P. Fernández Arroyo.

Maria Chiara Malaguti (President of Unidroit and Professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Andrea Zoppini (Roma Tre University) will intervene.

For further information and registration see here.

The Academy of European Law (ERA) will held its Annual Conference on European Family Law on 22-23 September 2022 .

The conference will deal with the new Brussels II Regulation, which is applicable from 1 August 2022, hearing of the child, parentage, surrogacy and double motherhood, as well as recent CJEU case law on international family law.

Speakers include Véronique Chauveau, Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Gilles Cuniberti, Joanna Guttzeit, Frank Klinkhammer, Carlos de Melo Marinho, James Netto, Marta Requejo Isidro, Caroline Rupp, Nadia Rusinova and Andrea Schulz.

For further information, see here.

On 13 September 2022, the French Société de législation comparée will hold a conference on ascertainment of foreign law under the French Draft Code of Private International Law. The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The speakers will discuss the provisions of the draft code on ex officio application and proof of foreign law, which were presented on this blog here.

The new provisions are an attempt to reform proof of foreign law before French courts by seeking inspiration from foreign models, in particular models which involve academic institutions to report to the court on the content of foreign law and models which allow cross examination of expert witnesses on foreign law.

The conference could have been a great opportunity to confront the new provisions with foreign models which do rely on academic institutions or cross examine witnesses in court, but most unfortunately virtually all speakers are French academics and practitioners (the only exception being the director of the Swiss institute of comparative law).

The conference will take place 60 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, 75007 Paris, from 5 until 7:30 pm. Attendance is free, but registration is required at emmanuelle.bouvier@legiscompare.com.

The yearly seminar on European and Comparative law  organized by the Centre of European Legal Studies (CELS) in Urbino (Italy) will take place this summer from 22 August to 3 September 2022.

The Seminar aims to develop knowledge of European and International law as well as to facilitate exchanges between lawyers, officials of the European Communities, professors, judges and advanced students.

The list of speakers for 2022 includes Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas), Robert Bray (former Head of Unit of the Secretariat of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament), Georges Cavalier (University of Lyon 3), Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Tuto Rossi (University of Fribourg), Martin Svatos (Charles University), Alessandro Bondi (University of Urbino Carlo Bo), Fabrizio Marrella (University of Venezia Ca’ Foscari), Rosa Maria Emilia Palavera (University of Urbino Carlo Bo), Jens Karsten (Lawyer), Edoardo Alberto Rossi (University of Urbino Carlo Bo), Helmut Satzger (Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich).

The programme is available here and enrollment information here.

The readers of this blog are already aware that the University of Bonn plans to host a two-day conference on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in cooperation with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The event, which was expected to take place on 9 and 10 September 2022, has now been rescheduled and will eventually take place on 9 and 10 June 2023.

As explained by the organisers, the new date will likely be closer to the likely date of accession of the European Union to the Convention. Actually, on 23 June 2022, the European Parliament, based on a report by the JURI Committee, gave its consent to the accession.

The list of speakers of the Bonn conference includes scholars and practitioners, as well as representatives of UNCITRAL and the European Commission.

More information available here.

The Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI) will host two webinars – one in English, the other in Italian – in the framework of its recurring webinar series, titled Private International Law in Europe: Current Developments in Jurisprudence.

On 28 June 2022, from 5 to 7 pm (CET), Andrea Bonomi (University of Lausanne) will speak of Habitual Residence of an Abducted Child for the Purposes of the Law Applicable to Maintenance. Francesco Pesce (University of Genova) will serve as discussant.

On 8 July 2022, from 5 to 7 pm (CET), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia) will deal with the recent case law of the Court of Justice relating to the citizenship of the Union and its implications for private international law. The discussant will be Bruno Barel (University of Padova).

The webinars will be chaired by Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan), convenor of the Interest Group.

Those wishing to attend the webinars are are invited to write an email to sidigdipp@gmail.com. Further information available here.

The Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) has been engaging in work related to judgments recognition and enforcement in Asia for some time. This blog reported about the Institute’s publication of 2020 on the Asian Principles for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.

ABLI is now joining hands with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law for a joint webinar that will take place on on 27 July 2022 between 3 to 6pm (Singapore time).

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions, the webinar will comprise two sessions to take a holistic look at the Choice of Court and Judgments Conventions.

Attendees have the option of attending one or both sessions.

Invited speakers Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), the David Goddard (Court of Appeal, New Zealand), Anselmo Reyes (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court), Nish Shetty (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP) and Dr Ning Zhao (Senior Legal Officer, HCCH) are expected to talk about the practical operations of the two Conventions, how they complement each other and whether the recent debate of the Choice of Court Convention is justified.

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 26 June. Queries about the webinar should be addressed to info@abli.asia.

As announced on this blog, the final conference of the DXB – Identities on the move – Documents cross borders will be held in Italy on 23-24 June 2022 and will be hosted at A.N.U.S.C.A.’s Academy in Castel San Pietro Terme (Bologna, Italy).

All interested scholars and registrars, public authorities and officials, lawyers and students are invited to take part to it for the outcomes of the research. This final event will offer an opportunity to become aware of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union and to discover the strengths and the challenges of this still relatively unknown instrument. The conference will connect the scientific and applicative dimension of the Regulation, sharing, inter alia, the Commentary on the Regulation and an EU-wide Comparative Survey placing the Regulation into the context of daily national practice.

The event will be held in person, in compliance with health safety regulations, and will also be broadcast online in live streaming for free. Deadline registration for on-line attendance is 21 June 2022 and working languages of the conference will be English, German and Italian.

The Conference programme is available here and includes as speakers Maria Caterina Baruffi, Elsa Bernard, Giacomo Biagioni, Laura Calafà, Matteo Caldironi, Renzo Calvigioni, Cristina Campiglio, Giacomo Cardaci, Gregor Christandl, Mădălina Cocoșatu, Diletta Danieli, Sanjay Dharwadker, Ester di Napoli, Ornella Feraci, Caterina Fratea, Marco Gerbaudo, Susanne Gössl, Paride Gullini, Steve Heylen, Marion Ho-Dac, Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Eva Kaseva, Dafni Lima, Balwicka-Szczyrba Małgorzata, Francesca Maoli, Claudia Elena Marinică, Martina Melcher, Dominik Damian Mielewczyk, Nicolas Nord, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Lina Papadopoulou, Paolo Pasqualis, Paul Patreider, Cinzia Peraro, Stefania Pia Perrino, Marco Poli, Camille Reitzer, Simon Rijsdijk, Alexander Schuster, Sharon Shakargy, Nicole Sims, Thomas Stigari, Anna Sylwestrzak, Marie Vautravers, Rob van der Velde, Jinske Verhellen and Brody Warren.

If you have any questions or inquiries, please write an email to info@identitisonthemove.eu.

In the context of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice at Erasmus School of Law (financed by the Dutch Research Council – NWO), the project team has organised a series of seminars titled Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.

The concluding seminar in the series will take place on 22 June 2022, on the Future Regulation of Third-Party Litigation Funding.

The seminar, opened by Xandra Kramer and Geert Van Calster, will feature two sessions. The first session, on the current status and the need for further regulation, will include a stakeholder roundtable moderated by Xandra Kramer with the participation of Paulien van der Grinten, Johan Skog and David Greene. The second session, on modes and levels of regulation, chaired by Eva Storskrubb, will include a panel discussion involving Kai Zenner, Tets Ishikawa, Victoria Sahani and Albert Henke.

Attendance is possible in person and online. The programme is available here.

The JUDGTUST Project (Regulation BIa: a standard for free circulation of judgments and mutual trust in the EU) conducted by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in cooperation with Universität Hamburg, University of Antwerp and Internationaal Juridisch Instituut has come to its completion. The findings of the this research are available online here.

The project was animated by the aim to identify best practices and provide guidelines in the interpretation and application of the Brussels I-bis Regulation (also known as Brussels Ia). For this the analysis carried across the EU Member states sought to evaluate to what extent the changes introduced (compared to the Brussels I Regulation) achieved their objective, what are the remaining shortcomings, and how can these be overcome by considering future useful changes. Together with this, the research has analysed how legislative projects at global level – e.g. the Hague Judgment Convention – and political developments – e.g. Brexit – influence the way the Brussels I-bis is applied.

In analysing the interaction between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the other EU private international law instruments, the project combines a primarily comparative legal approach with the use of empirical research methods. The comparative legal research relies on the analysis of legislation, case law of national courts in EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and scholarly writings. This endeavour identifies the difficulties in the application of the Brussels I-bis provisions and best practices in applying the provisions of the Regulation. This is done without neglecting the outcomes of the previous regulation – the Brussels I – and other closely related private international law sources. The empirical research relies on various methods, both qualitative and quantitative. On the basis of a dedicated Questionnaire, the national reporters from EU Member States provided information on relevant domestic case law and legal literature.

With its findings the JUDGTRUST project seeks to enhance the general understanding of the autonomous nature of the EU legal sources. Further it looks to contribute to the uniform interpretation and application of the Regulation and consequently promotes mutual trust and efficiency of cross-border resolution of civil and commercial disputes. Furthermore, the analysis provides suggestions on how to reach a greater degree of consistency of the EU private international law legislation.

The outputs of the Project include various materials available online such as the National Reports, a Consolidated Report, and materials of the Final Conference.

Together with these open access materials a Handbook on the Interpretation and Application of the Brussels I bis is expected in the coming period.

In addition to the comparative and analytical research, the project also contributed to the development of a Moot Court Competition (PAX Moot) for law students. With this the project seeks to contribute to the education of a new generation of practitioners dealing with EU private international law.

Ilaria Pretelli, a legal adviser at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, has recently posted on SSRN her paper titled Filiation between Law, Language, and Society

The paper was presented this May at a conference on Family Status, Identities and Private International Law. A Critical Assessment in the Light of Fundamental Rights organized by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, European Law Institute and Università di Pisa. The post about the conference may be found here.

The abstract reads as follows:

The legal problems around contractual filiation are often presented as creating an opposition between rainbow family and traditional ones but they conceal, underneath, an opposition between two distinct visions of filiation. In patriarchal societies, control over his genealogy by the patriarch is functional in the protection of the social position of the family. These societies are characterised by substantial social immobility. The wealth of sons and daughters depends entirely on the ancestors. Children have duties vis-à-vis their parents, who maintain power and control over them. The importance of lineage can on the other hand be scaled back whenever, in a given society, it is possible to acquire wealth through one’s own efforts in life, rather than only by retaining wealth from ancestors or acquiring it through marriage. Today, the wealth of the children of middle-class families, assisted from the educational and economic point of view by the welfare state, also depends on their ability to integrate into the social fabric through their personal contribution. Children have rights vis-à-vis their parents, and law must assist them, as they are vulnerable persons, in enjoying their rights.

On 15 and 16 June 2022, the University of Zaragoza will host an online conference under the title Challenges of Private Law and the 2030 Agenda. Presentations will be held in in Spanish and in Italian. Several, among them, will address issues of private international law.

Topics include international surrogacy, child abduction, cross-border divorce, children born under irregular migration circumstances, international trade sanctions, climate change litigation and the role of Private International Law with respect to immigration.

Those interested in presenting a communication (in Spanish, English or Italian) are invited to submit an abstract of no more than 500 words by 10 June 2022.

More information is available here.

Private International Law areas of knowledge of the Universities Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona), Barcelona and Lleida have organised the I International Seminar on rights in rem in the European Union: general aspects and international jurisdiction. The seminar will be held in presence on the 10 and 11 November 2022 at the Faculty of Ciencias Jurídicas, Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona; online access is also available upon request.

This seminar seeks, on the one hand, to define the concept of rights in rem in the framework of European Private International Law and of Comparative Law, and, on the other hand, to identify the problematic aspects arising from the characterisation of such a concept in terms of both the delimitation of the legal instruments applicable to this matter, and of its application in the Spanish legal system as the representative of a State in which several systems of law coexist. Moreover, in terms of jurisdiction, the Seminar will also address the problems of the delimitation of the rule of jurisdiction applicable under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.

Those interested in presenting a communication are invited to write to mireia.eizaguirre@urv.cat before 12 September 2022.

For further information, see here.

On 23 and 24 February 2023, the fourth German Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law will be held in person at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.

The theme of the conference will be the following:
Deference to the foreign – empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?

As part of any legal system, rules of private international law are determined by the principles of the respective national jurisdiction, but they also open up the national system to foreign rules.

This creates the challenge of reconciling foreign law and foreign values with the national legal system. At the conference, an exploration whether and to what extent deference to the foreign is a pervasive principle in private international law is looked for. In doing so, the methods of private international law as well as interdisciplinary approaches to the justification and implementation of said principle are expected to be investigated and dealt with.

Speakers are invited to give a presentation of approximately 20 minutes (in either German or English). The written contributions will later be published in a conference volume with Mohr Siebeck. The conference programme will also include smaller discussion rounds in which short presentations of approximately 5-10 minutes can be given. These contributions will not be published, and the organizing committee is looking forward to abstracts for such short presentations too.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 12 September 2022. Proposals should be sent to ipr@sfu.ac.at.

For further information on the conference and the subsmission requirements, see here.

The Ravenna Campus of the Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna (Italy) has organised in Ravenna (and online), between 18-23 July 2022, a Summer School on Transnational litigation: between substance and procedure.

The program of the School looks at cross-border litigation from a wide perspective, embracing not only civil and commercial matters but also matter as diverse as family law, succession law and climate change litigation. At the core of the program lies the European space of justice, with its private and procedural international law regulations; the comparative and international perspectives are also considered, with several lecturers from Third States. The approach is both theoretical and practical: as a matter of fact, the whole Saturday 23 July session is dedicated to workshops which will involve the participants in the solution of cases and problems.

The Faculty of the Summer School is composed of experts from different jurisdictions with very diverse professional backgrounds. The Director of the School is Prof. Michele Angelo Lupoi, who teaches Civil Procedural Law and European Judicial Cooperation at the University of Bologna. The Vice-Director of the School is Marco Farina, Adjunct Professor of Civil Procedural Law at LUISS University of Rome.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in this complex and fascinating area of international civil procedure. The lectures will be held in a blended way, both in presence and online. In order to download the pre-registration form, please refer to here. An application will be made to the Bar Association of Ravenna to grant formative credits to Italian lawyers who participate in the Summer School.

The Summer School program is available here and includes as speakers Apostolos Anthimos, Caterina Benini, Giovanni Chiapponi, Michael S. Coffee, Elena D’Alessandro, David Estrin, Marco Farina, Francesca Ferrari, Pietro Franzina, Albert Henke, Priyanka Jain, Melissa Kucinski, Claudio Pezzi, Emma Roberts and Anna Wysocka-Bar.

It is possible to register until 2 July 2022. The registration fee is 200,00 €. For further info, please refer here or write and email to micheleangelo.lupoi@unibo.it. 

A conference on the location of damage in private international law will be held at Paris Cité University on 30 and 31 May 2022.

The conference is convened by Olivera Boskovic and Caroline Kleiner. Speakers include Laurence Idot, Ugljesa Grusic, Aline Tenenbaum, Dmitriy Galuschko, Etienne Farnoux, Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Ludovic Pailler, Symeon C. Symeonides, Tristan Azzi, Zhengxing Huo, Yuko Nishitani, Yves El Hage, Matthias Lehmann, Sandrine Clavel, François Mailhé, Cyril Nourissat, Sarah Laval, Maud Minois and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières.

The conference is structured in two parts. The first will be dedicated to the location of damage in specific field of the law (competition law, financial law, personality rights, environment, etc.). The second will address general topics such as party autonomy or cyber torts

The full programme of the conference and details about location and registration can be found here.

A web conference regarding the role of the internet and other technologies within the EU and the international legal order will take place on 13 May 2022, organised by the editorial team of Lex & Forum, a quarterly on Private International Law and International Civil and Commercial Litigation.

Symeon Symeonides (Willamette University) will chair the conference. He will also deliver a presentation in English on the infringement of personality rights via the internet.

The conference will be opened by Dan Svantesson (Bond University) with a presentation on Private International Law and the Internet.

The remaining presentations, in Greek, will be delivered by Ioannis Delicostopoulos (University of Athens), on Personality infringements via internet publications within
the EU legal order, Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta), on International Jurisdiction and the Blockchain – Time for new rules on international jurisdiction?, Nikolaos Zaprianos (Solicitor) on Smart contracts: Selected issues of civil and private international law, and Konstantinos Voulgarakis (Solicitor), on ICOs: Selected issues of jurisdiction and law applicable.

For registration, click here.

As announced on this blog, the Journal of Private International Law-Singapore Management University Virtual Conference on Conflicts of Jurisdiction will be held online on 23 to 24 June 2022 (6.00 pm to 10.20 pm Singapore time, 11.00 am to 3.20 pm British Summer Time on each day). The event is supported by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).

The conference is intended to support the ongoing work of the HCCH on Jurisdiction.

The speakers are leading private international law scholars and experts, many of whom are directly involved in the ongoing negotiations at the HCCH.

Attendance at the conference is complimentary for academics, government and international organisation officials, Journal of Private International Law Advisory Board members and students. Registration is required.

More information on the conference and the link to register can be found here.

On 13 May 2022 the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid will host a conference on the protection of transnational data transfers and the limits of the General Data Protection Regulation (Protección de las transmisiones de datos transfronterizas: los límites del RGPD).

The speakers include: Elena Rodríguez Pineau (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Elisa Torralba Mendiola (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Diana Sancho (University of Westminster), Gloria González Fuster (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), José I. Paredes Pérez (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Alexia Pato (Universitat de Girona), Mayte Echezarreta Ferrer (Universidad de Málaga), Clara I. Cordero Álvarez (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Alfonso Ortega Giménez (Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche), Carmen Parra Rodríguez (Universidad Abat Oliba CEU), Luis Lima-Pinheiro (Universidade de Lisboa), Eduardo Álvarez-Armas (Brunel University London).

The conference, in Spanish, can be attended either in person or remotely. Registration ends on 10 May 2022. See here for further details, and here for the full program.

