Archive for category: Association’s activities

Third Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report (Part II)

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions, as report of the Working Group’s third meeting. This post follows up on the report (Part I).

The third meeting of the Working Group continued with an in-depth discussion structured around a case study, building on the insights emerging from the Swedish and Belgian contributions and from the overview of national transposition acts (both final and draft) of EU Member States – the report of this first part is available here.

The exchange, moderated by the co-Chairs Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, examined the protection against proceedings and judgments originating from third countries and addressed the safeguards provided through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims.

The discussion was framed around a case in which an international non-governmental organisation brought proceedings before the court of a EU Member State against a U.S. company, which had previously initiated litigation in the United States against the organisation and its U.S. affiliate, alleging their involvement in protests against a major infrastructure project and seeking substantial damages.

3. On Which Grounds Could a Member State Court Refuse the Recognition and Enforcement of the Judgment Rendered by U.S. Courts?

Question three requires examining the circumstances under which national courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of the judgments rendered by U.S. courts against the international organization. In particular, Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive establishes that Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State is refused, if those proceedings are considered manifestly unfounded or abusive under the law of the Member State in which such recognition or enforcement is sought.

Marie Linton (Uppsala University), Working Group member for Sweden, explained that American judgments do not produce any legal effects in Sweden, meaning they do not have res judicata effect. Under Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Swedish Enforcement Code, which sets out special provisions for the enforcement of foreign judgments under EU law and international conventions, no specific provisions cover U.S. judgments. Consequently, the U.S. company would need to initiate a special review procedure before a Swedish district court, which examines the American judgment and proceedings as if acting in an appellate capacity relative to the U.S. court. In this procedure, the American judgment serve as evidence, but the Swedish court may issue a new, independent judgment for enforcement purposes. However, in SLAPP cases, the Swedish court would typically dismiss the claim if the foreign judgment is deemed manifestly unfounded or otherwise defective, rather than issuing a new judgment.

The Belgian perspective was then provided by Jachin Van Doninck (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), who presented materials prepared jointly with Cédric Vanleenhove (Ghent University), both Working Group members. Under the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL), recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments require an exequatur (Article 22, §1, first sentence CPIL) and are subject to verification of the refusal grounds set out in Article 25, §1 CPIL. A new provision, Article 25, §1, 10° CPIL, would introduce a specific refusal ground: recognition and enforcement must be denied when the judgment relates to an act of public participation under Article 1385/1, 1° and 2° of the Judicial Code (‘JC’) and the underlying claim is considered manifestly unfounded or unlawful under Belgian law. Notably, this framework allows for a de novo review of the foreign judgment’s merits, as opposed to the classic public policy exception, while Article 25, §2 CPIL clarifies that under no circumstances will the foreign judgment be reviewed on its merits.

The discussion, moderated by Marco Pasqua (Examiner, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), Working Group co-Chair and member for Italy, further explored the implications of the national approaches presented.

As regards the Belgian perspective, Jachin Van Doninck emphasised that the relevant standard for assessing the refusal of recognition and enforcement should be read in parallel with the ruling provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v. Société éditrice Le Monde case (C-633/22), as also noted on this blog. In that judgment, the Court clarified key aspects concerning the limits of review in cross-border situations and the role of fundamental rights in assessing the compatibility of foreign judgments, thereby offering interpretative guidance that may also inform the application of Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. This suggests that, even in the absence of full harmonisation, EU law may provide a common interpretative framework capable of influencing national courts when assessing whether third-country proceedings are manifestly unfounded or abusive.

From the Swedish perspective, as highlighted by Marie Linton, the discussion underscored that the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments remain, to a large extent, unharmonised at EU level. The Swedish approach thus reflects a specific national procedural framework, which, while not unique, illustrates the diversity of solutions across Member States. This, in turn, points to the significance of the EU legislator’s choice to adopt a directive – rather than a regulation – in the field of anti-SLAPP protection at the EU level, thereby allowing for a degree of national procedural autonomy.

In concluding the discussion, Marco Pasqua observed that such a “surgical” approach to harmonisation is not unfamiliar within the EU legal order: where considered necessary, the Union does not refrain from intervening even in such areas governed by national law with a “targeted” intervention. A recent example, in a different context, is Council Regulation (EU) 2025/395, amending Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which introduces, in Article 11c, a specific rule excluding the recognition, effect or enforcement in EU Member States of judgements or other court decision pursuant to or derived from Article 248.1 or Article 248.2 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation or equivalent Russian legislation. However, such intervention may prove less straightforward in legal systems characterised by automatic recognition of foreign judgments, as it may entail, de facto, a form of review on the merits, albeit limited but not insignificant. Against this overall background, it remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the EU legislator may in the future decide to general harmonise the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments, where it has the competence and the will to do so.

4. On the Basis of the Transposition of Article 11 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, How Would the Procedure for Early Dismissal Operate in Your Legal System?

The early dismissal mechanism in Article 11 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive requires Member States to ensure that courts can dismiss manifestly unfounded claims related to public participation at a very early stage, following an appropriate examination and in accordance with national law. This mechanism is particularly important from a private international law perspective. Since the recast of the Brussels I bis Regulation will take time, an effective and genuinely expedited early dismissal procedure serves as a crucial safeguard against forum shopping pending potential reforms in this area, and may mitigate the chilling effect inherent in SLAPP litigation.

The fourth question concerns a scenario in which the U.S.-based company initiates proceedings against the organisation before a court in a Member State. It is assumed that jurisdiction is established, while the organisation argues that the claim is manifestly unfounded.

With respect to Sweden, Marie Linton explained that no legislative amendments were deemed necessary to comply with Article 11 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, as Swedish procedural law already provides various mechanisms to deal swiftly with manifestly unfounded claims. Where a claim is clearly unfounded, Swedish courts may immediately ex officio render a judgment without issuing a summons, according to Chapter 42, Section 5, of Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Courts are expected to act “without undue delay”, which means within a few days, but there are no specific sanctions if this time frame is not met. Even where a summons has already been issued, the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure provides several procedural avenues for expeditious adjudication of manifestly unfounded claims (for example Chapter 42 Section 11, Chapter 42 Section 18 first paragraph indent 5 and Chapter 42 Section 20 second paragraph of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure).

Finally, Marie Linton argued that the threshold is very high before a claim is deemed to be unfounded. She therefore questions whether Swedish law fulfills the intention of the Anti-SLAPP Directive and is a viable solution for SLAPP cases.

According to the presentation, as prepared by Jachin Van Doninck and Cedric Vanleenhove, the Belgian government intends to insert a specific provision on early dismissal in Article 1385/3 JC. There are two scenario’s: either the SLAPP target request, orally or through reasoned petition, for early dismissal at the stage of the preliminary hearing, or the court can ex officio dismiss the claim at any stage of the proceedings. With respect to this request, there is a reversal of burden of proof; in accordance with Article 12 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, the claimant has to prove that the claim is not unfounded.

During the preliminary hearing, Belgian courts will first examine the possibility of an amicable settlement. If no settlement is reached, short-debate proceedings will follow, after which the court must deliver its judgment within 30 days of the hearing. Jachin Van Doninck expressed concerns as to whether Belgian courts will, in practice, be able to allow for such short-debate proceedings, given that they are often understaffed and overburdened. Furthermore, no sanction is attached to the requirement that the court must issue its judgment within 30 days. In addition, Jachin Van Doninck raised the unresolved issue about what happens when claims are modified and/or added that would qualify as manifestly unfounded claims against public participation.

Jachin Van Doninck also pointed out an imbalance between decisions granting early dismissal, which are open to appeal, and decisions rejecting a request for early dismissal, which are not open to appeal. This difference in treatment may not be justified under Article 10 of the Belgian Constitution.

Moderated by Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University), Working Group co-Chair and member for the Netherlands, the discussion turned to a closer consideration of the early dismissal mechanism of national approaches of Member States.