The Private International Law Festival will take place on 16 and 17 May 2022 in Edinburgh.

The topics that will dealt with include: private international law and sustainable development; decolonising law and private international law; private international law in Scotland; forum conveniens annual lecture; private international law and sustainable migration governance; interdisciplinary latam perspectives; a book launch; new horizon for private international law.

This event is free, in person only and open to all but registration is required. To secure your place, please register through Eventbrite here.

Further information is available here.

As reported in a recent post, Germany has on 29 April 2022 instituted proceedings against Italy before the International Court of Justice in relation with the fact that Italy is allowing civil claims to be brought against Germany in connection with violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945, in breach of Germany’s jurisdictional immunity as a sovereign State.

A webinar in English, organised by the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara and the Institute of International Studies of the Catholic University of Milan, will take place on 11 May 2022, between 10.30 am and 12.30 pm, via GoogleMeet, to discuss the issues surrounding both the German application and the Italian decree-law of 30 April 2022, whereby the Italian Government addressed at least part of the concerns underlying the initiative of Germany.

The discussion will also revolve around the views that the two States are expected to put forward during the public hearings that are scheduled to take place on 9 and 10 May regarding the request made by Germany for the indication of provisional measures.

The following, among others, will speak at the webinar: Giorgia Berrino (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia), Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara), Karin Oellers-Frahm (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law  and International Law, Heidelberg), Riccardo Pavoni (University of Siena), and Pierfrancesco Rossi (LUISS Guido Carli, Rome).

Attendance is free. See here for further details.

— Update (6 May 2022): The public hearings that were due to take place on 8 and 10 May have been cancelled, following the withdrawal by Germany of its request for the indication of provisional measures. Germany informed the Court that it understands that, pursuant to the decree-law 30 April 2022, Italian courts are required to lift measures of enforcement previously taken, and that no further measures of constraint will be taken by Italian courts against German property used for government non-commercial purposes located on Italian territory. As stated by the agent of Germany in his letter to the Court, “Germany agrees with Italy that the Decree . . . addresses the central concern” expressed in the request for the indication of provisional measures. The proceedings remain in place for the remainder of the application. This development, too, will be discussed in the webinar of 11 May announced in the post above.

As announced on this blog, the VIII Congress of Private International Law of the University Carlos III of Madrid will take place in dual mode on 12 and 13 May 2022.

It will be devoted to Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction.

Under the direction of Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo, the speakers include: Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Javier Carrascosa González, Beatriz Campuzano Díaz, Nuria Marchal Escalona, Giacomo Biagioni, Elena Rodríguez Pineau, Celia Caamiña Domínguez, Mónica Herranz, Ilaria Pretelli, Teresa Peramato Martín, Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca.

The Congress programme and information to attend it are available here.

In 1971, the American Law Institute published the epochal Restatement of Conflict of Laws (Second). Now, a new version is in the making.

An overview of the work will be given by Kermit Roosevelt III (University of Pennsylvania) on 10 May 2022, at 5 PM CET, in the context of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) Hamburg series on “Current Research in Private International Law”.

This promises to be very interesting as the speaker is deeply involved in the drafting process.

The registration link can be found here. Participation is free of charge.

Within the activities of the Jean Monnet Module “CoRiMaR” (Consumer’s Rights and Market Regulation in the European Union), the Department of Legal Sciences of the University of Udine (Italy), together with a consortium of European universities including the University of Essex, De Montfort University, Universitatea de Vest din Timisoara, East Anglia University, University of Belgrade and University of Rijeka, organises the 15th edition of the Summer school Consumer’s Rights and Market Regulation in the European Union, to be held 13-22 July 2022 in Udine (Italy), at the Campus of Legal and Economic Sciences.

The Summer school on Consumer’s Rights and Market Regulation is an intensive course (40 hours of lectures, a workshop and a moot court), held in English by internationally renowned academics. It addresses theoretical and practical issues related to the legal protection of consumers and the market regulation in the European Union.

The call for application and the brochure is available here and here.

The application deadline is 15 June 2022.

For further info, please write an email to ip.europeanlaw.uniud@gmail.com.

On 5 and 12 May 2022 the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law will host an on-line conference titled Family Status, Identities and Private International Law – A Critical Assessment in the Light of Fundamental Rights.

The event is organised in cooperation with the European Law Institute and the University of Pisa.

The speakers include: Elena Bargelli (University of Pisa), Jens Scherpe (University of Cambridge), Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University Graduate School of Law), Cristina Gonzales Beilfuss (University of Barcelona), Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Andrea Büchler (University of Zurich), Joaquin Bayo Delgado (Former Senior Judge at the Appellate Court of Barcelona), Susanne Gössl (University of Kiel), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law), Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin), Maria Caterina Baruffi (University of Bergamo) Yin Liu (Huaqiao University), Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca (Carlos III University of Madrid), Francisco Javier Jiménez Muñoz (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia) Guillaume Kessler (Université Savoie Mont Blanc), Antonio Legerén (University of A Coruña).

The full programme may be found here, together with further details.

On 30 June and 1 July 2022 the University of Amsterdam will host the 4th International Class Action Conference.

The conference is organized by a team from the University of Haifa, the University of Tilburg and the University of Amsterdam, in collaboration with other institutions. The theme of this year’s conference is From Class Actions to Collective Redress: Access to Justice in the 21st century.

A broad range of issues will be addressed in the conference, including issues that specifically relate to cross-border situations.

The Conference will bring together a diverse range of international expertise in collective redress, and is intended to act as a forum for the sharing of experiences and knowledge.

See here for the full programme and practical details.

The Radboud University Nijmegen is organising a hybrid conference on 9-10 June 2022 dedicated to The Role of Courts and Access to Justice in the Digital Era. The programme of the event can be consulted here.

The conference is a collaboration of three groups of researchers based at Radboud University: the Institutions for Conflict Resolution group, the Digital Legal Studies group and the Interdisciplinary Hub on Privacy, Security and Data Governance (iHub), and it is made possible also with the support of the Digital Legal Studies Sectorplan and Radboud University.

The theme of the event is triggered by the European Union and national governments emphasis on the need for and benefits of digitalisation of justice. Digitalisation is meant to ‘modernise’ the conduct of judicial procedures. However, there is little reflection on what such ‘modernisation’ entails – beyond saving time and costs – and why a ‘modernised’ procedure is preferable to a ‘traditional’ procedure. In addition, the overall impact of digitalisation of justice on access to justice remains unaddressed: what kind of (access to) justice are governments building? In turn, this requires to examine whether digitalisation of justice changes or indeed transforms – as the concept of ‘digital transformation’ claims – the nature of the justice system, and whether these changes are always positive or desirable. Some even argue that beyond ‘modernisation’ or ‘transformation’, the current reforms amount to a ‘digital revolution’.

Digitalisation is often viewed as a key condition to ensuring effective justice in the modern era, enhancing ‘resilience’ of justice systems. It presumably helps tackle delays, enhance legal certainty, and make justice cheaper and more accessible for all. At the same time, challenges associated with digitalisation are highlighted, such as ensuring access for disadvantaged groups to digital technologies, the impact of digital technologies on fundamental rights and procedural justice, and ensuring security and privacy of digital solutions. The emergence of new technology brings with it the need for ongoing assessment of its impact.

For this purpose the conference brings together about 60 researchers from approximately 30 countries to critically assess the process of digitalisation of justice systems and the evolving role of courts in the digital era in Europe and beyond.

Further information about the conference can be found here. Registration is available here.

A series of online seminars has been in launched in December 2021, organised by the team of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice at the Erasmus School of Law: the general topic is Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice.

The next seminar in the series is scheduled for 20 April 2022 (14-16 CET) under the title Austerity policies and litigation costs reforms.

The relationship between access to justice, efficiency of courts, and litigation costs has never been an easy one. Yet, finding a proper equilibrium has never been more challenging than in recent times. The EU economic crises of the last decade and austerity policies deeply impacted justice budgets in several EU Member States and triggered justice reforms, particularly in the area of litigation costs. Building on the experiences of three EU jurisdictions that have been greatly affected by such developments (Greece, Portugal, and Spain), the seminar will assess the impact of austerity measures on access to justice.

The speakers are Panagiotis Perakis (Vice President CCBE), Paula Costa e Silva (Lisbon University) and Fernando Gascón Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid).

Register here to attend the event.

The final conference of the JUDGTRUST project on the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation will take place in the Hague (and on-line) on 21 and 22 April 2022, organised by the Asser Institute with the University of Hamburg, the University of Antwerp and the Internationaal Juridisch Instituut.

The conference concludes a two-year project on the correct and consistent application of the Regulation. The research findings of the project will be presented and the conference will provide an opportunity to share knowledge amongst academics, legal practitioners and legislators on how to achieve a greater consistency among various instruments in order to enhance the legal certainty, predictability and access to justice in cross border legal transactions.

The conference will offer an opportunity to discuss about the interpretation of the Regulation; the difficulties in the application and interpretation of the Regulation by State courts; consistency within the European private international law system, and possible solutions.

Speakers include Michał Gondek (European Commission), Markus Tobias Kotzur (University of Hamburg), Vesna Lazić (Asser Institute, Utrecht University), Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg), David Althoff (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, Rhode Island), Wolfgang Hau (Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari), Michiel de Rooij (Asser Institute), Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Fieke van Overbeeke (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Mukarrum Ahmed (University of Lancaster), Jachin Van Doninck (Free University Brussels), Luis de Lima Pinheiro (University of Lisbon), Lisette Frohn (The Hague Institute of Private International and Foreign Law), Beatriz Añoveros Terradas (University of Barcelona), Pontian Okoli (University of Stirling) and Francesca Villata (University of Milan).

The full programme is available here. See here for registration.

Since the Millennium, public interest litigation has become a growing phenomenon in civil courts. Activists and NGOs are filing civil lawsuits, both domestic and cross-border, in order to promote societal and political shifts.

Typical examples are (business and) human rights claims, environmental claims, climate change litigation but also cartel damage claims. Targeted defendants react also developing litigation strategies, such as bringing the disputes to the general public through the media. A currently much discussed example are SLAPP, strategic lawsuits against public participation – libel lawsuits brought against journalists, media and other stakeholders of the civil society in order to deter them from making investigations.

On 8 April 2022, at 4 pm CET, a Max Planck Law curriculum course is taking place under the title Strategic Litigation – A New Phenomenon in Civil Litigation?, where Burkhard Hess (Director, MPI Luxembourg) will present strategic litigation on the basis of actual cases, and analyse the main features of this (not that new?) phenomenon. The class will primarily focus on civil actions but equally look at recent developments at constitutional and international courts, trying to assess whether and to what extent this type of dispute is transforming civil litigation as we know it.

Those wishing to attend are required to register here by 6 April 2022.

Emmanuel Gaillard met la Russie échec et mat

Several French learned societies (International Arbitration Institute, Comité français de l’arbitrage, Comité français de droit international privé, French Branch of the International Law Association, Société de législation comparée) will pay a tribute to Emmanuel Gaillard in a conference held in the Grand Amphithéâtre of the Sorbonne in Paris on 15 April 2022.

The conference Emmanuel Gaillard Theory in Action will feature testimonials of a variety of professionals and discussions of some of the theories promoted by Emmanuel Gaillard, including the arbitral legal order and the boundaries of private international law.

The sudden passing of Professor Emmanuel Gaillard on 1 April 2021 came as a shock for the legal world. One year later, five learned societies, of which Professor Gaillard had been an active member, on whose governing board he had served or which he had founded, are endeavouring to pay tribute to his manifold contributions to the world of law as well as the depth of his thinking, in arbitration law and beyond. The testimonials, analyses and discussions that will be shared during this event will highlight Professor Gaillard’s ability to combine theory and practice. Though he is no longer with us, he will forever remain an inspiration to generations of lawyers, as they strive to carry forth his legacy: theory in action.

The full programme of the conference is available here. Registration to the conference is possible here.

Gaillard was a prolific author, who wrote many books and articles. He also liked to draw, and made some drawings which aptly summarise some of his theories.

Courtesy of Dimitrios Katsikis

The EAPIL founding conference is fast approaching! The conference will take place onsite in Aarhus on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022.

Those wishing to attend, are invited to register by 14 April 2022 at the latest. Please do so by filling the form available here

Registration fee is 100 Euros. Furthermore, you are very welcome to sign up for the conference dinner.

Law students without a final master degree in law can participate at a fee of 30 Euros (conference, including lunch and reception) and must register on the above link. If students wish to participate in the conference dinner, the separate conference dinner fee applies (see the registration link).

Participants who have previously chosen to transfer their registration/fee to the 2021 conference have been contacted directly by e-mail and offered to transfer their registration to 2022 or be reimbursed.

As there are other events in Aarhus during the days of the conference, it is strongly recommended that hotel reservations are made soon. Here are some suggestions in this regard.

The VIII Congress of Private International Law of the University Carlos III of Madrid will take place on 12 and 13 May 2022. It will be devoted to Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction.

Those interested in presenting a paper are invited to submit the title of the paper and an abstract of a maximum of 800 words before 10 April 2022 at Congresodipr@uc3m.es.

The selected papers may also be published in the online journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

Further information on the Congress is available here.

The Charles De Visscher Center for International and European Law (CeDIE, UCLouvain, Belgium) will host a conference on Surrogacy and Private International Law, on 31 March 2022.

The conference aims at discussing the theoretical and practical debates on surrogacy, by presenting both the rules of domestic law (including a comparative law approach) and the rules of private international law, with an emphasis on the latter. It will also provide for an opportunity to revisit some of the issues related to the ethical and human rights implications of surrogacy.

Speakers will include legal and medical practitioners as well as academics.

Geneviève Schamps (Professeure, UCLouvain), Jehanne Sosson (Professeure, UCLouvain, avocat), Hugues Fulchiron (Professeur, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Juge, Cour de cassation française), Patrick Wautelet (Professeur, ULiège), Petra Hammje (Professeure, Université de Nantes), Michelle Giroux (Professeure, Université d’Ottawa), Geoffrey Willems (Professeur, UCLouvain), Julie Mary (Assistante et doctorante, UCLouvain) , Amélie Panet (Maître de conférences, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3),Catherine de Bouyalski (Avocate au barreau de Bruxelles), Nicolas Gendrin (Juge, Tribunal de la famille de Namur), Florence Anciaux Henry de Faveaux (Conseiller, Cour d’appel de Mons), Géraldine Mathieu (Maître de conférences, Université de Namur & ULiège), Sylvie Sarolea (Professeure, UCLouvain, avocate), Caroline Mecary (Avocate aux barreaux de Paris & du Québec), Candice Autin (Médecin gynécologue, Responsable du centre de Procréation Médicalement Assistée au CHU Saint-Pierre), Jean-Philippe Cobbaut (Professeur, Université catholique de Lille & UCLouvain) and Jean-Yves Carlier (Professeur, UCLouvain & ULiège, avocat). 

The working language will be French.

The full programme is available here. Online registration is open here.

On 15 March 2022, Marta Requejo (Référendaire at the CJEU; Professor of Private International Law at the University of La Laguna) will give a conference on the Brussels I bis Regulation at the Research Center for Private International and International Business Law in Paris (‘salle 102’).

The conference will be given in French (Le règlement Bruxelles I bis sous la loupe) at 6 pm online.

Participation is free. Details can be obtained from laurence.tacquard@u-paris2.fr.

The Center regularly holds conference from doctoral students who recently defended their doctorate at Paris I or Paris II University. It also occasionally holds conference from visiting professors at both universities. Podcasts of the latest conferences can be found here.

The webinar What Measures Should the EU Adopt to Enhance the Protection of Adults in Europe? announced earlier on this blog, will take place, as scheduled, on 10 March 2022 from 5 pm to 7 pm.

The webinar has been organised by a Working Group charged by EAPIL with drafting a response to the public consultation that the European Commission has recently launched regarding an EU-wide protection of vulnerable adults. The purpose of the webinar is to present a preliminary draft response and receive feedback from interested experts, practitioners and stakeholders.

An e-mail with the details for joining the webinar has already been sent to the registered participants. If you have registered, but haven’t received this e-mail, please check your spam folder. If you need assistance, please write to pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The Special Interest Group on Family and Succession Law of the European Law Institute will host a series of webinars on the Application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States, organised by a sub-group on Succession Law chaired by Gregor Christandl of the University of Graz.

The five webinars in the series will take place between March and June 2022 and will shed light on the actual practice regarding cross border succession cases in the Member States.

The reporters will open the webinars with short introductory statements and will then take part in a lively panel discussion on the application of the EU Succession Regulation in their respective jurisdictions. The results of these webinars will be presented as comparative reports at an online conference in September 2022. 

A message from Organizers and the programmme is available here.

Attendance is free of charge. A ZOOM link will be sent to those who register at zivilrecht@uni-graz.at.

The EAPIL Young Research Network is looking forward to welcoming the academic and research community to the beautiful city of Dubrovnik on 14 and 15 May 2022 for a closing conference on the EAPIL Young Research Network’s third research project with the title: Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants – Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended?

The research project aimed at facilitating a critical discussion of the possibility envisaged in Article 79 of the Brussels I bis Regulation of extending the personal scope of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Regulation.

The conference will include a presentation of the research project and its core results as well as discussions with the representatives of the European Commission, the Hague Conference on Private International Law and leading scholars. The Conference will be held at the Inter-University Centre located at the address Don Frana Bulića 4, in close vicinity of the Dubrovnik historical centre.

There is no fee for attending the conference and we are providing limited assistance in booking the most appropriate accommodation (as explained in the application form).

Please direct all inquiries regarding the conference to youngresearch@eapil.org.

The Conference Program is available here; the Application Form here.

The 4th German-speaking Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law will take place on 23 and 24 February 2023 at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna.

The theme of the conference will be Deference to the foreign – Empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?

Here’s the concept:

As part of the legal system, rules of private international law are bound by the principles of their national jurisdiction, but they also open up the national system to foreign rules. Is the claim of deference to the foreign merely an empty phrase or, at best, a working hypothesis, or can it serve as a meaningful guiding principle of private international law? Are there tendencies within or across specific areas of private international law to move away from deference to, and towards a general suspicion against, the foreign? To what extent does (mutual) trust become the basis of deference to the foreign in the process of internationalisation and Europeanisation? What, if any, is the relationship between deference to the foreign and the methods of private international law?

The organisers of the conference (Andreas Engel, Florian Heindler, Katharina Kaesling, Ben Köhler, Martina Melcher, Bettina Rentsch, Susanna Roßbach and Johannes Ungerer) are inviting contributions from all areas of private international law, including but not limited to contract and tort law, company law, family and succession law as well as international procedural law, international arbitration and uniform law.

The written contributions will be published in an edited conference volume. The conference will be held in German, but English presentations are also welcome. The call for papers will be released in spring 2022. Abstracts may be submitted until late Summer 2022.

Further information on the conference is available here.

The Journal of Private International Law and the Singapore Management University will hold a virtual conference on 23 to 24 June 2022, divided into four sessions, on the conflicts of jurisdiction issue. The conference is aimed at assisting with the ongoing work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on jurisdiction.

The speakers are leading private international law scholars and experts, many of whom are directly involved in the ongoing negotiations at the HCCH. Specifically, the first session, devoted to the common law approaches to conflicts of jurisdiction, chaired by Jonathan Harris, will include an opening by the dean of Yong Pung How School of Law from Singapore Management University and presentations by Campbell McLachlan, Ardavan Arzandeh, Ronald Brand and Mary Keyes; the second one, on the other, focused on civilian approaches to conflicts of jurisdiction, chaired by Kei Takeshita, will involve Tanja Domej, Geert Van Calster, Nadia De Araujo, Marcelo De Nardi and Zheng Sophia Tang; the third will follow, which, based on the work at the Hague Conference on Private International Law and chaired by Paul Beaumont, will be dealt with by Fausto Pocar, David McClean, João Ribeiro-Bidaoui and Matthias Lehmann; finally, continuing on the same topic, the forth chaired by Adeline Chong, including Trevor Hartley, Yeo Tiong Min, Franco Ferrari and Anselmo Reyes, concluded by closing remarks. Each session, with a break in between, will feature a dedicated Q&A moment.

Registration to attend the conference will open nearer the time. The programme for the conference is available here.

Furthermore, the biennial Journal of Private International Law Conference has been delayed until 2023 in order to enable it to take place in person at the Singapore Management University. This conference will be based on a call for papers. Similarly, further details will be announced in due course.

The Rijeka Doctoral Conference of 2021, organised by the Faculty of Law of the University of Rijeka, features a several presentations dealing with topics within, or related to, private international law.

Session 1C, scheduled to take place on 10 December 2021 at 8.30 CET will be devoted to Private International Law & Intellectual Property Law. Chaired by Oliver Remien (Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg), Elena Alina Onţanu (Tilburg University) and Giulia Priora (NOVA School of Law, Lisbon), the session will host presentations by: Caterina Benini (Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan): The Law Applicable to Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I bis Regulation; Denisa Docaj (University of Milan): Private International Law Issues Arising from Brexit: The Rule on Lis Pendens and Related Actions in Civil and Commercial Matters; Zuzana Vlachová (Masaryk University): Infringement of Copyright with a Cross-border Element – Applicable Law; Hongqian Zhou (Waseda University): Digital Exhaustion from the Perspective of Consumers and Competition.

Issues of private international law will arguably arise in other sessions, notably Session 2B, on Family & Succession Law, with a presentation by Nazeemudeen Ziyana (University of Aberdeen) on The Use of Adoption in the Context of International Surrogacy Arrangements: A Comparative Analysis, and Session 2C, on Maritime & Aviation Law, with a presentation by María Gorrochategui Polo (University of the Basque Country) on Collective Bargaining and Cross-Border Collective Actions: The Maritime Industry as a Paradigm for Other Land-Based Industries.

Session 4A, scheduled at 15.30, will be devoted to Arbitration Law & Competition Law. Franco Ferrari (NYU School of Law), Stefan Enchelmaier (University of Oxford) and Miguel Verdeguer Segarra (EDEM Escuela de Empresarios & University of Nebrija) will chair the session. Featured presentations include: Gautam Mohanty (Kozminski University, Warsaw): Joinder of Third-Party Funders in International Investment Arbitration; Yihua Chen (Erasmus University Rotterdam): Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: A Transnational Study of Ethical Implications and Responses; and Denis Baghrizabehi (University of Maribor): Private Enforcement of State Aid Law in Civil Litigation.

Additional information, including the link to join the various sessions, may be found here.

On 10 December 2021, from 16.30 to 19.00 CET, a webinar in English on The Recommendation of GEDIP Concerning the Private International Law Aspects of the Future EU Instrument on Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability, will take place, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI).

Hans Van Loon, former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and Giulia Vallar, of the University of Milan, will intervene.

This is the final event of a series of webinars entitled Private International Law in Europe: New Developments on Corporate Social Responsibility and Private International Law.

Attendance is free. Those wishing to join the webinar are invited to send an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.

A series of webinars have taken place since June this year to celebrate European Law Institute’s 10th anniversary. The latest in the series is about the ELI project on the Protection of Adults in International Situations and is scheduled for 7 December 2021, from 18:15 to 19:45 (CET),

The ELI project on adults seeks to encourage the European Union to consider both external action and the enactment of legislation in the field. The final report provides analysis and proposals regarding further issues surrounding the application of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults or otherwise relevant to the protection of adults in international situations. It also includes a checklist intended for practitioners, to encourage the development of private mandates within the ambit of the substantive laws of the Member States.

Confirmed speakers are: Aneta Wiewiórowska-Domagalska (Chair; ELI Executive Committee member; Senior Research Fellow, University of Osnabrück), Pietro Franzina (ELI Project Co-Reporter; Professor at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano), Richard Frimston (ELI Project Co-Reporter; Consultant, Russell Cooke), Philippe Lortie (First Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)), Pascal Pichonnaz (ELI President; Professor, Faculty of Law of the University of Fribourg), Geraldo Ribeiro (Chair of the HCCH Working Group charged with drafting a practical handbook on the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults), Salla Saastamoinen (Director for civil and commercial justice, DG JUST, European Commission) and Adrián Vázquez Lázara (Member of the European Parliament; JURI Committee Chair).

The webinar will also feature a 20–25 minute Q&A session with attendees.

Attendance is free. The registration form is available here.

DXB – Identities on the move – Documents cross borders is a project aimed at facilitating the dissemination and implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 in EU Member States, funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014–2020).

The final conference of the project will take place on 23–24 June 2022 in Castel San Pietro Terme, Bologna (Italy), at the premises of ANUSCA’s Academy (ANUSCA is the Italian association of civil status officers)

A call for papers and panels has been launched. All interested will find more information here.

Papers or panel abstract proposals shall be submitted by 22 December 2021.

A webinar in English on Recent judgments on corporate responsibility for environmental damages will take place on 26 November 2021, from 15.00 to 17.00 CET, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI).

The speakers will be Olivera Boskovic and Silvia Marino.

The event is part of a cycle titled Private International Law in Europe: New Developments on Corporate Social Responsibility and Private International Law. See here for further details.

Attendance is free. Those wishing to join the webinar are invited to send an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.

Louis d’Avout (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas) has posted a short paper in French on the Resurgence of the 1934 Franco-British Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (La résurgence de la convention franco-britannique du 18 janvier 1934 pour l’exécution des jugements étrangers) on the website of the French Committee for Private International Law.

Unlike the Haut Comité Juridique de la Place Financière de Paris, which has opined that the 1934 Convention was abrogated by the Brussels Convention, Prof. d’Avout submits that the 1934 bilateral convention is still in force and governs the enforcement of British judgments in France. He notes that the requirements for enforcing judgments are, from a French perspective, old and potentially more restrictive than the French common law of judgments, but underscores that the Convention was interpreted initially as allowing the application of a more favourable common law of judgments by the Contracting States.

The paper is the written version of a speech given in a recent conference on Brexit organised by the Committee.

On 1 December 2021, at 3 pm CET, the University of Catania will host a webinar, in French, titled Différences culturelles et droit international privé de la famille (Cultural differences and Private International Law in Family Matters), organised by Pasquale Pirrone.

The main speakers are Jean-Yves Carlier (Catholic University of Louvain) and Léna Gannagé (Saint Joseph University, Beirut). Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Macerata) and Roberto Baratta (Roma Tre University), among others, will also intervene.

Attendance is free, via Teams. Further details here.

The University of Toulouse (France) will host a conference on Notary’s Role in Private International Law (L’office du notaire en droit international privé) organised by Estelle Gallant, on 25-26 November 2021.

The conference will include sessions on the role of notary as competent authority in the field of private international law, the reception and circulation of public documents, the drawing up of deeds by notaries as well as roundtables on divorce by mutual consent, property regime of couples and international successions.

Speakers will include numerous PIL specialists:

  • Scholars : Hugues Kenkack (Toulouse), Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Paris-Saclay), Patrick Wautelet (Liège), Pierre Callé (Paris-Saclay), Christine Bidaud (Lyon 3), Hugues Fulchiron (Lyon 3), Eric Fongaro (Bordeaux), Michel Farge (Grenoble-Alpes), Hélène Péroz (Nantes), Nathalie Joubert (Bourgogne-Dijon), Sara Godechot-Patris (Paris-Est Créteil), Sandrine Clavel (Paris-Saclay), Marc Nicod (Toulouse), Lukas Rass-Masson (Toulouse), Estelle Gallant (Toulouse) & Cyril Nourissat (Lyon 3)
  • Notaries: Caroline Deneuville (Paris), Richard Crône (Paris) and François Tremosa (Toulouse) & Jean-Christophe Rega (Mission Europe du CSN),
  • Legal practionners working with notaries : Mariel Revillard, Marion Nadaud (Bordeaux) & Sophie Chalas-Kudelko (Lyon)

The full programme is available here. Online registration is open here.

A webinar in English on The resolution of the Institut de Droit International on Human Rights and Private International Law will take place on 12 November 2021, from 16.30 to 18.30 CET, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI).

The speakers will be Fausto Pocar and Patrick Kinsch.

Attendance is free. Those wishing to join the webinar are invited to send an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.

The Research Center on Private International Law (EDIEC – EA 4185) of the University of Lyon III – Jean Moulin (France) will host a three-day conference to understand whether EU Private International Law should be considered as a comprehensive system (Existe-t-il un système de droit international privé de l’Union européenne?), organised by Ludovic Pailler and Cyril Nourissat, on 17 to 19 November 2021.

The presentation of the conference reads as follows:

The ambitious program proposed by the organizers does not only aim to take stock of a vicennial construction of the law of judicial cooperation in civil matters. It should also allow the speakers to assess whether this field of Union law is merely a pile of autonomous texts (at most likely to constitute a few large blocks – family, obligations, etc.) or whether, beyond that, a comprehensive work is taking shape, a true “system” of private international law, in particular thanks to the many judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This event will also be an opportunity to question the necessity of a system of private international law in order to constitute the area of civil justice called for by the European Commission. In order to take up this major scientific challenge, the colloquium brings together eminent European authors, specialists in Private international law and Union law. Their analysis will be usefully completed by a comparative approach from points of view from outside the Union (China, Maghreb, USA) and by the intervention of practitioners (lawyers, bailiffs, notaries), better able to evaluate the usefulness of a system for their daily work.

Speakers include numerous PIL specialists, scholars as well as senior officials and practitioners:

Louis d’Avout (Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Etienne Farnoux (Strasbourg), Marie Vautravers (European Commission), Tania Jewczuk (French Ministry of Justice) Sandrine Clavel (Paris Saclay), Laurence Idot (Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Edouard Treppoz (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Yves El Hage (Lyon 3), Hélène Gaudin (Toulouse 1 Capitole), Bernard Haftel (Sorbonne Paris Nord), Lukas Rass-Masson (Toulouse 1 Capitole), Carine Brière (Rouen), Jean-Baptiste Racine (Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Malik Laazouzi (Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Emmanuelle Bonifay (Aix-Marseille), Mathias Audit (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Johanna Guillaumé (Rouen), Marie-Elodie Ancel (Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Stéphanie Francq (UCLouvain), Samuel Fulli-Lemaire (Strasbourg), Amélie Panet (Lyon 3), Marion Ho-Dac (Artois), Laurence Usunier (Cergy-Pontoise), Kamalia Metiyeha (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Pierre Callé (Paris-Saclay), Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Paris-Saclay), Michael Wilderspin (former administrator, European Commission), Blandine de Clavière (Lyon 3), Sylvaine Poillot Peruzzetto (French Cour de Cassation), Alain Devers (Lyon 3), Marc Cagniart (Notary, Paris), Alice Meier-Bourdeau (Lawyer, Paris Bar), Mathieu Chardon (Baillif), Emmanuel Guinchard (Liverpool), Sami Bostanji (Tunis), Claudia Lima Marques (Porta Alegre), Gustavo Cerqueira (Nîmes), Nicolas Nord (Strasbourg), Fabien Marchadier (Poitiers) and Jérémy Heymann (Lyon 3).

The full programme is available here.

For registration, please write to marie.brossard@univ-lyon3.fr

Under the auspices of the project “Time to Become Digital in Law” (DIGInLaw), funded by the Erasmus+ Partnerships for Digital Education Readiness, the University of Aberdeen organizes a PhD Book Club titled European Private International Law in a Digital World, in collaboration with the Universities of Osijek, Zagreb, and Milan.

The PhD Book Club will be held online on 8 December 2021. The goal of the book club is to raise awareness and expand knowledge through a discussion on contemporary private international law issues that stem from digitalization.

Participants can choose among the following discussion panels:

  • Topic 1 – Jurisdiction in Digital World: Focus on the Extraterritorial Effects of the General Data Protection Regulation and the EU Commission’s Proposal AI Act: 10.00 – 11.30 UK time
  • Topic 2 – Cross-Border Family Law in Digital World: Judicial & Administrative Co-operation and the Use of High-Risk AI Tools in Cross-Border Family Litigation: 12.30 – 14.00 UK time

The reading list will be distributed in advance to allow participants to prepare for discussion, which will be moderated by law professors and lecturers from the above-mentioned universities. All PhD researchers are eligible to apply. Please follow the registration link available on the event webpage here.

Ghent University (Belgium) and its Center for the Future of Dispute Resolution organise an online conference titled Transnational Dispute Resolution in an Increasingly Digitalized World, to be held on 24 March 2022.

A call for abstracts is open through 1 December 2021.

The concept is as follows:

The increased digitalization in the field dispute resolution, which received a boost from the Covid-19 pandemic, raises a number of important questions in terms of privacy, cybersecurity, data protection and artificial intelligence, going from rather practical concerns (how to protect the information exchanged, how to organize the taking of evidence, how to comply with the various obligations, etc.) to more fundamental inquiries (does it scare litigants off, does it foster or rather compromise efficiency, etc.).

The goal of the conference is to bring together academics, practitioners and policy makers with expertise in the field of dispute resolution (arbitration, transnational litigation, mediation, other ADR mechanisms) and technology law. That is why we are particularly (but not exclusively) interested in contributions that focus on :

  • Obligations of the actors of justice
  • Challenges and opportunities of (partial) online proceedings
  • Evidentiary issues related to cybersecurity and data protection
  • The (ab)use of these instruments as a dispute resolution strategy

and discuss these forward-looking dispute resolution topics in light of the various privacy, data protection, cybersecurity and AI regulations.

See here for more information.

The University of Strasbourg will host a conference on Mutual Trust in the Area of Justice, Freedom and Security (La confiance mutuelle dans l’Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice : crise(s) et perspectives) on 7-8 October 2021.

The conference will include sessions on European integration, the right to cross internal and external borders and cross border investments. It will also include several sessions more specifically dedicated to judicial cooperation, both with respect to Member States and Third States.

Speakers will include numerous PIL specialists, including some of the organisers of the conference (E. Farnoux, S. Fulli-Lemaire), and a number of external speakers (F. Marchadier, A. Marzal, E. Galland, J. Heymann, G.P. Romano, K. Parrot).

The full programme is available here. For registration, please write to jnyobe@unistra.fr.

The International Law Association will celebrate its 150th anniversary all along the year 2023 through a series of webinars and, hopefully, an event organised by the French branch of the ILA in Paris on 18 – 20 June 2023.

In order to prepare the scientific content of these events, a vast organization of working groups has already been launched, on the five continents, under the coordination of the Foresight Council, in order to feed back the ideas that will be developed during the webinars and during the June event. These working groups are primarily aimed at the younger generation (PhD students, PhDs, young professionals in all branches of international law). Companies, essential actors of the international society, will be full partners, as well as NGOs and public actors.

A series of thematic White Papers will be prepared on 24 themes, including Cities, Civil Status, Cultural Heritage, Dispute Resolution, Migration, Intellectual Property or Oceans, to name only a few.

Regular updates concerning the evolution of the work of the Working Groups and the preparation of the celebration will be given by a Newsletter. The first issue is available here.

The University of Udine, in Italy, will host on 16 and 17 September an on-line conference under the title European Union and Third Countries: Issues on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Foreign Judgments.

Some of the presentations will be in English, others in Italian.

Speakers include Elisabetta Bergamini (University of Udine), Francesco Deana (University of Udine), Martin Gebauer (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen), Peter Kindler (LMU Munich), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. of Macerata), Paolo Mengozzi (former Advocate General at the CJEU), Luca Penasa (University of Udine), Marcello Stella (University of Naples “Federico II”), Faidon Varesis (University of Oxford / Ethnikon kai Kapodistriakon Panepistimion Athinon) and Wolfgang Wurmnest (University of Augsburg).

The detailed programme and the registration form are available here.

On 23 and 24 September 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an “hybrid” workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The National Courts’ perspective.