Artur Doržinkevič (Mykolas Romeris University), Working Group member for Lithuania, noted that the Lithuanian approach is closer to the Belgian model, as it involves adversarial proceedings on the merits. As already noted on this blog, a decision on early dismissal is typically rendered within approximately two months and is subject to appeal. Artur  Doržinkevič also expressed his concern that, if SLAPP claimants lodge an appeal, the proceedings may still take a long time.

To conclude, Birgit van Houtert underscored the differences in time limits governing early dismissal procedures across Member States, as illustrated by the comparison between Belgium and Sweden. With regard to a change in the Polish draft transposition act, Zuzanna Nowicka (Jagiellonian University), Working Group member for Poland, noted that the timeframe has been reduced from six to three months. On this point, Marco Pasqua emphasised that time is a crucial factor in SLAPP cases, and noted that in many legal systems a three-month timeframe is not feasible, although it may already be too lengthy to provide effective protection. According to Jerca Kramberger-Škerl (University of Ljubljana), Working Group member for Slovenia, a three-month timeframe, as provided for in Article 8 of the Slovenian Anti-SLAPP Act (already noted on this blog), which is in force (as of 25 February 2026), appears realistic for Slovenian courts. This assessment is grounded in the significant judicial reforms undertaken in Slovenia over the past two decades to reduce backlogs and accelerate proceedings, notably following the ECtHR’s pilot judgment in Lukenda v Slovenia.

As presented by Marie Linton, in Sweden the procedure is significantly swifter: courts may decide without issuing a summons and can render a decision within a matter of days. Birgit van Houtert argued that the absence of a hearing may, however, raise concerns in light of the right to a fair trial.

In their closing remarks, the co-Chairs warmly thanked the speakers and all members for the rich and engaging discussion. The Working Group will continue its activities and will have the opportunity to report on the state of transpositions at the upcoming international conference SLAPP, Activism and Human Rights: Legal and Social Challenges in the Defense of the Environment, which will be held in Tarragona on 30 June 2026 at the Faculty of Legal Sciences of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Further information on the conference will be announced in due course on the EAPIL blog.  

Third Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report (Part I)

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions. It is the first part of a report on the Working Group’s third meeting. This post continues with the report (Part II).

On 19 March 2026, the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions held its third meeting, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, who opened the session by welcoming the participants. As previously noted on this blog, the first meeting, dedicated to the work on the questionnaire for the analysis of national transpositions (reported here), and the second meeting (reported here and here), focused in particular on the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’).

The third meeting built on these earlier discussions and further explored the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, as well as the early dismissal mechanism provided for in its Article 11. The discussion, structured around a case study, centred on two key aspects: first, the protection against proceedings and judgments originating from third countries; and second, the protection ensured through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims. Contributions were provided by the Working Group members from Sweden and Belgium, and the discussion was conducted in an integrated format, with all Working Group members participating and engaging in a preliminary critical assessment of the mechanisms under consideration.

In light of the transposition deadline of 7 May 2026, the coming months will be crucial to assess whether the Anti-SLAPP Directive is implemented in a manner capable of ensuring effective protection for SLAPP targets across the European Union. An overview of the current state of transposition across Member States was also presented. A limited number of Member States – namely Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden, and, partially, Romania – have already adopted final transposition measures. Several others, including Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, are currently in the drafting phase. However, a significant number of Member States have not yet introduced any transposition measures, not even in draft form.

The Case Study

The discussion then turned to a case study, which served as a basis for identifying the key questions guiding the exchange.

An international non-governmental organisation brought proceedings before the court of a EU Member State against a U.S. company. The company had previously initiated litigation in the United States against the organisation and its U.S. affiliate, alleging that they had contributed to organising or amplifying protests against a major infrastructure project. The claims included allegations of operational disruption, reputational harm and financial losses, and sought very substantial damages, which the organisation characterised as typical SLAPP actions.

On this basis, four questions were identified to guide the discussion, to be addressed in light of the draft or final transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in the respective Member States.

The first three questions involve this issue of bringing proceedings before the court of a EU Member State, in which the organisation seeks compensation for the damages and costs incurred as a result of the U.S. litigation.

In response to the questions, Marie Linton (Uppsala University), Working Group member for Sweden, presented the Swedish final transposition act, while Jachin Van Doninck (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), who presented for Belgium on the materials prepared together with Cédric Vanleenhove (Ghent University), both Working Group members for Belgium, contributed with the Belgian draft transposition act. These contributions then provided the basis for a broader discussion among all Working Group members.

1. On Which Criteria Would the Court Assess Whether the Case Concerns a SLAPP?

This question invites reflection on the criteria that national courts should apply in order to determine whether a given case qualifies as a SLAPP within the meaning of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

As a preliminary matter, the Anti-SLAPP Directive applies to civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications, including interim and precautionary measures, regardless of the court or tribunal involved. It excludes, from the scope, revenue, customs and administrative matters, State liability for acts iure imperii, as well as criminal proceedings and arbitration. For the purposes of this assessment, the Anti-SLAPP Directive provides key definitions under Article 4, including: (i) “public participation”; (ii) “matter of public interest”; and (iii) “abusive court proceedings against public participation”, accompanied by an indicative list of relevant elements. By contrast, the notion of “manifestly unfounded claims” is not harmonised at EU level, leaving a discretion to national legal systems.

The discussion was opened by Marie Linton, who presented the framework under Section 1 of the Swedish Act on the Protection of Participation in Public Debate in Disputes with Cross-border Implications.

The Swedish Act applies to civil disputes in which settlement is permitted, concerns participation in public debate and has cross-border implications, but does not define “participation in public debate” or SLAPP. As the Act applies to cases capable of settlement, it is for the parties to plead that the claim constitutes a SLAPP, effectively setting the frame of the court proceedings, with guidance from preparatory materials referencing Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

The discussion then moved on to the Belgian perspective, with Jachin Van Doninck taking the floor. The analysis focused on the transposition of the 2024 Anti-SLAPP Directive in Belgium, including the legislative proposal by opposition parties based on the Belgian Anti-SLAPP Working Group draft, the Council of State advice and the forthcoming government proposal.

The proposal would introduce Chapter XVII in Book IV of the Judicial Code (‘JC’) on “Specific Proceedings – protection of persons participating in public debate against manifestly unfounded legal claims or abusive proceedings”, defining public participation (Article 1385/1. § 1, 1° JC), matters of public interest (Article 1385/1. § 1, 2° JC) and abusive court proceedings against public participation (Article 1385/1. § 1, 3° JC) along the lines of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, and incorporating the Anti-SLAPP Directive’s indicative list in Article 1385/4 JC.

Following the presentations on the Swedish and Belgian approaches, the discussion on the first question – concerning the notion of SLAPP – was moderated by Marco Pasqua (Examiner, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), Working Group co-Chair and member for Italy.

Francesca Maoli (San Raffaele University of Rome), Working Group member for Italy, took the floor and addressed two main aspects. First, she emphasised the importance of the duty of national courts to interpret domestic law in conformity with EU law. In this respect, even in the absence of explicit or detailed definitions in national transposition acts, courts are required to construe domestic provisions in light of the notions (where provided), wording and purpose of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, thereby ensuring its effectiveness. Second, she raised the issue of decisions rendered by third-country courts, questioning to what extent the qualification adopted by a foreign court could influence the assessment carried out by the court of an EU Member State. This raises the prospect of a renewed assessment under the domestic notion of SLAPP, and connects to the broader and delicate issue of whether, and to what extent, a review of the merits of judgments resulting from third country foreign proceedings may take place – a matter not yet harmonized at EU level and that was further revisited later in the meeting.

Marco Buzzoni (University of Luxembourg – Luxembourg Centre of European Law), Working Group member for France, then contributed the French perspective. He noted that the French transposition is still at a preliminary stage: the legislative process has only recently begun, and the draft is not yet publicly available, although some initial indications are emerging. The French approach appears, at this stage, to follow a model similar to the Swedish one, in that it may refrain from providing detailed definitions of the key notions. At the same time, Marco Buzzoni highlighted a crucial issue already under discussion within the Working Group, namely the possibility for the court seised to raise ex officio the SLAPP nature of the proceedings. While the Anti-SLAPP Directive, in several provisions, seems to place the initiative – at least as a minimum requirement under Article 3 – on the defendant to invoke the protective mechanisms, an express recognition of broad ex officio powers would arguably enhance the overall effectiveness of the Directive’s framework.

In concluding the discussion on this first question, Marco Pasqua underlined the central role played by definitions. Any restrictive approach at national level may affect the effectiveness of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in achieving its objectives. Therefore, the proper transposition technique on the point remains open to debate: while providing guidance – such as a non-exhaustive list, in line with Article 4(3) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive – may represent a viable solution, it is essential to preserve a broad margin of interpretation for national courts, which are key actors in ensuring effective protection against SLAPP.

2. On Which Grounds Would the Court Have Jurisdiction?

This question mainly involves the transposition of the special jurisdiction ground of Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive that requires Member States to ensure that, where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a claimant domiciled outside the EU in a third-country court against a person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts of the place where that person is domiciled, compensation for the damage and the costs incurred in connection with the third country-proceedings.

Marie Linton presented Section 7 of the Swedish Act that transposes this jurisdiction ground without the requirement of abusive proceedings; the mere fact that the action before the foreign court relates to the participation in public debate by the defendant domiciled in Sweden is sufficient.

Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University), Working Group co-Chair and member for the Netherlands, moderating the discussion, pointed out that the lack of this requirement provides more protection to SLAPP-targets than Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Marie Linton clarified that according to Swedish law the requirement of abusive proceedings is regarded as a substantive issue and must therefore be decided on the merits of the case.

Moving forward, Jachin Van Doninck and Cedric Vanleenhove’s presentation showed that the Belgian government intends to transpose the special jurisdiction ground of Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL). The Belgian government would opt for a special ground of jurisdiction, so there is no need to localize pure economic loss, as follows from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which would otherwise lead the court down a rabbit hole. The Belgian court must, however, stay its decision if the foreign proceedings are still pending (Article 1385/6, § 2 Judicial Code). Birgit van Houtert highlighted this as a concern regarding the effective protection of SLAPP targets, as SLAPP cases often take a considerable amount of time. In the same line, Marco Pasqua argued that this delay could even become part of the strategy of SLAPP claimants. Jachin Van Doninck agreed this is indeed a risk, noting that it is a means of exacerbating and exhausting a defendant abroad. Unlike the Green proposal and the proposal of the Belgian Working Group, the government would opt for this limitation.

Finally, Birgit van Houtert pointed out that the Swedish and Belgian Acts amount to a codification of the jurisdictional ground laid down in Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive, as reflected in the draft and final implementation legislation of other Member States, thereby enhancing legal certainty. In contrast, the Dutch draft transposition act does not envisage incorporating this ground of jurisdiction into domestic law, which risks leading courts into a rabbit hole of complex localisation of pure economic loss, ultimately failing to ensure the effective protection of SLAPP targets.

Marco Buzzoni noted that in France there is no indication that Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive will be transposed. He expressed his concern for the proper head of jurisdiction. According to case law, the exorbitant head of jurisdiction based on nationality does not cover procedures where the damage originates from foreign procedures.

In concluding the discussion on this question, Marco Pasqua emphasised that the issue of the applicable law in actions related to third-country proceedings remains equally crucial. In this respect, Recital 44 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive clarifies that the jurisdictional rule based on this special ground does not address questions of applicable law or substantive rules on damages as such. Consequently, determining the applicable law, as well as the scope and types of recoverable damages, remains a key and open issue in the overall framework.

The report continues in Part II, with the analysis of the protection against SLAPP judgments originating from third countries and addressing the anti-SLAPP safeguards provided through the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims.

EAPIL Issues Position Paper on HCCH Jurisdiction Project

, , , ,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

The EAPIL Working Group on Parallel Proceedings has issued a position paper to answer the public consultation of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on the HCCH Draft text of a future convention on parallel proceedings and related actions.

The position paper was drafted by Gilles Cuniberti, Aleksandrs Fillers, Bettina Heiderhoff, Jeremy Heymann, Vesna Lazic, Aygun Mammadzada, Christian Rüsing, Geert van Calster and Burcu Yuksel, with contributions by Sarah Alwahaibi, Pavel Boulatov and Dominika Moravcová.

It can be downloaded here.

A Historic First: EAPIL as Observer at the 2026 Council on General Affairs and Policy of the HCCH

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

In March 2026, the European Association of Private International Law had the distinct honour of joining as an observer, for the first time, the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). The invitation to participate in the HCCH’s principal governing body was a recognition of EAPIL’s contribution to the development and understanding of private international law across Europe and beyond. Represented by Secretary General, Giesela Rühl, EAPIL had the chance to discuss ongoing projects of the HCCH and to exchange views with delegates of HCCH Member States including the European Union.

This year’s Council brought together 546 participates (316 onsite and 230 online) from 77 Member States and 31 observers. It discussed work related to possible legal instruments in the areas of parentage and surrogacy, jurisdiction in transnational civil or commercial litigation, central bank digital currencies, carbon markets, digital tokens, digital economy, restructuring and insolvency and intellectual property. In addition, the Council discussed matters of governance and strategy, including the strengthening of post-Convention assistance, promotion and implementation of existing HCCH instruments, statistical monitoring, and cooperation with other international and regional actors. Attention was also given to the HCCH’s future work programme and priorities for the coming years. The conclusions and decisions of the CGAP are available here.

The breadth and ambition of the discussions demonstrated the central role of the HCCH in shaping practical and forward-looking solutions in private international law. For EAPIL, participation in these exchanges provided a valuable opportunity to follow the global policy debate at close range and to reinforce the Association’s engagement with colleagues and institutions from around the world.

EAPIL thanks the HCCH Secretariat for the invitation to The Hague and looks forward to continued dialogue and cooperation with the HCCH and its Members in the years ahead.

EAPIL Winter School: A Preview of the 2027 Edition

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EAPIL Winter School was established in 2024. The three editions organised so far attracted, globally, more than 80 participants, mostly PhD students, young academics and professionals, coming from 16 countries.

The courses, held at the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures at the University of Insubria, in Como, have resulted in collective volumes that will be published from June 2026 on.

In 2027, the EAPIL Winter School will be devoted to the challenges posed by technologies in European Private International Law. The course will deal with topics such as cryptocurrencies, online torts, digital assets and much more.

The format of the 2027 edition will differ, exceptionally, from that followed in the previous editions, as it will consist of a series of hybrid seminars that will take place between mid-January and the end of March 2027.

The programme is currently being prepared by the EAPIL Working Group overseeing the Winter School (which includes Silvia Marino of the University of Insubria, Anna Wysocka-Bar of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and Javier Carrascosa González, University of Murcia), and will be out in September 2026.

The Winter School will then be held again in the usual format in Como in 2028.

The EAPIL Winter School on Values in Private International Law: Report

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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 third 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 2 to 6 February 2026.

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).

Prepared by a dedicated EAPIL Working Group consisting of  Silvia Marino, Javier Carrascosa González, and Anna Wysocka-Bar, the general topic was Values in Private International Law.

Thirty participants, coming from Austria, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Venezuela, attended the School. Most were either PhD students with an interest in European Private International Law or young practicing lawyers.

2 February

The course started with an introductory lecture by the President of EAPIL, Gilles Cuniberti, on the Methods in Private International Law. He set the scene on the approaches used in conflict of laws, tracing a difference mainly between the continental Europe and the USA (with some relevant distinctions). He discussed the traditional approach, dominant in Europe, focused on a geographical connection, through a multilateral rule on choice of law that is neutral in substance, and the apparently opposite methods in the US after the conflict of law revolution. The traditional continental approach seems however changing, towards a global governance, addressing the challenges of the world. The example of the duty of vigilance of multinational corporations has been discussed.