This will be the second part of a broader research on effective judicial protection in the EU legal order. The first part focused on the Court of Justice’s perspective and led to an online workshop last April (reported here). The second workshop will adopt a comparative law approach within the national legal orders of the EU Member States.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity. Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts.

The workshop will offer a comparative overview of the national case law applying Article 47 Charter and the principle of effective judicial protection. The speakers will collectively evaluate the systemic impact of Article 47, its interplay with other domestic and European provisions guaranteeing effective judicial protection, as well as the level of convergence (or divergence) in the national courts’ approaches.

The papers presented at the workshop will be included in the second volume of the book project ‘Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection’ led by Mariolina Eliantonio, Giulia Gentile and Matteo Bonelli, all members of the GLaw-Net Research Network.

The full program is available here and registration is open here.

On 14 October 2021 an online roundtable will take place devoted to the private international law issues relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign (mostly US) punitive damages judgments in countries outside of Europe.

The event is organised by the Maastricht University at the initiative of Lotte Meurkens and Cedric Vanleenhove.

An often-heard obstacle [to the recognition of judgments awarding punitive damages] is the public policy-exception. In a number of European countries, for example Italy, Spain and Germany, the supreme courts have rendered decisions on this matter.

Following the decision of the Italian supreme court of 2017, a conference was organised in Milan by the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law of the University of Milan in 2018. A program of this conference, in which the organizers of this M-EPLI roundtable took part, can be found here. During the conference, the private international law question has been addressed from the perspective of several European countries.

We have decided to broaden this question and look into countries outside of Europe because extensive research into such jurisdictions has not been done yet. In this M-EPLI roundtable we bring together a group of experts who will reflect on the current position of their country (and surrounding countries). The insights gained through this research could be useful for the ongoing debate on the future of punitive damages in Europe.

Speakers include Cedric Vanleenhove (Ghent University / University of Liège), Béligh Elbalti (Osaka University), Wenliang Zhang (Renmin University of China), María Guadalupe Martínez Alles (IE University), Vsevolod Chernyy (Lomonosov Moscow State University) and Lotte Meurkens (Maastricht University).

More information available here.

On 9 and 10 September 2021, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host the 7th Conference of Young Procedural Scholars on Europeanisation of Civil Procedural Law: Disruption or Consolidation? The event will trace the influences of the ever-increasing European activities on national procedural law, and offers the opportunity to discuss whether Europeanisation consolidates or rather disrupt the coherence of national law.

The German-language conference aims to bring together young researchers with an interest in the field of procedural law – be it civil, criminal or pertaining to public law –, thereby recognizing the manifold intersections, overlaps and similarities of the sub-disciplines of procedural law. The wide-ranging activities of the European legislator as well as the case law of ECJ and ECtHR, having left their mark on all branches of procedural legal studies, particularly prompt such an overarching approach to questions of efficient procedural law enforcement.

Aimed at postdocs, PhD candidates and other researchers in an early stage of their academic career, the conference intends to create a forum for new and upcoming voices of procedural law. Further information is available at the MPI website or by reaching out to the organizers of the conference, Dr Lena Hornkohl and Dr Wiebke Voß (both Senior Research Fellows at the MPI Luxembourg) at jungesprozessrecht@mpi.lu.

The 15th Global Digital Encounter organized by Fide Foundation and TIPSA (Transatlantic Intellectual Property Academy) will take place on 8 September 2021, under the title Towards A More Predictable Legal Framework for Cross-Border Intellectual Property Disputes.

It will discuss the main lines of the Kyoto Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law drafted by a group of 36 renowned scholars from 19 jurisdictions under the auspices of the International Law Association.

Intellectual Property controversies and disputes become more and more cross border in the context of the IV Industrial Revolution and the enforcement of IP rights in this global environment raises new and complex challenges to the traditional models of solving conflicts through national courts. Issues like the rules for adjudication of international disputes (jurisdiction), the applicable law and the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments involving IP claims still differ widely from country to country, fostering therefore the development of an environment deprived of legal certainty which severely affects the enforcement of IP rights all over the world. Consequently, the adoption of model provisions on the private international law aspects of IP which could be used as guiding for national and international legislation has become an urgent matter.

The panel, composed by Marketa Trimble (University of Nevada), Toshiyuki Kono (Kyushu University) and Axel Metzger (Humboldt University of Berlin), will be moderated by Pedro de Miguel Asensio (Complutense University of Madrid).

For further information and registration, see here

conference titled Diversity of Enforcement Titles in Cross-border Debt Collection in the EU will take place in Maribor on 3 and 4 September 2021, in the framework of the The EU-En4S project. The event will be live streamed online for those who cannot attend in person.

Speakers include Marko Ilešič, Friderik Sjövall, Samuel Rudvall, Željko Pajalić, Lionel Decotte, Jens Bormann, Paolo Pasqualis, Wendy Kennett, Achilleas Demetriades, as well as participants from the several institutions that take part in the project.

The agenda of the conference may be found here. See here for registration.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2022.

The course will be opened by Dominique Hascher with a lecture on The Role of International Law in the Review of Awards.

The general course, titled Towards Worldwide Law Consistency, will be given by Louis d’Avout (Paris II University).

The special courses will be as follows: Marco Frigessi di Rattalma (University of Brescia), New Trends in the Private International Law of Insurance Contracts; João Bosco Lee (Universidade Positivo), The Application of International Conventions by Arbitrators in International Trade Disputes; Ulla Liukkunen (University of Helsinki), Mandatory Rules in International Labour Law; Kermit Roosevelt III (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School), The Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws; Tiong Min Yeo (Singapore Management University), Common Law, Equity, and Statute: Effect of Juridical Sources on Choice of Law Methodology; Arnaud Nuyts (Université Libre de Bruxelles), The Forum for Cyber Torts.

Special lectures in tribute to Professor Emmanuel Gaillard will be delivered by Yas Banifatemi, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Dominique Hascher, Horatia Muir Watt and Luca Radicati di Brozolo.

The directors of studies will be Marie Linton (Uppsala University) and Luciana Beatriz Scotti (University of Buenos Aires). 

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

The French Committee for Private International Law will hold a panel discussion on private international law and Brexit (Le droit international privé au défi du Brexit) in the afternoon of 8 October 2021, in Paris (3 pm CET).

The chairman will be Dominique Foussard. Speakers include Louis d’Avout, Stewart Leech, Eva Lein, Philippe Lortie and Michael Wilderspin.

The exact location is to be announced on the website of the Committee (here).

The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Oxford will host a webinar on 27 July 2021 (12.00-14.00 British Summer Time (GMT+1)) dedicated to Commercial Courts in a Global Context.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Oxford (China, Law & Development), Faisalabad Industrial Estate Development & Management Company, Ease of Doing Business in Pakistan, Pakistan-China Joint Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and Center for International Investment and Commercial Arbitration.

This webinar and research is related to developments in recent years. A number of States and municipalities have established new commercial courts which are perceived by some to be the building blocks of economic development and global commerce. These new commercial courts include those that are designed primarily for domestic disputes and others geared toward international disputes. The new international courts share a common aspiration: to provide forums for the resolution of commercial conflicts that are cheap, quick, and whose judgments are enforceable.

As part of its Ease of Doing Business Reforms Agenda, Pakistan has recently established commercial courts at the district level. The new commercial courts dovetail with a number of macro-economic and geostrategic trends, including the rise of Asia, and China in particular, as a supplier of both outbound capital and dispute resolution, and the increasing diversification of forums across the world.

This webinar will provide an in-depth discussion of the new domestic and international commercial courts with a focus on topics including jurisdiction and legislative basis, regulatory framework, relationship to the domestic court system, staffing and personnel issues, the courts-arbitration nexus, and cross-border disputes and associated enforcement issues.

The speakers, including judges and lawyers from Pakistan, the UK, Singapore, and China, will share insights with the launch and evolution of these new courts in the context of both dynamic domestic and global legal transformations.

More information about the webinar and the ERC Research project are available here. See here for registering for the event.

According to Frank Woud (e-CODEX Community and External Relations Manager, Ministry of Justice and Security, The Netherlands):

The full potential of the European e-commerce market has not yet been reached. While consumers feel safer buying from online stores within the borders of their own country rather than from other European countries, European traders experience a range of challenges of their own, such as the lack of a level playing field and the overwhelming complexity of the legal and judicial system. Justice is the sine qua non for trade, and e-commerce will only be able to reach its full potential in Europe when justice permeates the digital realm. e-CODEX, the digital platform for cross-border legal data exchange within the European Union (EU), plays an important role in this regard. The mission of e-CODEX is to make cross-border justice accessible for all citizens and businesses within the EU.

To further this pursuit, e-CODEX hosted on 25 November 2020 an online roundtable discussion about e-justice as an enabler for cross-border e-commerce in Europe. The webcast of the roundtable discussion can be viewed here.

The e-Commerce Meets Justice White Paper is a representation of the facts and opinions expressed by the panel members. The panel was composed of Margarita Touch (Information Officer at DG JUST), Luca Cassetti (Secretary General of Ecommerce Europe), Marco Velicogna (Researcher at Institute of Legal Informatics and Judicial Systems of the National Research Council of Italy), and Hans van Grieken (Senior Technology Researcher at Capgemini, Gartner and Deloitte).

Their contributions to the White Paper discuss: e-commerce and developments triggered by the pandemic, the SMEs heavy reliance on platforms for cross-border e-commerce, the legal aspects of inter-European e-commerce, alternative dispute resolution means, and the role of e-justice in supporting cross-border e-commerce and building consumers’ trust.

More information on e-CODEX can be found here.

On 20 July 2021, the University of Milan will host the (on-line) Annual Conference of the EU-funded project Jean Monnet Module on Multilevel, Multiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe.

This year’s topic, Incentives and Challenges to Transnational Access to Justice, will be discussed in the framework of two roundtables concerning, respectively, Third-party Funding in International Dispute Resolution and E-Justice in International Dispute Resolution.

The complete programme is available here. Registrations are open until 15 July 2021, through this form.

On 1 July 2021, the ERC Building EU Civil Justice team at Erasmus University will be organising an online seminar (the fourth in a series of seminars dedicated to EU Civil Justice) that will be discussing the private law aspects of climate litigation touching upon the recent case law such as milieudefensie/Shell case. This case marks a turn in climate change litigation by targeting mainly the responsibilities of governments in curtailing the effects of climate change to suing corporations.

The seminar moderated by Jos Hoevenaars will bring together renown speakers on the topic Prof. Chantal Mak, Prof. Geert van Calster and Sanne Biesmans. They will discuss the implications of recent climate litigation in the context of private international law, fundamental rights and corporate liability.

Click here to register. More information on the coming two seminars can be found here.

Louis Perreau-Saussine and Sophie Lemaire (Université Paris Dauphine) are the editors of a new book on International Mandatory Rules in International Business Law (L’impérativité en droit international des affaires : questions d’actualité).

Contributors include Pierre Mayer, Louis Perreau-Saussine, Sophie Lemaire, Mathias Audit, Patrick Mathet, Hubert de Verdelhan, Stéphanie Francq, Andrea Bonomi, Martine Behar-Touchais, Juliette Morel-Marroger, Tristan Azzi, Etienne Pataut.

The book collects the proceedings of a conference held at the Cour de cassation in Paris on February 2018. Videos of the conference are freely available here.

http://https://vimeo.com/254497098

 

The conference titled Child-friendly procedures in cases of international child abduction will take place online on 24 and 25 June 2021. The conference will present the results of research conducted with the INCLUDE project on what is considered to be ‘good practice’ for professionals in a context of child abduction as seen by children themselves. You can consult the agenda of the conference here, and register for it here.

The INCLUDE project, as explained by its coordinators, aims to enhance the wellbeing of children at all stages of an international child abduction by providing guidelines and good practices to legal and other professionals.

The deliverables of the project (including an International Child Abduction – Legal Framework and Literature Study) are available on the project’s website.

A webinar titled 1981-2021: 40 Years Since the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the EU – The Impact on the Domestic Procedural Legal Order will take place on 26 May 2021 at 5 pm CET, organised by the law review Lex & Forum and Sakkoulas Publications.

The webinar, which will be held in Greek, will consist of four sections: (1) A flashback to the common European procedural roots; (2) The practical dimension; (3) The steps ahead; (4) A glimpse at the common European procedural future.

Speakers include Paris Arvanitakis (Aristotle University, Thessaloniki), Antonios Alapantas (President of the Court of first Instance, Piraeus), Ioannis Valmantonis (President of the Court of first Instance, Athens), Vassilios Sariyannidis (Director of the Unit on special legal matters of the Greek Ministry of Justice), Ioannis Delikostopoulos (University of Athens), Lida Pipsou (Aristotle University, Thessaloniki), Apostolos Anthimos (Attorney at law and  Editor in chief of Lex & Forum), Dimitrios Titsias (President of the Court of first Instance, Justice Counselor, Permanent Representation of Greece to the EU).

The full programme and the registration form can be found here. Registrations are open until 25 May at noon. Attendance is free.

From 9 to 11 September 2021, the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law will host a conference titled The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law. Depending on the course of the pandemic, the organizers plan that the conference will take place either at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg virtually or in a hybrid form. An official invitation was issued and registration is now open.

The conference is designed to present findings of the research project bearing the same title led by Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) and Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law). The project, as explained by its leaders, “aims to raise an awareness of how PIL – with its methods and institutions – is also capable of making a significant contribution in the quest for sustainable development” defined in UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030. The edited volume presenting findings of the project will be published by Intersentia and is scheduled to be released in September 2021, to be ready for the conference. The volume will be freely accessible online, in open access.

The following 19 contributors involved in the project will present and discuss their findings on respective SDGs (the exact conference program will be ready in the coming weeks):

SDG 1 No Poverty

Benyam Dawit Mezmur (University of the Western Cape, South Africa)

SDG 2 Zero Hunger

Jeannette Tramhel (Organization of American States, United States of America)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Anabela Susana de Sousa Gonçalves (Universidade do Minho, Portugal)

SDG 4 Quality Education

Klaus Beiter (North-West University, South Africa)

SDG 5 Gender Equality

Gülüm Özçelik (Bilkent Üniversitesi, Turkey)

SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation

Richard Frimpong Oppong (Kamloops, Canada)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

Nikitas E. Hatzimihail (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)

SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth

Ulla Liukkunen (University of Helsinki, Finland)

SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Vivienne Bath (University of Sydney, Australia)

SDG 10 Reduced Inequality

Thalia Kruger (Universiteit Antwerp, Belgium)

SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities

Klaas Hendrik Eller (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands)

SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production

Geneviève Saumier (McGill University, Canada)

SDG 13 Climate Action

Eduardo Álvarez-Armas (Brunel University London, United Kingdom and Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium)

SDG 14 Life Below Water

Tajudeen Sanni (Kampala International University, Uganda)

SDG 15 Life on Land

Drossos Stamboulakis (Monash University, Australia)
Jay Sanderson (University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia)

SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Sabine Corneloup (Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris II, France)
Jinske Verhellen (Universiteit Gent, Belgium)

SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals

Fabricio Polido (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil)

On 17 May 2021 (from 5 to 7 pm CET), the French Supreme Court in civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) will host an online seminar (in French) on the respective roles of the court and the parties in the application of conflict-of-laws rules (L’office du juge et la règle de conflit de lois).

The chairmen are François Ancel (President of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, ICCP-CA) and Gustavo Cerqueira (Professor at the University of Nîmes).

Speakers include Gian-Paolo Romano (Professor at the University of Geneva and co-director of the Yearbook of International Private Law), Nicolas Nord (Associate Professor at the University fo Strasbourg and Secretary General of the ICCS), Lukas Rass-Masson (Professor at the University of Toulouse 1, Director of the European school of law Toulouse) and François Mélin (Counsellor at the Paris Cour of Appeal).

The seminar will be streamed live on the website of the French Supreme Court (here).

It is part of a conference series dedicated to the office (role) of courts in different legal contexts and from a multidisciplinary approach.

The Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna (Italy), Ravenna Campus, is organising a Summer School on Transnational jurisdiction: current issues in civil and commercial matters. This will be held in Ravenna (and online) between 19-23 July 2021.

Given the growing relevance of cross-border litigation, the Summer School is looking to address a variety of issues from a comparative perspective combining theoretical and practical approaches. The topics address issues of jurisdiction, various aspects of private international law (e.g. cross-border service of documents, taking of evidence, arbitration agreements, Brexit, applicable law in non-contractual obligations, corporate social responsibility), available remedies, and the harmonisation of procedural rules.

The Director of the School, Prof. Michele Angelo Lupoi, has invited experts from different jurisdiction (see here) to lecture on several aspects of private international and procedural law. The programme of the Summer School is available here.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in the complex and fascinating area of international civil procedure.

The lectures are likely to be held in a hybrid form – in presence and online – in respect of the applicable rules and advice.

More information about the Summer School and the registration can he found here.

On 15 and 16 April 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an online workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The Court of Justice’s perspective.

Senior and junior academics specialising in EU law will discuss various aspects of the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order. On the first day of the workshop, the presentations will cover constitutional aspects of Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the second day, the speakers will discuss the application of this provision in selected EU policy areas.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity.

Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts. Article 47 Charter has also been at the centre of recent EU jurisprudence on the protection of the rule of law in the EU. This case law has confirmed the pivotal role of effective judicial protection in the EU architecture. It is not an overstatement that Article 47 is almost ‘omnipresent’ in the EU judgments as a result of a growing number of preliminary rulings and direct actions regarding the application of that provision. Novel questions thus arise regarding the impact of Article 47 Charter on the EU constitutional order, which require scientific observation and reflection. 

On 26 and 29 March 2021, the European Commission will host a webinar on the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the field of justice.

This will be the first in a series of events, which are a follow-up to the Communication of the Commission itself on the Digitalisation of Justice in the European Union of 2 December 2020 (reported here on this blog).

The topic of the first webinar is the Anonymisation and pseudonymisation of judicial decisions.

The webinar will bring together representatives of the academia, the private sector and the Member States with the aim to further discussions, in particular on publication of judicial decisions practices, including online publication, provision of judicial decisions as open data, approaches towards the protection of personal data, techniques for anonymisation and pseudonymisation of judicial decisions, existing projects and solutions at the national level and solutions available on the market…

Speakers include Eero Hyvönen (Aalto University and University of Helsinki), Monica Palmirani (University of Bologna), Edita Gruodytė (Vytautas Magnus University) and Louis Béziaud (University of Rennes).

The full program is available here. For the web streaming service see here (26 March) and here (29 March).

Based on the priorities defined for the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the area of Justice, the Ministry of Justice of Portugal will host on 30 March 2021 a conference under the title Protecting Vulnerable Adults Across Europe – The Way Forward.

The relevance of private international law – and, specifically, the Hague Convention on the International Protection of adults – to the realisation of the fundamental rights of adults with disabilities features among the key topics of the conference.

Speakers include Salla Saastamoinen (Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission), Zampia Vernadaki (Secretariat of the JURI Committee, European Parliament), Philippe Lortie (First Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law), and Jean-François de Montgolfier (Ministry of Justice, France).

Older persons, people with physical, intellectual, sensory or psychosocial impairments, and victims of hate crime or gender-based violence are among those adults who may face particular challenges in exercising their rights, defending their interests and accessing justice in civil and criminal proceedings.

Cross-border situations may further exacerbate these issues by creating additional obstacles with respect to language, representation and differences in national legal systems. This can particularly affect ‘vulnerable’ adults wishing to exercise their right of freedom of movement within the Union. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the difficulties that this population faces.

These challenges affect a significant proportion of the European Union’s population. European societies are ageing and Eurostat expects that, by 2050, one-fifth people in the EU will have some form of impairment. This is likely to result in an increase in the numbers of people who may need support to protect their interests and participate on an equal basis with others in civil and criminal proceedings.

Since 2008, initiatives in the area of civil law have promoted the ratification of the 2000 Convention on the International Protection of Adults and discussed how to improve its application. Yet the overall situation in the EU remains far from satisfactory.

In the area of criminal law, the new EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights 2020-25 recognises the need to explore how to enhance the protection of adults in vulnerable situations.

In addition, since 2018, all EU Member States – and the EU itself – are States Parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As the protection of ‘vulnerable’ adults is one of the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU in the area of Justice, the Portuguese Ministry of Justice, the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) are organising a virtual High-Level Conference on 30 March 2021.

This event provides an opportunity to reflect on the current situation and look ahead to what steps are necessary to ensure that all members of our diverse societies can enjoy their fundamental rights, including equal access to justice, in practice.

Attendance is free. The practical information to attend may be found here. See here for general information on the event, including the detailed programme.

On 5 February 2021, a seminar entitled ‘The Netherlands, a forum conveniens for collective redress?’ was organised by the Amsterdam, Maastricht and Tilburg Universities, together with the Open University. A brief account of the seminar will appear in the Dutch Journal on PIL, NIPR. Experts addressed procedural and private international law features in European and particularly Dutch mass claims.

One panel discussed PIL instruments needing rules on collective actions and settlements as featured in an earlier post on this blog. Another panel reviewed legal standing under the Directive on representative actions in the cross-border context (Directive 2020/1828) and was moderated by Ianika Tzankova (hereinafter, IT).

Paulien van den Grinten (PG) from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, Axel Halfmeier (AH) from Leuphana University and Vincent Smith (VS) from BIICL participated in the panel discussion. Below follows a shortened record of their exchange.

Introduction

IT: The Dutch approach to certification or admissibility in collective redress comprises two distinct questions:

  1. Who has standing to sue? The answer is: In general, designated and ad hoc entities that meet strict criteria (stricter perhaps than some of the criteria that the designated entities need to meet under the Directive in terms of governance, conflict of interest and financial capabilities); and
  2. Is the entity admissible? Note that both ad hoc established and designated entities are subject to the test that relates to their ‘admissibility’ in relation to the particular matter.

Since ad hoc entities play an important role in collective redress in the Netherlands also in the international context the question is, how the new Directive will impact the activities of these entities. One could think of several points that arise:

– When could Dutch ad hoc established and certified organisations be acknowledged before the courts of other Member State (MS)?

– The Dutch admissibility test seems to be more onerous than the Directive’s requirements. Will that impact the admissibility of foreign designated entities in the Netherlands?

– Will judgments in collective redress obtained by Dutch ad hoc established and court approved entities be recognised abroad?

Ad hoc Entities

IT: A central role in the Directive is given to so-called ‘qualified entities’. Perhaps we should first explain what ‘cross border’ and ‘designated entities’ mean in the context of the Directive…What is a ‘cross border action’ under the Directive? And what is a ‘designated entity’?

PG: Designated entity in the Directive refers both to entities designated in advance to be placed on the list and to the entities designated via acceptance by the court in a specific collective action.

AH: Cross-border action is defined in Article 3(7) Directive 2020/1828 and has nothing to do with other facts of the case. It is defined as a situation where a qualified entity sues in a MS that is not the MS in which that entity has been designated. For example, if a German entity files in the Netherlands against a Dutch company in the interest of Dutch consumers, this is a ‘cross-border action’.

IT: Apparently there was little support at EU level to incorporate the Dutch model of collective redress, where ad hoc entities play an important role, including in collective matters with an international dimension (Trafigura, Petrobras, VW, Salesforce, Shell, Fortis, Converium etc). The philosophy was to follow in that respect the Injunctions Directive, where only ‘designated entities’ placed on a list were given a role in cross border matters. What do you think of that approach?

VS: One of the major issues with this would be under the Brussels Ibis Regulation. If a national court (e.g. in Amsterdam) appoints an ad hoc entity then, under Brussels Ibis, although the judgment of the Dutch court is supposed to be recognised in all other MSs (and if there is no equivalent procedure, a MS has to provide one), judgments can be refused recognition on public policy grounds. So, a foreign judge could refuse to give full effect to the Dutch judgment, because the ad hoc entity (stichting) was not properly representative of the (international) class, and thus limit recognition (for example), for only Dutch residents were bound by the action, and not those in his forum State. The Directive avoids this by requiring recognition, but only for prequalified entities and only (outside the entity’s home State) on an opt-in basis.

PG: If the concept of recognition and enforcement under Brussels Ibis would be changed and become stricter due to the concept of a cross-border action under the Directive, that would have wide implications. This was surely not envisaged by the European legislator. The aim of limiting cross-border representative actions to actions started by entities placed on a list designated in advance was to prevent so-called ad hoc entities starting a representative action in another MS. The majority in the Council saw this as a way of protecting their courts. It had, however, nothing to do with a rejection of the Dutch national system with ad hoc entities as such. On the contrary, recital 28 of the Directive makes it clear that at a national level ad hoc organisations for a specific representative action designated by way of acceptance are allowed under Article 4 of the Directive. I do not see that courts in another MS could refuse the recognition and enforcement of a judgment resulting from such action based on public policy.

IT: How often (to your knowledge) have the ‘designated entities’ under the Injunction directive in your respective jurisdictions made use of their powers to file actions in cross-border matters? And do you think we should be optimistic about the role of these entities under the Directive?

PG: Not aware of any. We do not know whether claiming monetary damages in a representative action under the Directive will lead to more cross-border cases.

 VS: (1) Not aware. In UK there are few designated entities; most consumer associations are campaigning bodies not equipped to litigate. The competition collective actions regime was amended in 2015 so that representative bodies no longer had to be pre-approved by the Minister before they could bring collective competition claims. Before then, only one organization (Which) had applied for designation under the previous (2002) regime, and had only brought one claim (unsuccessfully).

(2) One issue is the body’s objects (purpose). The likely candidates are mostly charities, the UK charities regulator requires them to adhere to their objects and many of them are limited to UK actions. In UK competition ‘class actions’ so far all the representatives have been individuals (with litigation funding). In contrast to other common law ‘class action’ jurisdictions, however, they have generally been individuals with significant practical/professional experience related to consumer protection. For example, the current Mastercard collective action is headed by a Chief Financial Services ombudsman.

AH: Cross-border actions are rare in Germany. A remarkable recent exception was the action brought by an Italian consumer association (Verbraucherzentrale Südtirol) against Volkswagen in the interest of Italian buyers of cars in the Diesel emissions scandal. However, this is not an injunctions action, but one brought under the German ‘model declaratory action.’ The German consumer association (VZBV) had used this instrument in their own action on behalf of German consumers but had explicitly refused to represent foreign consumers.

Pre-approved (Designated) Entities

IT: So, what you are all saying is that there is no reason to believe that the designated entities will be active in practice. That is not a cheerful news for consumers. However, there must be good reasons why the EU has done this. Let us explore the advantages and disadvantages of granting standing in collective redress in cross-border actions only to pre-approved (designated) entities.

Advantages:

PG: MS courts know that every entity from another MS starting a procedure before its courts meets the harmonised requirements for designated entities, thus making mutual recognition of such entities less problematic.

PG: MS of origin is best placed to test whether an entity meets the harmonized requirements.

Disadvantages:

PG: Some requirements are difficult to test in theory without a collective claim.

PG: It might lead to circumvention of national requirements, as they are stricter.

VS: Many such entities will need to amend their objects.

IT: The Dutch experiences with collective actions (25 years) show that there may not always be such pre-existing entities, when needed, willing to fund such actions in which case the ad hoc established ones fill in that gap. Absent such entities there might be an access to justice deficit.

Funding

IT: And what about funding of designated entities and of collective redress? Articles 10 and 20 of the Directive deal with that, the first one dealing with TPF and the second one with lifting financial restrictions for designated entities.

IT @ PG: You assisted the Dutch government with the Directive and must have some insight. Why are there two separate articles on a related topic? How are non-profit organisations supposed to file this type of (costly) action in their jurisdictions?

PG: The original Commission proposal contained an Article 7 on funding and an Article 15 on assistance of qualified entities. Even though Article 7 was deleted and Article 15 was redrafted, a new provision on funding was reinstated as Article 7, but became Article 10 (and Article 15 became Article 20) in the final text. The importance of Article 10 is twofold: for those in favour of allowing third party litigation funding for representative actions, Article 10 makes it clear that funding is allowed under the Directive on strict conditions. For those against allowing third party litigation funding for representative actions, the wording of Article 7 serves to restrict the conditions under which such funding is allowed. Still, the wording is opaque for those who did not participated in the negotiations. Especially the reference made to in Article 10(2)(b) that a third party funder may not fund a representative action against a defendant which is a competitor of the funder or against a defendant on whom the funder is dependent, gives rise to interpretation questions. What is the rationale behind these provisions? Recital 52 gives clues about the rule prohibiting the funding against a competitor. A trader acting in the same market is considered to have a conflict of interest “since the competitor could have an economic interest in the outcome of the representative action, which would not be the same as the consumers’ interest”. The concern of the European legislator was that the representative action might become an instrument to harm a competitor rather than serve the interests of the consumers. As regards the funder, who is dependent on the defendant the concern of the European legislator is the reverse: such funder might be so dependent on the defendant that its actions are based on the interests of the defendant rather than the interest of the affected consumers.

IT @ AH: what is the view and position on funding of designated entities in Germany?

AH: In Germany, the “Verbraucherzentralen” are maybe the most active designated entities, including their federal association, the VZBV. These are mainly government-funded. In particular, the VZBV received extra money and extra funding of staff to specifically bring the new ‘model declaratory actions.’ So, we are looking at entities that are formally private law associations, which are more like outsourced parts of the government administration. We will see whether this will create future conflicts of interests. Hitherto government financing has not stopped them from bringing cases against (partly) State-owned companies such as VW, but this action was politically supported. There are close ties between the VZBV and the German government.

IT: This is interesting, but this potential issue was apparently not addressed in the Directive. It looks like the focus on potential conflicts of interest in the Directive is entirely on actions that are TPF-ed. Correct?

PG: yes, this seems to be the case. The Directive is limited to actions by consumers for infringements of EU-instruments placed on the list of Annex 1. Representative actions under the Directive will be between a qualified entity as claimant and a trader as the defendant. With the exception of the GDPR, the government is not a likely party in such actions. Conflicts of interest regarding the government were not seen as a point of concern in the negotiations for most MS or the Commission/EP. However, for the Netherlands it was in fact, a point of concern both regarding the designation of qualified entities and financial support to qualified entities. This concerned the broad scope of the Dutch mechanism for collective redress which is not limited to consumer actions. In the Netherlands around 40 % of all representative actions are against the Dutch government as defendant.

Insight into the Negotiations

IT @ PG: What considerations brought us to where we are and what were the most controversial issues during these negotiations? I am puzzled by the fact that actual experience does not seem to count for much in such negotiations: the MS have on the one hand no or disappointing experiences with the system of ‘designated entities’ under the Injunctions Directive and there are better experiences under the Dutch regime, that allows both type of entities (for over 25 years). Did this play any role in the negotiations? What evidence was produced?

PG: At the start of the negotiations in 2018, some MS had a collective redress system in place, others were working on it and some MS did not have any mechanism for collective redress. Throughout the negotiations more MS started legislative projects on collective redress in various shapes and forms. The Netherlands had pending legislation when the negotiations started. In the preparation for Parliamentary process we unearthed many issues relevant to the Directive. Real experience was largely irrelevant in the negotiations – it was easier for us with a collective redress mechanism to indicate difficulties in the Directive. By the late 2019, the Dutch WAMCA had become law. The result of this was that the Directive and the Dutch WAMCA are compatible. The Directive leaves enough room to accommodate MS’s national systems, e.g. designating ad hoc entities as qualified entities and the possibility for both opt out and opt in mechanisms. For some other aspects the provisions of the Directive match those of the WAMCA perfectly, e.g. the court can reject a claim at inception if it is manifestly unfounded, can be found both in Article 7(7), of the Directive and in Article 1018c, par. 5 (c). Therefore, the WAMCA will be the Dutch collective redress mechanism under the Directive without having to change. However, we do have to provide for a procedure for entities to be placed on the list predesignated for cross border actions. The Article 10 funding provisions seem to be more detailed than the WAMCA. We may have to exclude competitors or someone dependent on the defendant to acts as funder.

 AH:  Little of the discussion about collective actions is evidence-based. ‘Abusive’ litigation seems unlikely. On the contrary, the experience in Germany shows that almost all such actions are well-founded and not frivolous. Even if we look at the empirical data in the U.S., we clearly do not find the ‘abuse’ scenario that is often painted on the wall.

IT @ PG: What were you most proud of in the negotiations? What were you most frustrated by, also in view of the fact that Dutch ad hoc spv’s seem to need to meet much stricter criteria than the EU ‘designated entities’ in terms of governance, conflict of interest and funding capabilities and yet they are being perceived as somehow of a ‘lower rank’ in cross-border matters? Who will be in charge in the Netherlands in appointing designated entities?

PG: The biggest achievement was European legislative result on collective redress at all, obliging every MS in Europe to have a collective redress mechanism for consumers. Making a distinction between national collective and cross-border collective redress brought a breakthrough in the negotiations. Accepting that for cross border cases we have to work with a list of entities designated in advance with harmonised criteria, meant that the Netherlands – and others, like Germany – could preserve their national system. Even though the harmonised criteria may look different or less strict than the criteria under the WAMCA, the rationale behind the criteria are very similar. There are practically no criteria in the WAMCA which do not meet one of the criteria in Article 4 of the Directive. E.g. the obligation in Article 3:305a (2) of the WAMCA to have a governance structure with a supervisory board can be seen as the implementation of the obligation in Article 4, par. 3, (e) to be independent and to prevent a conflict of interest. We intend to make the Dutch ministry of Justice and Security responsible for the list of entities designated in advance for cross border actions. One of the more difficult issues in the negotiations in the Council was that of the concept of standing of a qualified entity on the one hand and the civil procedural concept of the admissibility of a specific representative action on the other. To underline that distinction the Directive contains several references to the procedural autonomy of MS and the room for courts to perform an admissibility test in accordance with their national law, e.g. in Recital 12 and Article 7(3).

Non-Dutch Perspectives on the Directive – And on Dutch Collective Redress

IT: Apparently one can speak of ‘Dutch exceptionalism’ in the context of EU collective redress. Let us hear non-Dutch perspectives on the EU Directive and on Dutch collective redress.

IT @ AH and VS: What is your take on the issues? In view of the sectoral approach in your respective countries versus the Dutch horizontal one? Are there any other issues that you identify in that context?

AH: I think there are some open issues regarding the EU Directive’s rules on standing on the one hand and individual Member States’ rules on admissibility of collective actions on the other. For example, if Dutch law would be restrictive in allowing foreign designated entities to sue, this could possibly violate Article 6(1) of the Directive that basically requires Member States to accept cases brought by designated entities from other Member States. For example, if a designated entity from EU Member State X sues a Dutch company before a Dutch court, but with respect to that company’s activities in Member State X and in the interest of consumers in Member State X, I think that the Dutch court would have to hear the case. It is also interesting that the Directive in its Article 5(4) allows the defendant trader to raise objections against the legitimacy of the designated entity with regard to the Directive’s criteria. But the Directive is silent on the procedure in such a case: Should the action be stayed until the home Member State of the designated entity has decided about such concerns? With regard to Germany, the German government worked hard to avoid ad hoc entities in the Directive and has succeeded in this regard. But there may be some more room now for foreign entities to sue in Germany under the Directive.

PG: As regards AH’s example, I think a Dutch court would accept that this foreign entity has standing. Accordingly the new Directive is no different from the current one for actions to obtain injunctions, be it that the foreign authorities at least have had to apply the harmonised criteria in order to place this entity on the list. In that respect it offers a better safeguard than now. Furthermore, accepting legal standing does not mean that the admissibility of the specific claim cannot be tested by the court. E.g. the Dutch court may still check whether the claim brought by the designated entity sufficiently safeguards the interests of the claimants and whether the entity has means to finance the claim.