In the afternoon, Javier Carrascosa González and Maria Asunción Cebrian Salvat (University of Murcia) opened the session dedicated to Unforgettable Classics, the protection of the weaker parties. They analysed the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, distinguishing between the classic passive consumer, targeted by a professional, and the active consumer, which is currently not protected by EU private international law. In the former cases, the rules in the Brussels I bis and in the Rome I Regulation do not grant coincidence of the court granted with jurisdiction and the applicable law; the frequent examples of online hotel reservations were discussed. The lack of coincidence grants however predictability and proximity in favour of both parties.

Erik Sinander (Stockholm University) started the lecture on Workers from the concept of weak party protection in labour law, that shall lead to normative deviations or limits to the standard rules on contracts. However, limitations to party autonomy, forum shopping alternatives for the employees, the different allocation of disputes might not be always consistent with other private international law targets, such as foreseeability. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union was discussed in order to stress that the reduced degree of predictability in private international law can affect also the interests of the worker as a weaker contractual party.

Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków) presented a case study on the rights on Passengers. Analysing the abundance of the legal sources on the carriage of persons, both on uniform law and on private international law rules, she stressed the difficulties in their interpretation and interactions. The case study was in particular tested regarding the application of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, the EU uniform law and the EU jurisdiction and choice of law rules.

3 February

Day 2 was devoted to the protection of victims in torts. Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva) challenged the consolidated case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, that states that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation does not aim to protect Torts Victims as Vulnerable Parties. The only situation where a tort victim is expressly protected is the case of road traffic accidenst, since the victims can systematically sue the insurance in the courts of the place of their domicile. Despite the specific case, an absolute protection of the victim in torts would however generate a sort of generalised strict liability rule through private international law. In privacy cases, however, the identification of a vulnerable party is harder, because there is a need to balance two competing fundamental rights, and because the SLAPPs turn the press as a weak party against the claimant. In the light of the above, he presented possible normative reforms in EU private international law.

Erik Sinander completed the analysis of cross-border labour law with a presentation on Collective Rights. He discussed the Italian Supreme Court Solesi decision, that highlighted the difficulties in civil judicial cooperation among EU Member States where collective rights are at stake and the normative differences in national substantive laws are remarkable – also embedding different values. In a cross-border perspective, he suggested to characterise each different step of collective bargaining separately, in order to face specifically the problems that can arise at each stage. After CJEU’s case law, he presented also Norwegian and Swedish cases that helped understanding the challenges of collective rights. In this field European private international law seems still weak and adaptation is needed from a substantive law perspective.

Eva Maria Kieninger (University of Würzburg) discussed Environmental Claims. Starting from EU rules on international jurisdiction, while the court of the place of the domicile of the defendant can always be granted with jurisdiction (as the Vedanta case), the application of Article 7(2) can raise challenges despite the CJEU’s judgment in Bier. Indeed, environmental claims have often as object mass torts with multiple victims, where joint proceedings against the parent companies and its subsidiaries (wherever located) might prove useful for the effectiveness of the (fair) trial. Rules on the applicable law shall be embedded with the “polluter pays” principle, as the unilateral choice of law granted in Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation does. After addressing the challenging characterisation of statutes of limitation, the burden and the standards of the proof, analysing the existing national case law, she discussed the future private international law related topics in the Milieudefensie case, were the Dutch Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Court decision.

Thomas Kadner Graziano concluded the day openly discussing with participants two very different cases related to Product Liability. He involved students in defining and finding the relevant connecting factors according to EU Regulations, such as the place of manufacturing, the place of distribution, the place of marketing of material products, differentiating also whether these were sold online by the producer, or in person after a distribution chain.

4 February

Cristina González Beilfuss (University of Barcelona) opened the day dedicated to Vulnerable People with a lecture on Vulnerable Adults. She started with the legal background of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, that lead to changes in Contracting States internal legislation. She discussed the two EU proposals on the EU accession to the 2000 HCCH Convention on adults protection and on a Regulation that builds on the Convention in the frame of a general legal movement that protect people with incapacities. On the former proposal, the main points were the concept of reverse subsidiarity and the EU external competence. Furthermore, doubts were raised about the consistency of the 2000 HCCH Convention with the CRPD approach; the notion of habitual residence of a person with mental impairments, with special regards to the psychological element thereof; the scope of application of the Convention regarding measures of protection and powers of representation.

Sara De Vido (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice) shared remarks on a legal-feminist approach to private international law. She demonstrated how Women were traditionally considered as passive subjects in many past international conventions regulating private international law aspects of the status and of the family life. She demonstrated how the use of some connecting factors in specific situations can reproduce the discrimination embedded in the substantive law. She tested the possibility of a gender-oriented interpretation of private international law rules in the specific institutions of forced marriages and talaq, where the application of the public policy exception does not always protect the women as weaker parties within the family. Analysing the EU Regulation 606/2013 on protection measures in civil matters, she stressed how gender-based violence is not always taken into consideration and that the neutral-gender draft of its rules lead to blindness to gender patterns.

Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova) presented an overview of Children and Parenthood. She began by discussing the ECtHR case law on the recognition of filiation in transnational surrogacy cases, based on the genetic link as a determining factor. She then mentioned soft law instruments, such as the 2025 UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, which raised the alarm about surrogacy. Finally, she focused on the EU Commission’s proposal for a private international law Regulation on parenthood, which aims to introduce full recognition of filiation between EU Member States, but which overlooks surrogacy. Within this framework, she highlighted three trends: a preference for comprehensive private international law Regulation; the centrality of human rights and in particular non-discrimination; and the increasing role of indirect party autonomy (i.e. the creation of a legal relationship in one State to have it recognized in another).

Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, Attorney at law) class on International Child Abduction started with a historical overview of the right to child custody highlighting how, in the past, this was a prerogative of the father. She then illustrated the current legal framework, focusing on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and EU Regulation 2019/1111 (Brussels II-ter). She offered a practical perspective through the discussion of case studies and by analysing national court judgements on international child abduction. Against this backdrop, Rusinova highlighted an emerging issue concerning the balance between preventing child abduction and protecting children and their caregivers from harm, particularly in cases of domestic violence. Finally, she emphasised the importance of neutrality and the child’s welfare as a guiding factor in the evolution of the law.

The day was concluded by case studies on the protection of Mothers and Children in Surrogacy. Javier Carrascosa González discussed three main issues, the role of public policy; the possibility to declare parenthood in a State different from that where the surrogacy agreement was concluded and performed; the approach to be followed if a certificate or a decision is not issued in the State of birth of the child. The ECtHR case law innovated the whole landscape in Europe: the recognition of parentage and the consequent status shall be considered the general rule, that brings as a consequence the right to live together as a family. In this framework, the role of public policy is systematically reduced. In a future perspective, appropriate connecting factors shall allow the establishment of parentage, focusing on the social and family life. These should be accompanied by rules granting recognition of the status acquired abroad.

5 February

Day 4, on Values in a Global World, has been inaugurated by a keynote speech of Hans van Loon on the European Union in the Hague Conference. While the latter has as its main objective the progressive unification of private international law, with no specific aims in it, the EU is founded on values and specific objectives (Articles 2 and 3 of the TFEU), where unification of private international law is not even mentioned. This makes the civil judicial cooperation a small part of its competences. However, a development is very visible in the Hague Conventions and the normative choice made therein, with a clear modern preference toward the habitual residence connecting factor; concerns on substantive results (as in the Maintenance Protocol); the recognition of party autonomy and a limited role of the public policy exception. The cooperation through Central Authorities has had an impact on EU Regulations more focused on proceedings, as the Service and the Taking of Evidence Regulations. The EU access to the Hague Conference shows an emergence of a common principle of governance, where cross-borders situations shall be alternatively be better regulated at a global, or regional, or even national level. Prospectively, the HCCH shall benefit from EU access focusing more on policy implications, while the EU consider more regional issues, thus avoiding inconsistencies while looking for extraterritorial effects of some of its rules.

Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) started her lecture on The EU and Third Countries by addressing the notion of values and their universality. When facing the external relations of the EU, it is also important to distinguish between third Countries, since the EU maintain with them different relationships, also under the civil judicial cooperation umbrella. She focused on some main EU features that can currently impact on its external dimension: the universal application of conflict of law rules; the reflexive effect; the participation in the Hague Conference and the exorbitant jurisdiction. An example offered for the discussion was the Schrems case, since the Court of Justice of the European Union had to face at the same time the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the GDPR, the extension of EU standards beyond its borders, EU values and the external objectives. In the balance of values and external cooperation private international law can become a tool of global governance for the promotion of universal values.

Francesca Ragno (University of Bologna) demonstrated how the typical values of Legal Certainty vs Flexibility have been reconciled in many EU Regulations. Private international law is the perfect field of difficulty of balancing. However, it is possible to use a dynamic conceptualisation of legal certainty, that includes not only a formal predictability, but also the acceptability of legal outputs. If EU private international law is rooted in the Savignan doctrine, many normative solutions grant a margin of flexibility, such as the principle of proximity and escape clauses based on the closest connection. The preferential law approach, materialised in the rules protecting consumer, is able to reach specific-EU targets, such as solidarity according to Article 3(3) of the TFEU. Other examples of EU private international law rules shaped on the EU competences and targets were discussed.

In the afternoon, Hans van Loon and Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm shared some remarks on their ongoing research on Migrants and Integration in a private international law perspective. After having traced a difference between migrants and refugees, they suggested that private international law can contribute to the regulation of these phenomena, currently mainly addressed by public law. EU governance regarding refugees and labour migration (Article 68 of the TFEU) requires cooperation with third countries. The 2026 EU Strategy on Migration and Visa for the competitiveness of the European Union mentions many issues that can be faced through private instruments, such as, for example, education, the portability of the personal status and the recognition of diplomas. As evident from the practice of the 1996 Hague Adoption Convention and the 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention, the role of intermediaries and of administrative cooperation is also very important.

Johan Meeusen (University of Antwerp) concluded the day with a lecture on Minorities: Equality through Private International Law. In a first step, he offered a social notion of the term minorities. However, their protection as such can be barely lay on the EU Treaty legal grounds, stressing the limitations envisaged in the main provisions devoted to the principle of non-discrimination. Then, he noticed that the CJEU’s case law does not refer to minorities, except in the case Runevič-Vardyn, where however no privileged status is granted and the social identity is deemed as irrelevant. Discussing with participants further case law, it became clear that this belonging did not play any role in the jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the more recent Trojan case can stem as a game changer: widely interpreting the EU citizens’ rights, the emphasis is posed on the non-discrimination of a societal minority, reducing the margin of appreciation of EU Member States in the recognition of a civil status acquired in another Member States.

6 February

The last day started with a workshop on Climate Change Litigation. Silvia Marino discussed with attendees some main points that arise in cross-border cases, starting from the notion of strategic litigation and the symmetrical possibility of easy recognition and enforcement of judgments in the EU. Taking as examples three main cases, attendees discussed rules on jurisdiction, the strategy in choosing a court granted with international jurisdiction and for which kind of claims, the applicability of Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation and the elements that should be considered in the exercise of the unilateral choice law provided therein.

Geert van Calster (KU Leuven) offered a definition of Business and Human Rights claims, as those related to the infringement of rights, property and/or the environments against multinational corporations and/or corporation in the supply chain. He presented different cases with connections with both EU Member States and third Countries (Municipio de Mariana; Limbou). He then discussed the consequences of Brexit on strategic litigation. Suing in the EU seems advantageous for the claimants due to the highest possibilities of enforcement, at least for monetary judgments; for a margin of law shopping and for the application of EU mandatory rules. He offered different examples thereof, focusing especially on the duty of care of the parent corporation for its subsidiaries (as it is very clear in EU Competition law). After the Kiobel case, US Courts are less attractive and litigation in the EU is increasing.

The final workshop was led by Stefano Dominelli (University of Genova). In a first part, he presented the recent legal thinking related to The Right of Nature, also in a comparative perspective.

He focused on the opportunities and the challenges that the attribution of personality to the nature, a specific geographical place or an animal, arise. Slowly, there is an increasing awareness, especially outside the EU, that the nature must be protected as such and not only in relation with human life. After having presented some notable examples, he shared some case studies for a first analysis among attendees’ groups, first, and for a general discussion at the end.

The organisers wish to thanks EAPIL for the opportunity to host the Winter School at the University of Insubria; the speakers, top specialists and experts; and the participants, highly skilled and motivated, who fruitfully contributed to the debates and the discussions.

 

Opening of the Third Edition of the EAPIL Winter School

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The third edition of the EAPIL Winter School has started today in Como.

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

Introduced by Silvia Marino, the course kicked off with an opening address by the President of the European Association of Private International Law, Gilles Cuniberti.

The latter also delivered a keynote speech on Methods in Private International Law: Protecting People and Values.

More than 30 young scholars and practioners are attending this year’s edition of the Winter School, coming from 12 countries.

The Winter School is organised by the University of Insubria in cooperation with the University of Murcia and the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

More information on the Winter School available here.

EAPIL YRN 5th Research Project: Updates and Intermediate Meeting – Report

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The authors of this post are Mathilde Codazzi (Paris-Panthéon-Assas University), Paul Eichmüller (University of Vienna) and Marco Pasqua (PhD, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), co-Chairs of the EAPIL Young Research Network. 

As already noted on this blog, the 5th Research Project of the EAPIL Young Research Network focuses on the applicable law to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation. These matters were and are expressly excluded from the scope of the Rome II Regulation by Article 1(2)(g), a choice that has left them outside the harmonised framework of EU private international law and subject instead to diverse national solutions. This exclusion has recently regained prominence in the European Commission’s 2025 Report on the application of Rome II, which highlights persistent legal fragmentation, growing legal uncertainty and the increasing relevance of privacy-related torts in the digital environment, thereby reinforcing the need for renewed comparative analysis and reflection on possible future harmonisation.

Against this background, the project aims to map and critically assess the existing national rules on the law applicable to privacy and personality rights, with particular attention to cross-border online infringements, forum shopping risks and the interaction with fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and data protection. By identifying convergences and divergences among domestic approaches, the project seeks to contribute to ongoing academic and policy debates on whether, and how, conflict-of-laws rules in this sensitive area could be harmonised at EU and/or international level.

The project brings together a wide group of national rapporteurs from across Europe. Specifically, for EU Member States, rapporteurs include Fabian Pollitzer (University of Vienna) for Austria; Cedric Vanleenhove (Ghent University) and Rob Rooman (KU Leuven) for Belgium; Ilia Lassin (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”) for Bulgaria; Jura Golub (Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek) for Croatia; Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Yiolanti Maou (University of Nicosia) and Nicoletta Zacharopoulos (Harris Kyriakides Law Firm) for Cyprus; Elisa Arietti (Charles University in Prague) and David Linek (Charles University in Prague) for Czech Republic; Benjamin Saunier (Panthéon-Sorbonne University) for France; Anna Pauline Schweinbach (Universidad de Sevilla) for Germany; Georgios Kotlidas (Attorney-at-Law/“Rythmisis” Greek Institute for AI Law) for Greece; Ferenc Szilágyi (Pázmány Péter Catholic University) for Hungary; Ilaria Aquironi (University of Ferrara) for Italy; Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Graduate School of Law) for Latvia; Agnė Kisieliausaitė (Ellex – Law Firm), Dominykas Kirsis (Ellex – Law Firm) and Titas Burneckas (Ellex – Law Firm) for Lithuania; Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University) for the Netherlands; Edyta Figura-Góralczyk (Cracow University of Economics & Jagiellonian University in Cracow) and Wojciech Wydmański (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw) for Poland; Alina Oprea (Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca) for Romania; Dominika Moravcová (University of Trnava) for Slovakia; María Asunción Cebrián Salvat (University of Murcia) and Blas Piñar Guzmán (Belagua Abogados) for Spain. The project also includes rapporteurs from European non-EU States, including Armela Maxhelaku (University of Tirana) for Albania; Luisa Reininghaus (University of Geneva) and Cyrill Chevalley (University of Lausanne) for Switzerland; Esra Tekin (Dicle University) and Ece Uyanık (Kadir Has University) for Turkey; Ivan Sukhorukov (Mykolas Romeris University) for Ukraine; Ross Pey (University of Western Ontario) for the United Kingdom.

The first drafts of the national reports were discussed at an online intermediate meeting held in December 2025, which marked an important milestone in the project’s development. The meeting allowed the co-Chairs to present the initial comparative findings emerging from the national reports over questionnaires and to engage in a structured exchange with the rapporteurs on all the core issues addressed by the research, spanning both the general architecture of national conflict-of-laws systems and the detailed operation of the applicable rules in practice.

Discussions covered, first, the placement and structure of the relevant conflict rules, including whether they are contained in national PIL acts, dispersed across substantive legislation or primarily developed through case law, as well as the existence (or absence) of specific conflict rules for privacy and personality rights as opposed to the application of general tort rules. Particular attention was devoted to whether national systems rely on a single conflict rule or multiple rules depending on the rights concerned, the remedies sought or the status of the injured party, including the treatment of personality rights of legal persons.

Secondly, the meeting addressed the content and functioning of the applicable conflict rules, with exchanges on the connecting factors employed (such as the place of damage or of the event giving rise to the damage), their interpretation in national case law and the extent to which CJEU jurisprudence influences domestic approaches. The discussion also focused on issues of foreseeability, the localisation of online infringements, the possible relevance of foreign standards of conduct and the scope of the applicable law.

Further debate concerned freedom of choice and its limits in this field, safeguards against abusive choice-of-law agreements, the role of overriding mandatory provisions and public policy and the interaction between conflict-of-laws rules and fundamental rights. The rapporteurs also exchanged views on the relationship between applicable law and jurisdiction, notably in the context of the mosaic approach under Brussels I bis Regulation, as well as on the influence of EU substantive law on the operation of national private international law rules.

On the basis of these discussions, the co-Chairs are currently preparing comparative tables mapping national solutions across the different dimensions addressed by the questionnaire. The preliminary findings already confirm a highly fragmented legal landscape, both within the EU and beyond, especially as regards the existence and scope of specific conflict rules, the treatment of online infringements and the balance between privacy, personality rights and freedom of expression. The December meeting also served to outline the next steps of the project, including the finalisation of the national reports, the drafting of the comparative analysis and the forthcoming publication of the research outcomes.

The project is being conducted in close dialogue with the European Commission and will culminate in a Final Conference, planned for the afternoon of 26 March 2026 at the University of Luxembourg. Participation in the Final Conference is open and warmly welcome; those wishing to attend are kindly invited to signal their interest by writing to youngresearch@eapil.org.

The EAPIL Blog in 2025

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

How was the year 2025 for the EAPIL blog? Rather busy, to put it shortly!

Some 300 new posts were published over the last twelve months, covering a broad range of subjects. A little less than a third of them were concerned with rulings (including upcoming rulings, as in the case of Marta Requejo’s monthly post announcing the rulings on PIL-related issues in the calendar of the Court of Justice). Academic events accounted for around 60 posts, while 80 posts were on scholarly contributions (monographs, collective works, articles and journal issues). Most of the remaining posts were about activities of the European Association of Private International Law, such as the EAPIL Winter School, or the EAPIL Working Groups.

Many of the posts related to developments in case law were concerned with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The cases we have covered include: BSH Hausgeräte, on jurisdiction over cross-border patent infringement; Bulgarfrukt, on the service of an European Order for Payment; Matthäus Metzler, on payments to an insolvent debtor under the European Insolvency Regulation; Ławida, on the jurisdiction to receive declaration on waiver of succession; Anikovi, on the scope of the Brussels II ter Regulation and its relationship with conventions concluded by a Member State with a third country, Lindenbaumer, on the habitual residence of diplomats; Cabris Investments, on choice of court agreements (we had two posts on the Court’s ruling: here and here); RFC Seraing, on the review of arbitral awards against EU public policy (again, two posts: here and here); Locatrans, on the law applicable to employment contracts (with one post on the AG’s opinion and one on the ruling).

Some rulings of the Court of Justice benefited from a broader coverage as they formed the object of dedicated on-line symposia. The EAPIL hosted one such symposium on Cupriak-Trojan, on the recognition of same-sex marriages across Member States, and one on Apple Nederland Store, on jurisdiction over collective redress cases (speaking of symposia, we also had one on the English Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on digital assets / ETDs and private international law).

The blog also reported on domestic cases, namely from Austria, Denmark (see here and here, among other posts), England (on UniCredit Bank v RusChemAlliance, Hipgnosis SFH 1 v Manilow, Prähl v Lapinski, and others), France (see here, here and here, to name a few), Germany, Greece (here and here), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Unified Patent Court were also analysed.

Several of the posts published in 2025 were authored by guests. We’re particularly happy about the involvement of scholars and practitioners beyond the team of permanent editors. The blog aims to represent a broad variety of views and to increase the visibility of pertinent developments in all European countries, and guests have, of course, a crucial role to play in this regard.

We’re glad to name this year’s guests here, and express once again our gratitude to all of them: Franziska Arnold-Dwyer, Massimo Benedettelli, Yiannis Bazinas, Marco Buzzoni, Ottavia Cazzola, Stefano Dominelli, Artur Doržinkevič, Paul Eichmüller, Burkhard Hess, Nishat Hyder-Rahman, João Ilhão Moreira, Isabelle Jäger-Maillet, Antonio Leandro (here and here), Lydia Lundstedt, Aygun Mammadzada, Francesca Maoli, Fabien Marchadier, Lea Marion, Brooke Marshall, Heloise Meur, Sara Migliorini, Meltem Ece Oba, Sagi Peari, Michiel Poesen (here and here), Deplhine Porcheron, Andrés Rodríguez Benot, Rob Rooman, Pierfrancesco Rossi, Carlos Santaló Goris, Federica Sartori, Jorg Sladič, Elizabeth Stuart Perry, Koji Takahashi, Louise Ellen Teitz, Alina Tryfonidou, Laima Vaigė, Birgit van Houtert, Bryan Verheul, Burcu Yüksel Ripley.

The number of readers visiting the blog (and the Association’s website) was on the rise in 2025 (+9% compared with 2024). The level of interaction with readers also significantly increased: the number of comments to this year’s posts was 72% higher than last year’s.

The blog’s readership remains highly diversified, geography-wise. Italy, Germany and Spain are the top 3 countries by number of visits, followed by the United States, the United kingdom, the Netherlands and France. If the ranking is made by cities, rather than countries, Milan is on top, followed by Luxembourg and London.

The most read posts of the year are Gilles Cuniberti’s analysis of the ruling of the Court of Justice in Lastre, on Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, Pietro Franzina’s post on the Commission’s report on the Bussels I bis Regulation and the analysis by Ugljesa Grusic on the English Court of Appeal’s ruling in Limbu v. Dyson.

The posts that attracted most comments were Erik Sinander’s post one on the applicability of the Rome I Regulation to arbitral proceedings seated in the Member States of the Union. Gilles Cuniberti’s remarks on the judgment by the Court of Justice in RFC Seraing also prompted a considerable number of comments, and so did the guest post by Paul Eichmüller on the application of religious rules in arbitration of pecuniary claims and the recognition of the resulting awards in Austria.

Interactions were also numerous on LinkedIn, where the number of EAPIL followers rose by 17% compared with 2024.