VS: UK experience with the sectoral regime for collective competition (anti-trust) claims is still young, but developing. However, there are some clearly emerging issues which will also likely arise when implementing and applying the Directive:

It is modelled on the (horizontally applicable) Canadian regime, so we have a model to follow for the tricky questions. Even though there are differences between the EU and Dutch regimes, the Dutch experience will still be valuable for MS courts wanting to find an answer to issues not expressly dealt with in the Directive or national implementing legislation. The Dutch regime has many similarities with what is required under the Directive and, I think is likely to be used as a model by others.

A ‘class’ action doesn’t work so well for non-economic loss (eg injury due to clinical negligence etc) due to widely differing circumstances, whereas the Dutch settlement element was set up to deal with exactly that situation.

A sectoral approach could lead to borderline cases — e.g. claims pretending to be about consumer law, when they are in reality competition law cases, which are not covered by the Directive.

Also, it may be difficult to tell in many cases whether a case is about breach of EU law or national law. For example, in the consumer protection and environmental protection fields, EU law is mostly contained in Directives which are then implemented by the MS. So, the ‘consumer’ (claimant) will only immediately see a breach of legal norms in his national legislation. For many, working out whether their claim is in fact based on EU law may be unnecessarily difficult.

PG: Yes, to me this is a key observation and is why we want the Dutch WAMCA to be our system under the Directive, meaning that there will still be only one system in the Netherlands.

Is the Directive a Threat to Dutch Cross-Border (Consumer) Actions?

IT @ all: To circle back at the beginning of our discussion, do you think that the limitation on standing to pre-approved entities in the new EU Directive is a threat to Dutch cross border (consumer) actions, what is your final word on that?

VS: In my view the ‘threats’ to cross-border actions by qualified entities are mainly that they do not have the experience in doing this and that their purpose may be national rather than international. The EU level umbrella bodies might be better placed (e.g. BEUC) but they would have to be recognized by a national authority (lots of applications for designation to the Belgian authorities in Brussels?). So, the most important aspects I think are willingness of national authorities to recognize the few international ‘entities’ who might want to do this – not specific to the Dutch situation, I think, and a willingness/expertise in acting cross-border.

PG: I agree. Let’s not forget that since the entering into force of the Injunctions Directive not a single cross border action was ever started in the Netherlands or elsewhere until last year’s action against VW. It is cumbersome and might be very expensive having to start a case in another jurisdiction, working with foreign lawyers etc.

AH: One of the areas in which the Directive is really a step forward is third-party funding of litigation. In Germany, there is considerable uncertainty after some court decisions that prohibited this as being immoral in relation to a certain type of consumer associations’ actions. We now have the language in Article 4(3) e of the Directive, which certainly is a compromise, but at least shows that TPF cannot be completely prohibited, but needs to be regulated and looked at in more detail. In general, I think that the Dutch courts will remain an attractive forum for cross-border collective actions, and I expect that the Netherlands will remain the innovation leader in this field.

IT: Thank you very much for sharing your views and insights on this fascinating and challenging topic.

Charlemagne Dagbedji (University of Corsica) organises a webinar (in French) titled “Effective Recognition of Non-Judicial Divorce” (L’efficacité internationale du divorce sans juge).

The webinar aims at assessing the international legal acquis on non-judicial divorce, with a special focus on the means to ensure its cross-border recognition. It requires to analyse private international law rules but also to adopt a comparative law approach and a practical perspective.

It will take place on 25 March 2021, 2 to 4 PM (CET).

The speakers are André Giudicelli (University of Corsica), Alex Tani (University of Corsica), Alain Devers (University of Lyon 3 & Lawyer at the Lyon Bar), Charlemagne Dagbedji (University of Corsica) and Sonia Ben Hadj Yahia (University of Corsica).

Program and registration here.

French Private International Law (“PIL”) has never been codified despite various proposals of codification in the last century (see for instance here and here). The growing European acquis of PIL and the idea of an European Code of PIL (see for instance here and more recently within the EAPIL here), as well as the numerous codifications in the field within EU Member States have probably contributed to a re-launch of the reflection, in particular among French governement officials.

An expert group has be appointed two years ago under the leadership of Jean-Pierre Ancel (former President of the first Chamber of the French Court of Cassation) to draft a project of French PIL Act.

Against this backdrop, Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon 3) organises a webinar (in French) titled “Codification of French Private International Law in the European context” (La codification du droit international privé français à l’heure européenne).

It will take place on 18 March 2020, 2 to 5 PM (CET).

The speakers are Jean-François de Montgolfier (Director of the Civil Affairs of the French Ministry for Justice), Marc Cagniart (Notary, SCP Castiglione, Paris), Alain Devers (University of Lyon 3 & Lawyer at the Lyon Bar) and Emmanuel Putman (University of Aix-Marseille).

The program is available here.

Those wishing to attend the webinar may write an e-mail to marie.brossard@univ-lyon3.fr.

The author of this post is Ségolène Normand, Postgraduate Student in Private Law at the University of Valenciennes.


Digital technology has been investing all areas of society and its potential seems unlimited. At the global level, public institutions are progressively transforming in favour of eGovernment which involves rethinking both organisation and process, so that public services can be delivered online, quickly and at a lower cost for individuals and businesses (see for instance here). States are also investing massively in the digitisation of their justice system and national courts have to adapt to this new paradigm, irrespective of the type of disputes – domestic or cross-border – they are dealing with. Digitalisation has no borders.

Against this backdrop, the use of new technologies can facilitate the resolution of cross-border disputes, as it helps justice being faster, more accessible and efficient. The distance between courts and litigants may be removed by online hearings and proceedings. Digitalisation also makes cross-border judicial cooperation easier, in particular through the dematerialisation of circulation of procedural documents between courts, legal professionals and litigants. This trend has recently been illustrated by the recast of the Taking of evidence and Service Regulations (announced here) within the European Union (“EU”) and is one of the axioms of the modernisation of the European judicial area in civil matters (see here).

A seminar on Digital technology in family matters organised by the Academy of European Law (ERA) on 27 January 2021 gives me the opportunity to focus on digital justice in cross-border dispute resolution. What are the main tendencies of digital justice for international families worldwide? Does digitalisation lead to different ways and results in the legal and judicial treatment of family matters, as in other fields of private law?

On the one hand, digitalisation can contribute to promoting family mobility and ease dispute resolution. For instance, the translation of judgements by artificial intelligence (AI) may simplify the recognition of families’ documents in the receiving States. On the other hand, family legal issues often involve vulnerable parties and, therefore, deserve a specific attention within the process of digitalisation of justice.

This ERA seminar gave interesting insights on digitalisation of family justice, that I propose to share with the readers of the blog. The seminar brought together practitioners (professors, judges, lawyers, mediators…) from different jurisdictions, in order to present their national, as well as international experiences on digitalisation of family justice (1), the use of e-Codex in European cross-border procedures (2) and finally on legal tech and AI in family matters (3). The report is limited to some aspects of their contributions, with a private international law perspective.

1. Digitalisation of Family Justice

Several speakers presented various national digital progress in family law.

First, Annette Kronborg (Southern University of Denmark) screened the “mandatory digital application” and the “recovery of maintenance obligation” in Denmark. Unlike other Members States, Denmark introduced early the digitalisation in the family justice system. In fact, the first policy paper on digitalisation was introduced in 2001. The establishment in 2014 of a “mandatory digital application” introduced a digital communication between citizens and public authorities through a software application. And since 2015, a new digital authority has been centralising maintenance debts. But, according to the speaker, it must be reformed to be more efficient.

Second, Bregje Dijksterhuis (Molengraaff Institute for Private Law) explained the online divorce proceeding in the Netherlands. Thanks to “Rechtwijzer”, spouses can divorce online. It is up to them to decide what type of measures for their divorce they want. The project is a success for the user; nevertheless, lawyers criticise the lack of information on spouse’s rights.

Third, Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University) presented the project of online marriages and divorces in Japan. Indeed, since the pandemic, Japan’s authorities plans to digitalise marriage and divorce as well as replace traditional administrative (paper) documents. Moreover, Japanese authorities envisage a legislative reform following the Resolution of European Parliament of 8 July 2020 on the international and domestic parental abduction of EU children in Japan. Since there is no possibility under Japanese law to obtain shared or joint custody, there is a significant number of unsolved parental child abduction cases where one of the parents is an EU national and the other is a Japanese national.

2. E-CODEX and Cross-border Proceedings

Joanna Guttzeit (Judge at the District Court Berlin & Liaison Judge of the International Hague Network of Judges and the EJN in Civil and Commercial Matters) focused on cross-border family procedures and online hearings.

In the EU, the general statutory duty to hear in-person the participants to the proceeding (especially children) for family courts can lead to the refusal of recognition for judgements in the field of parental responsibility in case of online hearings. This results from Article 23 of the Brussels II bis Regulation. Traditionally, families travelled to the courts to be heard. But with the advent of new technologies, family courts could proceed to online hearings if a family member is unable to travel. However, some EU Member States might refuse to recognise the judgment in such circumstances.

The pandemic speeds up online-hearing in many European countries, such as Spain, Poland and Germany. However, online hearing should be exceptional and never become the “normal rule”, in particular within proceedings implying children. The procedures have to guarantee the welfare of children. Some States, like Germany, are really strict on this point. This is the reason why the EU Members States should harmonise their procedures by following European guidelines.

Then, Cristina Gonzàlez Beilfuss (University of Barcelona) discussed digitalisation of cross-border judicial procedures.

Undeniably, the pandemic shows that digital development in Europe could be a real opportunity to improve cross-border judicial cooperation. This is why the European Commission promotes national reforms in the field. The use of new technologies is, according to the Commission, the more efficient way to encourage exchanges between competent authorities in the area of mutual legal assistance. A vast majority of participants during the seminar, thought this communication should be predominantly digital in the future, while a minority thought it should be exclusively digital.

Actually, the main issue is the assessment of the legal effect or admissibility of the electronically determined document and the applicable law. It should be governed by the law of the requesting State. Pr. Gonzàlez Beilfuss proposed to harmonise the diffusion methods of electronic documents between the courts of the EU Member States to have a more predicable cross-border proceeding for international families. Regarding the legal effect, it cannot be denied on the sole ground that it is an electronic means of obtaining a judgment.

To conclude this session, Xavier Thoreau (Council of the European Union) presented e-CODEX and the new EU initiatives for the digitalisation of justice systems (here and here).

E-CODEX is a project established by the European Commission, in order to facilitate secure exchanges of data between legal professionals and litigants in different EU Member States. It consists of a package of software components that enable the connectivity between national systems. In cross-border proceeding, e-CODEX allows to establish a bridge between national systems. For the Commission, e-CODEX is the reference for secure digital communication in cross-border legal proceedings.

More than half of the participants rarely or never received in the context of their legal practice requests in electronic format by e-CODEX. According to Xavier Thoreau, this is problematic and shows that EU ambition to use the e-CODEX system to support national digitalisation of cross-border as well as domestic justice may take a long time. This is also supported by the fact that the EU has only a “subsidiary jurisdiction” in domestic family procedure.

3. Legal Tech and Artificial Intelligence in Family Matters

Markus Hartung and Ulrike Meising (lawyers) presented with Alan Larking (Family Law Patners, Brighton) the potential of AI and legal tech in the lawyer’s work.

AI and legal tech are great tools to help lawyers. From now on, they have an unlimited access to the law. In particular, they have an easier access to the law of other Member States, which is useful in the presence of foreign components in legal disputes. Increasingly, online applications with algorithms rank the dispute resolution models. For example, some law firm websites provide clients with a form to fill in online and an algorithm proposes a legal solution. Digital cross-border dispute resolution is possible since online applications are capable to adapt to each family model. However, a lawyer should always control the solution introduced by the algorithm.

Finally, Bérénice Lemoine (Council of the European Union) concluded with some thoughts on legal tech in family matters. Yet, the development of digitalisation of family justice in Europe is still far from uniform. For instance, only 24% of EU Member States integrate the issuance of “multilingual standard forms” of the Regulation on Public Documents, whereas in 54% of Member States, the possibility does not exist. Indeed, European citizens are not required to provide an official translation of family documents. They can ask the authorities of the EU country that issued their document to provide a “multilingual standard form” to facilitate its recognition in the receiving State. In the same vein, in 15% of Members States, official court documents cannot be served electronically on citizens and businesses. And for a third of them, evidence submitted in digital format is not deemed admissible. According to Bérénice Lemoine, it is not only necessary to encourage Member States to use already available legal tech and quickly develop them, but also to start the digital Justice transformation in those States which are less advanced, with the aim of having a more efficient resolution cross-border family procedure. For that, the EU offers a financial support (see Tool 1 of COM/2020/710 final).

 

 

As announced earlier on this blog, the Private International Law Interest Group of the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law organises a series of webinar titled Private International Law in Europe: Current Developments in Jurisprudence.

The webinar scheduled to take place on 19 February 2021 on State Immunity and Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters in Recent Court of Justice Rulings, with Alexander Layton and Lorenzo Schiano di Pepe has been rescheduled. It will take place on 1 March 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET).

To attend the webinar, please write an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.

On 22 February 2021, from 5 to 7 pm CET, the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan will host a webinar titled The Fundamental Rights of Persons with Cognitive Disabilities in Cross-border Situations – Time for Italy and Spain to Join the Hague Adults Convention.

The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults is currently in force for thirteen States. As the Hague Conference on Private International Law is preparing to host a Special Commission to review the practical operation of the Convention, scheduled to take place in 2022, other States – including Italy and Spain – are considering ratification.

The purpose of the webinar is to give an account of the domestic rules of private international law governing the protection of adults in Spain and Italy, and explore the benefits that joining the Convention would entail in the two countries for the adults concerned, the competent authorities and legal practitioners, including notaries.

In carrying out this exercise, regard will be had, in particular, to the experience of Portugal, which became a party to the Convention in 2018.

The organisers also seek to collect the views of stakeholders, notably human rights organisations with a focus on the rights of those with cognitive disabilities, regarding the issues surrounding the protection of such rights in cross-border situations, and the role that the Convention may play in enhancing such protection.

Speakers include Philippe Lortie (First Secretary of The Hague Conference on Private International Law), Salomé Adroher Biosca (Comillas Pontifical University), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Geraldo Maciel Rocha Mendes Ribeiro (University of Coimbra).

Attendance is free. No prior registration is required.

For more information, including the link to access the webinar, see here.

The Private International Law Interest Group of the Italian Society of International Law and EU Law has organised a series of webinar, most of which will be conducted in English, under the title Private International Law in Europe: Current Developments in Jurisprudence.

The programme is as follows:

29 January 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET): Limiting European Integration through Constitutional Law? Recent Decisions of the German Bundesvarfassungsgericht and their Impact on Private International Law – Speaker: Christian Kohler (Univ. Saarbrücken); Discussant: Giulia Rossolillo (Univ. Pavia).

19 February 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET): State Immunity and Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters in Recent Court of Justice Rulings – Speaker: Alexander Layton (King’s College London); Discussant: Lorenzo Schiano di Pepe (Univ. Genova).

12 March 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET): La trascrizione dell’atto di nascita nella recente giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale italiana – Speaker: Sara Tonolo (Univ. Trieste); Discussant: Elena Rodriguez Pineau (Univ. Autonóma Madrid).

9 April 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET): Law Governing Arbitration Agreements in a Recent Judgment of the UK Supreme Court – Speaker: Adrian Briggs (Univ. Oxford); Discussant: Pietro Franzina (Catholic Univ. of the Sacred Heart, Milan).

23 April 2021, 4 to 6 PM (CET) (TBC): Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Cross-Border Torts according to the Recent Volkswagen Judgment of the Court of Justice – Speaker: Giesela Rühl (Humboldt Univ. Berlin); Discussant: Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata).

More information available here.

On 11 January 2021, the Tax and Law Department of HEC Paris will host an online workshop titled What future for Cross-Border Small Claims?

The event will involve a keynote speech by Elena Alina Ontanu (Erasmus University Rotterdam) and a presentation of the guidelines on the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (ESCP) that have been produced in the context of the SCAN Project, co-funded by the European Union. The objective of the workshop is to disseminate information about the ESCP in order to help consumers and other stakeholders to use this procedure.

The workshop is organized in the framework of the EU-financed project SCAN – ‘Small Claims Analysis Net’, aimed at studying the flaws and implementation issues regarding the ESCP.

The programme of the event and the registration form are available here.

Elie Lenglart, a lecturer at the University Paris II Panthéon-Assas, gave an online conference on La théorie générale des conflits de lois à l’épreuve de l’individualisme (Individualism and General Choice of Law Theory) on 1 December 2020.

This is the topic of his doctoral thesis, which received the first prize of the French Committee of Private International Law earlier this year.

The English abstract of the work reads:

Individualism is one the characteristic features of modern legal theories. The emergence of individualism has so profoundly altered the meaning of the judicial phenomenon that it may be considered as the decisive factor in the evolution from a classical to a modern conception of the Law. This evolution is the product of a substantial mutation of our vision of the world, inextricably linked to a change of philosophical paradigm. The analysis of this evolution is essential not only to the understanding of the meaning of the Individualism doctrine but also to apprehend its main repercussions. International private Law has also been influenced by this evolution. The Conflict of Laws doctrine is necessarily based on a specific conception of the Law itself. Thus, the emergence of the individualistic approach of the Law undoubtedly has decisive consequences on this field: the methods used to solve conflicts of laws have evolved while the goals have been substantially altered. The Conflict of Laws doctrine is now structured toward the sole analysis of individual interests. This new feature is radically opposed to the balance that characterized the classical approach of Conflict of Laws. In order to reveal the extent of the implications of the Individualism on this field, a study of the concept within the Conflict of Laws doctrine is necessary.

The table of contents of the thesis is available here.

A video of the conference (in French) can be accessed here.

As readers of this blog know, the first EAPIL (Virtual) Seminar, devoted to the impact of Brexit on Private International Law, will take place tomorrow from 11 am to 1 pm (MET). For more information on the event, see here.