The editors – Apostolos Anthimos, Gilles Cuniberti, Pietro Franzina, Ugljesa Grusic, Marion Ho-Dac, Matthias Lehmann, Alina Ontanu, Marco Pasqua, Marta Requejo Isidro, Erik Sinander and Anna Wysocka-Bar – wish to express their deep gratitude to the readers of the blog and the guests, and all those who helped us do a better job (often behind the scenes, including by drawing our attention on interesting developments, or on errors in our posts).

Readers are always welcome to get in touch with the managing editor (at blog@eapil.org), share their views on published posts through comments and submit original contributions for publications (please, take a moment to read our house rules if you plan to submit a text!).

Happy 2026 to all!

EAPIL to Establish a Working Group on the HCCH Jurisdiction Project

, , , ,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

The European Association of Private International Law calls for expressions of interest from its members to participate in a Working Group on the Jurisdiction Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The immediate goal of the EAPIL Working Group would be to answer to the public consultation on the draft text developed by the HCCH Working Group.

The deadline is 26 January 2026, at 9:00 CET.

A Working Group established under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has developed draft provisions for a possible convention (Draft Text) to address parallel proceedings and related actions taking place in multiple States, acknowledging the primary role of both jurisdictional rules and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH is seeking feedback on whether the Draft Text would, in practice, assist in addressing such matters and how the provisions in the Draft Text could be improved. Responses received from this consultation will be submitted to the governing body of the HCCH, the Council of General Affairs and Policy (CGAP), where, in March 2026, CGAP will decide on the next steps for the project.

EAPIL Members interested in joining the EAPIL Working Group are invited to contact Gilles Cuniberti at gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu before 18 December 2025, stating “EAPIL WG on the Jurisdiction Project” in the object of the message.

EAPIL Winter School – Highlights from the Webinar Ahead of the 2026 Edition

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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

Second Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report (Part II)

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions, as report of the Working Group’s second meeting. This post follows up on the report (Part I).

The second meeting of the Working Group provided an overview of a selection of national transposition acts (both final and drafts) revealing convergences and divergences in the transposition of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’) – the report of this first part is available here.

The meeting then continued with the open discussion, which moved from these findings, aiming to identify cross-cutting challenges and potential common solutions across Member States, mainly concerning the issues emerging from – and intertwined with – the transpositions of Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. The discussion was moderated by the co-Chairs Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua.

Open Discussion

The co-Chair and Working Group member for Italy Marco Pasqua (PhD, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan) highlighted two main divergent approaches in relation to the transpositions of Article 16. On the one hand, some Member States opted for the introduction of a specific provision; in these cases, the central issue lies in defining the respective scope of that positive transposition provision in comparison to the general public-policy ground for refusing recognition and enforcement. On the other hand, in those Member States that considered an express provision unnecessary, attention shifted to assessing whether – and to what extent – the general public-policy exception alone may sufficiently cover this area.

By contrast, regarding the transpositions of Article 17, a clearer convergence among Member States emerged: despite certain differences, most appear inclined to adopt an express provision, although with diverse solutions. The divergences also concern the discretion left by Article 17(2), particularly as to whether Member States choose to limit the exercise of jurisdiction under paragraph 1 while proceedings are still pending in the third-country.

This trend was further corroborated by the perspectives of the other Member States where a draft national transposition act is already in place and currently under development.

Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University), co-Chair and Working Group member for the Netherlands, confirmed that the Netherlands follows the same approach as Germany and Poland with regard to the non-transposition of Article 16. She raised the concern about the interpretation of abusive proceedings as ground for refusal under Article 16, which has to be assessed on the basis of national law. According to Dutch case law, the threshold for establishing abusive proceedings is high. The Dutch legislator does not intend to codify the indicators for abusive proceedings as set out in Article 4 of the Directive. In contrast to the (draft) transpositions of the Member States that are already available, the Dutch draft act states that Article 17 does not require transposition, which leads to uncertainty, as argued in her previous post on the EAPIL blog.

The same applies to Sweden: although its Working Group member, Marie Linton (Uppsala University), was unable to attend the meeting, the questionnaire answers she provided indicate that the Swedish draft transposition act likewise does not include an explicit provision for Article 16, while it does for Article 17.

By contrast, Romania appears to follow the same path as Malta, as its draft transposition act provides two explicit provisions – one for transposing Article 16 and one for transposing Article 17.

Accordingly, Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta), Working Group member for Malta, was invited to provide a deeper analysis of Malta’s approach – in particular, why Malta, the country where the Daphne Caruana Galizia story and case had such a formative impact on the push for the Anti-SLAPP Directive, chose to introduce an explicit transposition provision for Article 16. He was asked to explore the legislative rationale behind adopting a standalone and tailor-made refusal ground (rather than relying solely on the general public-policy clause), and to discuss the factual and policy considerations that may have driven the Maltese legislator to opt for a positive, express rule in this area.

A concern that emerged during the discussion was that, in Member States choosing not to introduce an explicit transposition provision for Article 16 and instead relying on the general public-policy clause, courts may lack guiding reference points, particularly in case law, to steer their decisions in such matters. Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz (Kozminski University Law School), Working Group member for Poland, intervened to illustrate this issue, noting that the most significant – and often the only – examples of case law dealing with the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments typically link refusal to the legal remedy granted by the court (for instance, punitive damages), rather than to the underlying intent of the proceeding. In SLAPP contexts, however, the relevant criterion should be whether the proceeding is manifestly unfounded or abusive against public participation, highlighting a potential gap in judicial guidance where explicit Article 16 transposing provisions are absent.

Marco Buzzoni (University of Luxembourg – Luxembourg Centre of European Law), Working Group member for France, further emphasized that the discussion should not focus exclusively on the public-policy clause. He pointed out that, in practice, Member States differ in the grounds they have for refusing the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments. France, for instance, provides additional grounds such as fraud, which can be equally relevant for the purposes of Article 16. Marco Buzzoni emphasized that, while the public-policy exception remains highly relevant, concentrating too narrowly on it could obscure the full range of legal mechanisms available across Member States, many of which may also play a crucial role in protecting individuals against abusive proceedings targeting their participation in public debate.

Susanne Lilian Gössl (University of Bonn), Working Group member for Germany, stressed that relying solely on the public-policy clause may not always suffice; an explicit provision for transposing Article 16 provides a more reliable mechanism to guarantee the objectives set out in Article 16 are fulfilled.

Edyta Figura-Góralczyk (Cracow University of Economics), Working Group member for Poland, reinforced this point, highlighting that in the specific context of grounds for recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments – an area not harmonized at the EU level – an explicit transposition is particularly important to aim for a consistent approach across Member States.

In this regard, it is worth recalling that such grounds for recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments are precisely the focus of the 4th Project of the EAPIL Young Research Network, whose outcome is about to be published. Through a country-report methodology, the project examines the rules of 21 EU Member States in a structured way. The emerging points of convergence and divergence form the basis of a comparative report, offering an overview of the current legal framework on the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments across the European Union.

Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz then intervened, noting that Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive addresses both the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments that are abusive and those that are manifestly unfounded. Under Article 16, the law of the Member State in which recognition or enforcement is sought determines the abusiveness or manifest unfoundedness of the proceedings concerned. However, while Article 4(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive harmonises the notion of abusive court proceedings against public participation, the notion of manifestly unfounded proceedings remains outside the Directive’s harmonisation scope. Consequently, even where Member States adopt explicit provisions transposing Article 16, uniformity across Member States may still be compromised due to these differences in the scope of the notions of proceedings concerned, which directly impact the operability of Article 16 itself.