Registrations to the Seminar are now closed. The login details have been sent to the registered participants by e-mail this morning (if you can’t find our e-mail, please check your spam folder or get in touch with us at blog@eapil.org).

The University of Lyon (EDIEC-CREDIP) hosted a webinar (in French) under the title Situations in Motion : Debate on the Method, now available for online viewing.

Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (University of Côte d’Azur and French University Institute, IUF) presented his research project on Situations in motion and the Law, soon to be published in Q1 2021 (Dalloz). The webinar was co-chaired by Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon) and Cyril Nourissat (University of Lyon) and organised by Marie Brossard and Véronique Gervasoni.

More details here.

The 2020 Annual Conference of the French Association for European Studies (AFEE) will focus on Family within the Legal Order of the European Union, based on a collective research led by academics and practitioners from different EU countries, which resulted in a book edited by Elsa Bernard (University of Lille), Marie Cresp (University of Bordeaux) and Marion Ho-Dac (University of Valenciennes), to be published soon by Bruylant.

This year’s conference will take place on 11 December 2020, in the form of a Zoom webinar, from 11.45 to 14.30 MET, with the participation of the book’s authors and other speakers. It will be preceded, starting on 7 December 2020, by the posting of a series of short videos devoted to the contributions in the book.

Attendance is free, but those interesting in attending are required to register by 9 December 2020, by sending and e-mail to aline.dherbet@univ-lille.fr.

Family law, with its civil law tradition, and strong roots in the national cultures of the Member States, does not normally fall within the scope of European law. However, it is no longer possible to argue that family law is outside European law entirely. There are many aspects of the family which are subject to European influence, to the point that the outlines of a «European family» are starting to emerge. This book is intended to highlight the European experience of family law as well as its substantive (i.e. European citizenship, EU social policy, EU civil service…) and private international law aspects. Union law therefore contains a form of «special» family law which is shared between the Member States and supplements their national family laws. Its theoretical and political importance in the Union, as well as its future, are discussed by the authors. Far from remaining fragmented alongside the national laws of Member States, it will likely develop to offer European citizens and residents a common family law within the EU.

Contributors include: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Marlene Brosch, Christelle Chalas, Kiteri Garcia, Susanne Lilian Gössl, Loïc Grard, Víctor Luis Gutiérrez Castillo, Anastasia Iliopoulou-Penot, Beata Jurik, Hester Kroeze, Laure Lévi, Cristina M. Mariottini, Martina Melcher, Benjamin Moron-Puech, Marion Nadaud, Nicolas Nord, Cyril Nourissat, Ludovic Pailler, Nausica Palazzo, Amélie Panet-Marre, Etienne Pataut, Delphine Porcheron, Isabelle Rein Lescastereyeres, Sophie Robin-Olivier, Mathieu Rouy, Sandrine Sana Chaillé de Néré, Solange Ségala, Gaëlle Widiez et Geoffrey Willems.

As announced earlier on this blog, EAPIL will hold its first Virtual Seminar on 11 December 2020, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. (MET).

Devoted to the impact of Brexit on Private International Law, the seminar will feature speakers from the United Kingdom and the European Continent.

They will analyze the legal framework that will apply to cross-border cases in the short-term, i.e. as of 1 January 2021 when the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement expires. Speakers will also discuss what the future relationship between the EU and the UK could and should look like.

Special emphasis will be placed on the question of whether the EU and the UK should strive to adopt a new – bespoke – bilateral agreement (or whether it should simply join existing international conventions).

The speakers of the first session, on civil and commercial matters, will be Alexander Layton (Twenty Essex Street Chambers, London), Eva Lein (University of Lausanne) and Michiel Poesen (KU Leuven).

In the second session, Sir Andrew Moylan (Court of Appeal of England and Wales), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) and Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich), will focus, instead, on family matters.

Register here if you wish to discuss with us.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the seminar on 10 December 2020.

On 23 November 2020, at 9 am MET, the Université Côte d’Azur will host, via Zoom, the final conference of the EU co-funded research project called En2Bria – Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia.

The topics addressed include: transport matters and Article 67 of the Brussels I bis Regulation (Rosario Espinosa Calabuig); Article 67 of the Brussels I bis Regulation and Directives in special matters (Laura Carpaneto); GDPR, International Treaties Concluded by the EU, and “Optional Regulations” (Stefano Dominelli); Connections, disconnections and fragmentation in international civil procedure (Paula-Carmel Ettori, Jessica Sanchez and Chirouette Elmasry).

The full programme, together with further details, can be found here.

Attendance is free. Those interested may write to Giulio Cesare Giorgini at giulio-cesare.giorgini@univ-cotedazur.fr to obtain a link to access the platform.

The fourth online public workshop on Private International Law after Brexit from global, European, Commonwealth and intra-UK perspectives, organised by Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Mihail Danov (University of Exeter) and Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling), will be held on 26 and 27 November 2020.

Speakers include Reid Mortensen (University of South Queensland), Mihail Danov, Susanne Goessl, Ruth Lamont (University of Manchester), Fausto Pocar (University of Milan), Jonathan Harris QC (King’s College London), Lord Mance (former UK Supreme Court Judge), Ardavan Arzandeh (University of Bristol), Giuditta Cordero-Moss, and Paul Beaumont.

The following topics, among others, will be discussed: The opportunities of Brexit for the development of Private International Law in the Commonwealth; Connecting factors in Private International Law – A global perspective; Pluses and minuses of the UK being a party to the Lugano Convention after Brexit; Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction after Brexit at a global level; The Hague Adults Convention 2000 and the role of the UK and the EU in the Hague Conference after Brexit; Private International Law of Arbitration – A global perspective and the impact of Brexit on arbitration in the UK.

Further information available here.

An online workshop under the title Private International Law in the UK after Brexit (Commercial focus) will take place on 19 and 20 November 2020, hosted by Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Mihail Danov (University of Exeter) and Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling).

This is the third of four public workshops funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, on Private International Law after Brexit from global, European, Commonwealth and intra-UK perspectives.

Speakers include Jenny Papettas (University of Birmingham), Yvonne Baatz (Queen Mary University of London), Rob Merkin QC (University of Exeter), Tom Sprange QC (King & Spalding), Mihail Danov (University of Exeter), Mary Keyes (Griffith University), Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Iain Mackie (Macfarlanes), Alex Layton QC (King’s College London and Twenty Essex), Barry Rodger (University of Strathclyde), Lindsey Clegg (Freeths), Omar Shah (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), and Nick Frey (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP).

The full programme and the details to attend the workshop are available here.

On 16 November 2020, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament will vote on the draft recommendations for second reading on the proposed directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, the proposed regulation amending Regulation No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, and the proposed regulation amending Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.

During the afternoon session, the JURI Committee will hold a Workshop on ”The 40th Anniversary of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, in the presence of the EP Coordinator of Children’s’ Rights, Ms Ewa Kopacz.

The workshop will mark the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and is aimed at examining assessing the success and importance of the Convention in ensuring the prompt return and thus the best interests of the abducted children. Against this background, the workshop will bring together Members of the European Parliament and a number of experts, practitioners and academics with a view to presenting the functioning of the Convention from the child’s rights dimension and pointing out ongoing issues with its implementation. The programme and two in-depth analysis on the topic can be downloaded here.

Both the voting and the workshop will be webstreamed.

The first EAPIL Seminar will take place on 11 December 2020, from 11 am to 1 pm (MET). It will be devoted to the impact of Brexit on Private International Law.

In short introductory statements speakers from the United Kingdom and the European Continent will analyse the legal framework that will apply to cross-border cases in the short-term, i.e. as of 1 January 2021 when the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement has expired.

In addition, they will discuss what the future relationship between the EU and the UK could and should look like. Special emphasis will be placed on the question of whether the EU and the UK should strive to adopt a new – bespoke – bilateral agreement (or whether it should simply join existing international conventions).

The speakers of the first session, on civil and commercial matters, are Alexander Layton (Twenty Essex Street Chambers, London), Eva Lein (University of Lausanne) and Michiel Poesen (KU Leuven).

The second session, on family matters, will feature presentations by Sir Andrew Moylan (Court of Appeal of England and Wales), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) and Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University Munich).

The Seminar will take place via Zoom. Information about how to register will be announced in due course through this blog.

The EAPIL (Virtual) Seminar Series wishes to contribute to the study and development of (European) Private International Law through English-language seminars on topical issues. It will provide an easily accessible and informal platform for the exchange of ideas – outside the bi-annual EAPIL conferences. At the same time, it will serve as a means for EAPIL members to connect with other EAPIL members and non-members.

On 6 November 2020 (13:30 – 16:30 CET) the Royal Netherlands Society of International Law (KNVIR) will be holding its Annual Meeting online via Zoom. This year the invited legal experts will be focusing on the theme of adaptability of (private) international law to the digital environment.

In their presentations Marjolein Busstra, Wieteke Teeuwen (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ybo Buruma (Netherlands Supreme Court and Radboud University Nijmegen), and Jerker B. Svantesson (Bond University; Swedish Law & Informatics Research Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden and Masaryk University) will be discussing whether the concepts and ideas developed in the ‘predigital era’ still fit the digital world. In doing so the speakers will analyse whether international law (both public and private) is ready for the digital era or whether law has been a rather ‘fragmented follower of developments’ and we should be fundamentally rethinking a number of notions and approaches.

Marjolein Busstra and Wieteke Teeuwen will focus on International Law in the Context of Cyber Operations. Ybo Buruma will look at internet from the perspective of International Law and Cyberspace – Issues of Sovereignty and the Common Good. Finally, Jerker B. Svantesson will be discussing whether International Law [Is] Ready for the (Already Ongoing) Digital Age: Perspectives from Private and Public International Law.

Registration is open until 3 November 2000 at info@knvir.org.

The reports (preadviezen) prepared by the legal experts have been published in November by Asser Press under the title International Law for a Digitalised World. You can find more information about this here.

A webinar, organised by the Young EU Private International Law Research Network (an EAPIL activity), will take place on 16 November 2020, from 9.15 to 15.30. The webinar’s topic is Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Law of the EU Member States.

Speakers include Katarzyna Bogdzevič (Mykolas Romeris University), Stefano Dominelli (University of Genoa), István Erdős (ELTE), Uglješa Grušić (University College London), Holger Jacobs (University of Mainz), Martina Melcher (University of Graz, co-chair of the Network), Markus Petsche (Central European University), Ennio Piovesani (University of Turin/University of Cologne), Johannes Ungerer (University of Oxford), Tamás Szabados (ELTE, co-chair of the Network), Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (University of Zagreb).

The sessions will be chaired by Florian Heindler (Sigmund Freud University Vienna) and Eduardo Alvarez-Armas (Brunel University London).

The full of programme of the event is available here.

Attendance is free of charge, but those interested in attending are asked to register via email at youngeupil@gmail.com before 12 November 2020.

A free webinar on Access to Justice in cross-border Litigation: Lugano v. the Hague will take place on 27 October 2020, at 12.00 CET, organised by the UK Law Societies Joint Brussels Office.

The webinar aims at exploring the implications of the UK leaving the EU system of enforcement and recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters on access to justice for citizens.

In particular, the speakers will examine what the future relationship of the UK and EU regarding the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters will look like under both the Lugano Convention and alternatively, The Hague Judgments Convention. The panel will discuss the consequences of both scenarios on citizens and businesses.

The panellists are Philip Thorsen (Partner at Mazanti-Andersen Korso Jensen, Copenhagen), Christopher Deacon (Partner at Stewart & Stewart, London) and Guido Callegari (Partner at De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani, Milan).

The discussion will be moderated by Diana Wallis (University of Hull, former President of the European Law Institute and former Vice-president of the European Parliament).

More details and advance registration here.

The 2021 winter course of the Hague Academy of International Law will be held online from 11 to 29 January 2021.

One remarkable feature of the Academy’s winter courses is that they jointly cover topics belonging (or traditionally labelled as belonging) to both public and private international law.

The General Course will be delivered by Maurice Kamto under the title International Law and Normative Polycentrism.

Special courses include: Evidence in International Adjudication by Chester Brown, The Protection of Religious Cultural Property in Public and Private International Law by José Angelo Estrella Faria, and The Regulation of the Internet by Inger Österdahl.

The winter course’s full programme is available here.

Registration will open on 8 October 2020. Further information is available on the Academy website.

An online event titled Coordinating Brussels Ia with other Instruments of EU Law: A Roundtable on Theoretical and Practical Issues will take place on 24 September 2020, at 3 pm (CET).

The purpose of the event, organised by the Universities of Genoa, Nice, Valencia, and Tirana, is to present the first results of the investigation conducted under the EU co-funded research project En2Bria – Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia, which aims to shed light on the terms whereby the relationship between the Brussels I bis Regulation and other EU law instruments is to be handled.

The conference will be chaired by Chiara E. Tuo (Univ. Genoa). Speakers include Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (Univ. Nice), Guillermo Palao Moreno (Univ. Valencia), Giulio Cesare Giorgini (Univ. Nice), Rosario Espinosa Calabuig (Univ. Valencia), Rosa Lapiedra Alcami (Univ. Valencia), Isabel Reig Fabado (Univ. Valencia), and Stefano Dominelli (Univ. Genoa).

See here for further information.

Those interested in attending the conference are invited to write an e-mail to Stefano Dominelli at stefano.dominelli@unige.it.

A series of webinars devoted to the Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law will be offered from 16 to 18 September by the the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines.

Speakers include Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the Hague Conference, Philippe Lortie, First Secretary of the Conference, and Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer at the Conference’s Permanent Bureau.

See here for more information available.

The Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb will hold a conference on Applicable Law in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings on 18 and 19 September 2020. Those interested in attending the conference may do so either in person or online.

Speakers include Paul Omar (INSOL Europe), Ignacio Tirado (Secretary-General UNIDROIT), Miha Žebre (European Commission), Andreas Piekenbrock (University of Heidelberg), Jasnica Garašić (University ofZagreb), Francisco Garcimartín (Autonomous University of Madrid), Edward Janger (Brooklyn Law School), John Pottow (University of Michigan), Bartosz Groele (Tomasik & Pakostewicz & Groele), Zoltan Fabok (DLA Piper Posztl, Nemescsói, Györfi-Tóth & Partners), Miodrag Đorđević (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia), Leif M. Clark (former US Bankruptcy Judge), Simeon Gilchrist (Edwin Coe LLP), Renato Mangano (University of Palermo), Rodrigo Rodriguez (University of Lucerne) and Gerry McCormack (University of Leeds).

In the context of the 2020 Annual Conference of the European Law Institute, the feasibility study on EU Conflict of Laws for Companies: The Acquis and Beyond will be presented by Chris Thomale (proposer), Luca Enriques, Jessica Schmidt and Georg Kodek (Chair) today, 11 September 2020, from 15:15 until 16:15 CET.

International company mobility as well as regulatory competition of company laws depend on clearly cut out rules designating the applicable substantive company law. It would thus seem an integral part of a functioning internal market to provide such conflict of laws rules. Regrettably, however, a ‘Rome IV’ Regulation, ie an EU conflict of laws code for companies, despite manifold initiatives, has not been adopted yet. Instead, the stage has been left to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which in well-rehearsed case law from the Daily Mail (C-81/87) until the Polbud (C-106/16) decisions has developed a certain framework for corporate mobility, culminating, of late, in Directive 2019/2121 on cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions. One big shortcoming of the European status quo is that the piecemeal harmonisation acquired through these developments still leaves a fundamental question unanswered: which company law regime by default is applicable to a given company?

This feasibility study will aim at laying the foundations for a prospective project that fully restates EU law on the matter implicit in conflict of laws legislation on adjacent topics like contract, tort, successions, insolvency and capital markets. Further, it will aim at foundations that go beyond CJEU case law and include national adjudicative practice and academic research into the picture. Based upon this acquis communautaire, the project of a future Rome IV Regulation can be investigated, notably putting to use techniques of private international law in order to address Member State reticence towards such an instrument as expressed hitherto.

To register for the webinar free of charge, please contact the ELI Secretariat at secretariat@europeanlawinstitute.eu.

Albert Henke (University of Milan) has been awarded the EU-funded Jean Monnet Module on ‘Multilevel, Mutiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe’. The three-year teaching and research project will run from 2021 to 2023 and will focus on three main areas: relations and conflicts between national courts, European courts and international tribunals; cross-border collective redress; procedural issues arising out of litigating cross-border commercial, financial, competition, IP, labour, consumers and family law disputes.

Civil litigation in a cross-border dimension presents greater complexity than domestic litigation, due to differences in legal traditions and regimes, as well as in cultural and social values among jurisdictions. A recent EU Study (JUST/2014/RCON/PR/CIVI/0082) shows that EU Member States’ procedural law regimes are still far from being harmonized, what negatively impacts on free circulation of judgments, equivalence and effectiveness of procedural protection and the functioning of the internal market.

The module is proposed to Italian and foreign under- and postgraduate students, as well as to practitioners. It will identify the main procedural issues deriving from a lack of harmonization among EU jurisdictions, contribute to the academic debate at national and European level, produce a series of academic outputs and set the basis for future academic cooperation, also in view of international joint research projects.

The teaching staff includes Alan Uzelac (University of Zagreb), Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Sciences Po, Paris), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Fernando Gascón-Inchausti (Complutense University of Madrid), Maria Teresa Carinci (University of Milan), Francesco Rossi dal Pozzo (University of Milan), Stefaan Voet (Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven), Francesca Marinelli (University of Milan), Pietro Ortolani (Radboud University, Njimegen) and Apostolos Anthimos (European University, Cyprus).

For information, please contact Prof. Albert Henke at albert.henke@unimi.it.

cfdiplogoThe French Committee for private international law will hold a conference on the codification of private international law in the afternoon of 9 October 2020, in Paris.

The first speaker will be Geraldine Gazo, who practices in Monaco, and who will present the recent law on private international law adopted by Monaco in 2017.

The second speaker will be Justice Jean-Pierre Ancel, who is a former president of the first civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation, and now presides over a working group on the codification of French private international law.

The exact time and location are to be announced on the website of the Committee.

The Hague Academy of International Law announced the extension of the deadline to apply for the 2021 Centre for Studies and Research (postponement of the 2020 edition) until 1 September 2020. The programme will take place between 16 August and 3 September 2021 and will focus on the topic of Applicable Law Issues in International Arbitration.

The programme description reads:

International arbitration has long been the most successful method for settling all kinds of international commercial disputes, and still is – notwithstanding the surrounding criticism – the leading method for settling disputes between foreign investors and the host state. One of the characteristics of international arbitration is that it to a large extent relies on an international or transnational legal framework. The effects of arbitration agreements and of arbitral awards, as well as the role of the courts regarding arbitration agreements and awards, are regulated in international conventions such as the New York or the ICSID Conventions. Furthermore, although there is room for specificities of national law, commercial arbitration acts are largely harmonised especially through the impact of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Similarly, even if arbitral institutions try to distinguish one from each other by providing for some specific tools, the essential content of arbitration rules does not vary. It can be said, consequently, that the transnational framework of arbitration is intended to create to the extent possible an autonomous system of dispute resolution, which can be applied in a uniform way irrespective of the country in which the proceedings take place or the award is sought enforced. The procedural autonomy of arbitration may also have an impact on how arbitral tribunals relate to the substance of the dispute.

As arbitral awards are final and binding, and domestic courts and ICSID annulment committees do not have the power to review them in the merits, arbitral tribunals enjoy a considerable flexibility in selecting and applying the rules of law applicable to the dispute, even though they are constrained to respect the will of the parties. Legal literature has strongly emphasized that this flexibility creates an expectation of delocalization: both from the procedural and from the substantive point of view, arbitration is described as a method for settling disputes that strives for uniformity on a transnational level and should not be subject to national laws. The autonomy and flexibility of arbitration, however, are not absolute. The international instruments that regulate arbitration either make, in some contexts, reference to national law or call for the application of (general or concrete) international law. Also, they do not cover all aspects of arbitration, thus leaving room for national regulation. Additionally, the restricted role that courts and ICSID ad hoc committees have in arbitration does not completely exclude that national law may have an impact. While court and committee control is not a review in the merits, application of the parameters for validity or enforceability of an award, even where these parameters are harmonised, may depend on national regulation.

Importantly, the definition of what disputes are arbitrable is left to national law. While the scope of arbitrability has been significantly expanded starting from the last two decades of the last century, there are signs now that it may be restricting. The scope of arbitrability may be looked upon as a measure of the trust that the legal system has in arbitration. From another perspective, it may represent the way in which States approach the settlement of international commercial disputes: intending to keep an exclusive power by means of the exclusion of private deciders, or adopting the role of controllers of the regularity of arbitration. As far as investment arbitration is specifically concerned, it is well known that States’ attitudes are diverse and may change from time to time. In both cases, States’ policy choices may have an impact on applicable law issues.

All the foregoing considerations, succinctly exposed, are the frame for the present topic. On such a basis, it is possible to develop two lists of issues to be individually addressed. The first list deals with the fundamental aspects of the topic. Among the issues included therein, some refer to all types of arbitration, while others are rather specific to either commercial or investment arbitration. The second list responds to the fact that the applicable law is not necessarily unitary. Indeed, according to the principle of severability, a different law may apply to the procedural aspects and to the substantive aspects of the dispute, and within these two categories there are further possibilities for severing the applicable law. Thus, one can wonder to which issues is it appropriate to apply international sources of law, to which issues is it appropriate to apply soft sources of law, to which is it appropriate to apply national sources of law, and to which issues is it appropriate to apply (or to create) transnational standards. Or a combination of these sources? On which basis may this selection be made, and what are its effects on the autonomy of arbitration, on the expectations of the parties and on the credibility and legitimacy of arbitration as an out-of-court judicial system that enjoys enforceability?

The Directors of Research, Prof. Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo) and Prof. Diego Fernández Arroyo (Sciences Po, Paris), invite applications from researchers including students in the final phase of their doctoral studies, holders of advanced degrees in law, political science, or other related disciplines, early-stage professors and legal practitioners. Applicants should identify the specific topic on which they intend to write. Participants will be selected during the fall of 2020, and will convene at The Hague during the programme period to finalize their papers. The best articles will be included in a book to be published in the fall of 2022.

All applicants are required to register online via the appropriate registration form.

More information about the programmes of The Hague Academy of International Law can be found here.

At its fifty-second session, in 2019, UNCITRAL considered a proposal from the European Union on applicable law in insolvency proceedings (A_CN.9_995_E).

UNCITRAL agreed on the importance of the topic, which complemented the significant work already done by UNCITRAL in the area of insolvency law, in particular cross-border insolvency.

However, UNCITRAL also observed that the subject matter was potentially complex and required a high level of expertise in various subjects of private international law, as well as on choice of law in areas such as contract law, property law, corporate law, securities and banking and other areas on which it had not worked recently. Therefore, UNCITRAL agreed that it was essential to delineate carefully the scope and nature of the work that it could undertake.

UNCITRAL requested the Secretariat to organize a colloquium, in cooperation with other relevant international organizations, with a view to submitting concrete proposals for UNCITRAL’s possible future work on such topic, for consideration by the Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2020. The Colloquium is to be conducted on an informal basis, that is, not as an intergovernmental group.

The Colloquium was to be held in New York on 15 May 2020 (see the draft programme here), in cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Due to the postponement of the Working Group V session originally scheduled for 11-14 May 2020, the Colloquium on Applicable Law in Insolvency Proceedings is also postponed. Information on the new date will be communicated by the UNCITRAL Secretariat when possible.

On 25 and 26 September 2020, the University of Bonn will host a conference titled The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries.

The conference focuses on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, and is organised by Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Philipp Reuss and Matthias Weller.

The event is organised in cooperation with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht at the University of Bonn and The International Litigation Exchange (ILEX). Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH, will give a welcome note (via video message), while Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH, will provide an overview of the genesis of the Convention, and Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH, will conclude the event with summary remarks.

Speakers include Hans van Loon (Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of Milan), Xandra Kramer (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam), Wolfgang Hau (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich), Francisco Garcimartín Alférez (Autonomous University of Madrid), Colin Brown (to be confirmed) and Andreas Stein (both European Commission), Jan Teubel (German Ministry of Justice), Heiko Heppner (ILEX), Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling), Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Est Créteil), Pippa Rogerson (University of Cambridge), Ilija Rumenov (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University), Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), José Angelo Estrella-Faria (Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT, Senior Legal Officer UNCITRAL Secretariat, International Trade Law Division Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations).

The programme of the event can be found here. Looking forward to meeting as many as possible of you in Bonn!

Hauptgebaeude Uni Bonn

A free webinar on Force Majeure and Hardship under Cross-border and Comparative Perspectives will take place on 8 April 2020 at 17.00 BST, organised by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

Speakers include Alice Decramer (avocat, Signature Litigation Paris), Nicole Langlois (Barrister, XXIV Old Buildings) and Tom Sullivan (partner & attorney, Shook Hardy Bacon, Philadelphia). The webinar will be chaired by Duncan Fairgrieve (Senior Research Fellow in Comparative Law & Director, Product Liability Forum). 

The objective of this webinar is to examine the legal consequences of a party’s inability to perform a contract due to events outside their control, by comparing and contrasting a series of different juridictions including the US, France and the UK. An analysis will be made of the issue of force majeure / and hardship in comparative perspective, looking at the impact of contractual force majeure clauses, and their interpretation by the courts in a series of different juridictions. The seminar will look at supply of goods contracts, as well as commercial contracts more generally. An analysis will be given of the position where there is no specific contractual provision, and reliance is instead placed on frustration / hardship or impracticability. What are the conditions of these doctrines and what is the remedy that might be awarded? Distinguished speakers will examine the issues with a particular focus on the impact of the current circumstances.

More details and advance registration here.

On 2 April 2020, the Hague Academy of International Law announced its decision to postpone the Summer Courses on Public and Private International Law scheduled for July and August 2020, as well the Academy’s Centre for Studies and Research, devoted this year to Applicable Law Issues in International Arbitration.

Both events will take place in 2021.

The Academys’ annoucement reads as follows.

It is with a very heavy heart that, in view of the evolution of the spread of COVID-19, the Academy is forced to cancel its programmes planned for the summer of 2020: the Summer Courses on Public and Private International Law, as well as the Centre for Studies and Research. This is the second time in their almost centenary existence that the Summer Courses will not be able to take place. Only the Second World War was able to stop the running of the courses, the Academy’s main activity;  the one to which it owes its renown.

An exceptional situation, which calls for an exceptional decision: the Academy’s doors will remain closed this summer. The two programmes will be postponed to 2021. The Summer Courses will take place between 5 July and 13 August 2021 and the session of the Centre for Studies and Research between 16 August and 3 September 2021. The updated poster of the 2021 Summer Courses will be available online in April/May.

A video message by Jean-Marc Thouvenin, the Secretary-General of the Academy, may be found here.

indexTriggered by recent events, notably the Dieselgate scandal, collective redress is now back on the EU civil justice agenda (see here). It is also the subject matter of requests for preliminary rulings addressed to the CJEU (see, concerning a situation with cross-border implications, the currently pending case C-709/19, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters).

A conference on the topic, organised by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law in cooperation with ERA – Academy of European Law, will take place on 16 and 17 April 2020 in Trier.

The conference will: introduce the proposed EU Directive on representative action; provide a platform for debate on topical issues of this key Directive; analyse major case law of the CJEU and national Supreme Courts on collective redress; look at the mismatch of EU law and collective redress; present the most recent hands-on experience with collective redress; debate funding issues, namely contingency fees and third-party funding.

The event is chiefly meant for legal practitioners specialised in the field of consumer law and policy, litigators involved in mass damage cases, representatives of business and consumer organisations, ministry officials, and academics.

For more information please see here.

affiche_colloque_CCIP_1122The proceedings of the symposium held in June 2019 on the Paris international commercial chambers were published in a special issue of the Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires which can be freely download on the website of the Paris Court of Appeal.

The presentations were made in French, and the proceedings are written in the same language.

The Court has provided the following summary in English:

Opening of the Symposium

A little more than a year after the signature of the procedural protocols establishing the international commercial chambers in the Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal, the symposium was opened to a large audience by Mrs Chantal Arens, First President of the Paris Court of Appeal, who, among other things, announced the forthcoming publication of a bilingual procedural guide before these chambers, with the aim of presenting the proceedings in a detailed and didactic manner, and called for the regulatory consolidation of the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal.

Mr Gille Cuniberti, Law Professor at the University of Luxembourg and moderator of the roundtables, pointed out that the creation of international commercial chambers forms part of an international competition between courts from which one of the issues at stake is the attractiveness of French law.

The creation of the Paris International Commercial Chambers

After a reminder of the origins of the commercial chambers by Mr Guy Canivet, Honorary First President of the Court of Cassation, and of the options chosen by the Ministry of Justice presented by Mr Thomas Andrieu, Director of Civil Affairs for the French Ministry, Ms Marie-Aimée Peyron, Chairman of the Paris Bar Association, went back on the support of the Paris bar in the creation of these chambers.

Students at the Sciences Po Law school of Paris (Mr Félix Briant, Ms Auriane Clement, Mr Mathieu Larroque, Ms Charlotte Muller) presented the fruit of their work done during one year with the International Commercial Chamber of the Court of Appeal by providing an overview of the choices made abroad in the creation of international commercial courts in Europe and in the world.

Roundtables

This symposium allowed to set out how to access to the international chambers in France, their jurisdiction and the applicable procedure, stressing in particular the desire to give greater importance to predictability in the conduct of the trial, the orality of the proceedings, the possible use of foreign languages and, in particular, the use of the English language.

Mr François Ancel, Ms Fabienne Schaller and Ms Laure Albert, all three judges in the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal intervened to develop these various points, as have the President of the International Commercial Chamber at the Paris Commercial Court, Mr Philippe Bernard, and Mr François Vaissette, Avocat Général representing the General Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Paris Court of Appeal , which was able to clarify the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in these chambers.

Mr Alban Caillemer du Ferrage and Ms Emilie Vasseur, members of the Paris Bar, stressed the important role of the creation of these chambers and the will of the bar to promote the stipulation of clauses conferring jurisdiction to the benefit of the Paris courts (in particular in the choice of ISDA to open its Master Agreement to the jurisdiction of French courts and French law) and inisted also on the judicial administration of evidence and the voluntary appearance of the parties and witnesses.

Finally, scientific insight was given by Ms Marie-Elodie Ancel, Law Professor at the University of Paris Est Créteil on the first decisions handed down by the International Chamber of the Court of Appeal and by Professor François Mailhé, Deputy-Dean of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the Picardie Jules Verne University, who asked in particular how to meet the needs of economic stakeholders (use of the English language, set up of a procedural timetable; compulsory production of evidence; cross-examination).

Closing speech

During his executive summary, Mr Emmanuel Gaillard, Visiting Professor at the Yale Law School and at the Harvard Law School, called for pursuing the movement initiated by the creation of these chambers, in particular in favour of the use of the English language without translation and by implementing an adequate communication to raise awareness of these chambers, considering that France could usefully offer a high-quality public service of justice within a reasonable time and in accordance with international standards.

The fourth research seminar of the IFITIS Research Project, led by Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, will take place in Nice on 13 March 2020.

The IFITIS Project explores, generally, a phenomenon that the project leaders call “full movement beyond control”.

The expression refers to the movement of persons, goods, services etc. across territories. The phenomenon is understood to have a “full” dimension in that it calls for the attention and action of public and private actors (States, companies, individuals) at local, national and international levels. And it is regarded as “beyond control” in the sense that, in specific or short-term situations, like those of crisis, institutions with responsibility for such movement do not have full control over it.

The seminar, titled Antecedent and Modal Approaches to Circulation, is concerned with the understanding and representations of the notion of movement and with the modalities of movement in different areas of knowledge.

Speakers include Christian Rinaudo (Univ. of Nice), Jeremy Heymann (Univ. Jean Moulin – Lyon 3), Alain Strowel (Catholic Univ. of Louvain), Philippe Billet (Univ. Jean Moulin – Lyon 3), Marina Teller (Univ. of Nice), Jean-Yves Carlier (Catholic Univ. of Louvain), Sophie Robin-Olivier (Univ. Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne) and Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (Univ. of Nice).

See here for further information.

brexitAs reported earlier in this blog, the Queen Mary University of London will host a series of workshops on Private International Law after Brexit.

The first workshop of the series, scheduled for 28 February 2020, is sold out. The second and third workshop will be held on 1 and 2 April 2020, and will focus on the future development of private international law in the UK in relation to commercial law and family law, respectively.

More on the events can be found here.

brexitOn 28 February 2020 the Queen Mary University of London will host the first of four public AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) workshops on Private International Law after Brexit.

The workshop will focus on the Development of Private International Law in the UK post Brexit.

The issue will be addressed from four key perspectives: Global – by Professor Trevor Hartley LSE; Commonwealth – by Professor David McClean, University of Sheffield; EU/EEA – by Michael Wilderspin – Commission Legal Service, and Intra-UK – by Dr Kirsty Hood QC, Faculty of Advocates, Scotland.

The workshop will also hear from the organisers of this AHRC Research Network, Professor Paul Beaumont, University of Stirlingand dr Mihail Danov, University of Exeter (who will report on his English pilot study). Furthermore, some empirical research findings will be shared by Professor Sophia Tang, University of Newcastleand dr Jayne Holliday, University of Stirling.

The organisers invite persons interested in advising on the development of the Research Network to stay for an informal meeting to be held at the end of the workshop.

The event is free and open to all, but registration is required because spaces are limited.

More on the event can be found here.

AMICABLE, a project co-funded by the European Commission, aims to create Best Practice Tools assisting with the enforceability of mediated agreements in the EU, and a Model for incorporating mediation into child abduction proceedings.

The Best Practice Tool is a sort of legal “roadmap” for judges, legal practitioners and mediators. It will consist of an EU general Best Practice Tool and four country-specific tools for Spain, Poland, Italy and Germany, respectively.

The Model is already operative in Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. The project’s goal is to facilitate the exchange of information and mutual learning and to explore how the model could be introduced in Spain, Poland and Italy.

The Project is led by MiKK, International Mediation Centre for Family Conflict and Child Abduction (Germany) in cooperation with the Universities of Milano-Biccocca (Italy), Wrocław (Poland) and Alicante (Spain).

Registration is open for the Project Seminars, scheduled to take place on 26 and 27 March 2020 in Alicante, on 23-24 April 2020 in Wrocław and on 21-22 May 2020 in Milan.

More information is available through the Project’s website.

indexThe fourth edition of the IAPL-MPI Summer School, organised by the International Association of Procedural Law and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, will be held from 27 to 30 July 2020 in Luxembourg.

The School aims to bring together young post-doc researchers dealing with European and comparative procedural law, as well as with other relevant dispute mechanisms for civil controversies, during a four-day event of fruitful discussion and scientific debate.

This edition’s focus is on The interplay of global tendencies with local traditions in procedural law.

The deadline for applications is 31 January 2020.

For more information: summer-school@mpi.lu.

UPDATE – 5 March 2020: the conference has been cancelled.

On 23 April 2020, the Catholic University of Milan will host a conference, in English, on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

The conference will be opened by Fausto Pocar (University of Milan). Speakers include Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Elena D’Alessandro (University of Turin), Francisco Garcimartín Alférez (Autonomous University of Madrid), Marko Jovanovic (University of Belgrade), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari) and Matthias Weller (University of Bonn). Luca Radicati di Brozolo (Catholic University of Milan) will provide some concluding remarks.

The event benefits from the support of EAPIL, the European Association of Private International Law, and of the Interest Group on Private International Law of SIDI, the Italian Society of International and EU Law.

Attendance is free, but those wishing to attend are required to register by 10 April 2020 through the conference website. In view of the limited seating capacity of the room where the conference will take place, early registration is recommended.

For more information: pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.