In response, Susanne Lilian Gössl agreed, but noted that precisely because of this “dual layer of uncertainty” – both regarding the interpretation of the public policy exception in SLAPP cases and the interpretation of ‘manifestly unfounded and abusive proceedings’ – clarity becomes even more crucial. Double uncertainty does not make things better; it simply makes the legal landscape less predictable for everyone involved. While it is always possible to draft broader or more flexible provisions, the key objective should be to reduce uncertainty as much as possible. A clear (and positive transposed) provision, she argued, also has a preventive effect: if potential litigants are aware that a specific rule exists and can be easily invoked, abusive proceedings may be discouraged at the outset. Of course, some interpretative work will remain necessary – notably in defining what constitutes “abusive” conduct – but this task is still more manageable than leaving courts with no explicit provision at all and forcing them to rely on public policy clause and general principles of domestic legal systems. In this sense, explicit transposition of Article 16 may not solve every difficulty, but it provides a concrete point of reference and contributes to a more structured and foreseeable legal framework.

In the same vein, the discussion was further complemented by Jachin Van Doninck (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Working Group member for Belgium. who provided the current perspective in Belgium, and by Artur Doržinkevič (Mykolas Romeris University), Working Group member for Lithuania, who shared insights on the Lithuanian draft transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

Madeleine Petersen Weiner (Higher Regional Court of Berlin), Working Group member for Germany, recalled that the historical roots of protections against SLAPP can be traced back to the US Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), which was primarily designed to secure safeguards in the context of defamation judgments making foreign libel judgments unenforceable in US courts. These protections were culturally sensitive and focused on reputational harm, rather than addressing abusive litigation per se. In contrast, Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive targets the abusive nature of proceedings specifically. She emphasized that if this provision is transposed in more general terms – for example, relying solely on a public-policy exception – the distinctive SLAPP-focused dimension may be lost, potentially exposing the measure to similar critiques historically associated with the US SPEECH Act.

The co-Chairs then concluded the meeting by thanking all speakers and participants for the lively and comprehensive debate, as well as for the thoughtful questions raised and thoroughly discussed throughout the session.

The co-Chairs invited Working Group members to keep monitoring developments in their respective Member States. The Working Group looks forward to continuing this important joint work.

Second Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report (Part I)

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions. It is the first part of a report on the Working Group’s second meeting. This post continues with the report (Part II).

On 18 November 2025, the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions held its second online meeting, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua. The co-chairs opened the session by welcoming the participants and expressing appreciation for the continued collaboration with the representatives of the European Commission working on the transpositions of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’), namely Pia Lindholm (European Commission), Caterina D’Osualdo (European Commission) – who also attended the meeting – and Georg Haibach (European Commission). The Working Group’s activities are being developed in close contact with them, which greatly contributes to ensuring a constructive and coherent exchange between academic research and ongoing policy work at EU level.

The co-Chairs then gave an update on the progress of the Working Group since its establishment in March–April 2025. Following the first meeting held on 27 June 2025 and the finalisation of the research questionnaire in July, members have begun reviewing national draft transposition acts.

As of November 2025, the overall picture shows rather uneven progress across the EU with regard to the national transpositions of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. In green, only a small number of Member States have already adopted a final transposition act – namely Malta, and Romania, albeit only partially. In yellow, several Member States are currently in the drafting phase, including Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden. Finally, in red, a significant number of Member States have not yet made a transposition act available at this stage. This distribution highlights the existing disparity among Member States and demonstrates the importance of continued work in this field. This second meeting therefore served to take stock of preliminary findings, focusing on the current implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive

Chapter 5 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is devoted to protection against third-country judgments. It consists of two provisions: Article 16, concerning grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment, and Article 17, concerning jurisdiction for actions related to third-country proceedings.

According to Article 16 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive:

Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State is refused, if those proceedings are considered manifestly unfounded or abusive under the law of the Member State in which such recognition or enforcement is sought.

According to Article 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive:

1. Member States shall ensure that, where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a claimant domiciled outside the Union in a court or tribunal of a third-country against a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts or tribunals of the place where that person is domiciled, compensation for the damage and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court or tribunal of the third-country.

2. Member States may limit the exercise of jurisdiction under paragraph 1 while proceedings are still pending in the third-country.

The Transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in EU Member States – Selection

The meeting then proceeded with the presentation, by the respective members of the Working Group, of the transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in a selection of EU Member States, specifically Malta, Germany and Poland.

Malta

Ioannis Revolidis (University of Malta) reported that the transpositions of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in Malta have been completed through L.N. 177 of 2024 – the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Order, 2024, amending the European Union Act (Cap. 460) – which is final.

Article 16 was transposed via Article 8 of L.N. 177 of 2024, requiring courts to ‘ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a person domiciled in a Member State is refused, if those proceedings are considered to be manifestly unfounded or abusive under this order’. Article 17 was transposed through Article 9 of L.N. 177 of 2024, for which ‘in cases where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a plaintiff domiciled outside the European Union in a court of a third-country against a person domiciled in Malta, that person may claim from the court compensation for the damages and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court of the third-country’; provided that if the case is still pending before a court of a third-country, the court shall stay proceedings until such court of the third country delivers its final judgement.

Ioannis Revolidis noted that L.N. 177 of 2024 refines the traditional refusal grounds under Article 827 Code of Organization and Civil Procedure by introducing a new ground under Article 8 L.N. 177 of 2024, previously unknown in Maltese law, while Article 9 L.N. 177 of 2024 directly implements the remedy provided in Article 17(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Overall, the transposition of Articles 16 and 17(1) is accurate.

At the same time, he highlighted some challenges: there may be overlaps between the new refusal ground and existing public policy provisions, as recent case law suggests, and the precise scope of the new ground may be difficult to define. In addition, the new ground of jurisdiction under Article 9 L.N. 177 of 2024 could enhance protection, but as the Maltese legislator made (mis)use of Article 17(2) its dependence on pending third-country proceedings and the generally slow pace of local courts might limit its practical effectiveness for SLAPP victims.

Germany

Susanne Lilian Gössl (University of Bonn) opened the presentation by reporting on the German transposition of Articles 16 and 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive – the German law implementing the Anti-SLAPP Directive is a draft and the legislative process is underway. The Working Group members for Germany reported by providing an English translation of the relevant provisions for the purposes of the meeting.

According to the draft law, the transposition of Article 16 does not lead to the introduction of a new rule in Germany; the general public policy exception under Section 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) on the recognition of foreign judgments is considered sufficient to refuse recognition and enforcement. This provision sets out specific grounds for refusal, including compatibility with fundamental principles of German law and fundamental rights (ordre public).

Regarding Article 17, the draft law introduces Section 23a, establishing a special place of jurisdiction for property claims arising from abusive proceedings targeting a person’s public participation. The court at the plaintiff’s general place of jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction over such claims, except for defendants domiciled in another EU Member State or in a State party to the Lugano Convention. The general place of jurisdiction is defined as the residence of the person (s. 13).

Madeleine Petersen Weiner (Higher Regional Court of Berlin) then continued the presentation, highlighting several critical points regarding the German draft. First, she emphasized that the definition of “abusive conduct” under s. 615 is particularly relevant for the study of transpositions under analysis, as it establishes that a legal dispute based on the defendant’s public participation is considered abusive if its main purpose is to prevent, restrict or sanction public participation and if the dispute pursues unfounded claims. “Public participation” is understood broadly, encompassing any statement or activity within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. She also raised questions about whether the general public policy exception is sufficient to address certain scenarios, such as punitive damages or requirements to adopt others’ opinions. A key open question remains the relationship between the SLAPP-specific notion of public policy and the traditional understanding of the public policy exception in German law.

Poland

Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz (Kozminski University Law School) presented on the Polish draft law transposing the Anti-SLAPP Directive, based on a proposed English translation. The draft act takes the form of a separate statute, thus remaining outside the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (KPC), and the legislative process is currently underway.

With regard to Article 16, no change to existing legislation is proposed. In Poland, third-country judgments are recognized ex lege pursuant to Article 1145 KPC, while enforcement requires a court declaration of enforceability. Recognition or enforcement may be opposed on the basis of the public policy exception under Article 1146(1)(7) KPC, which also covers violations of fundamental procedural guarantees before the court of origin. According to the drafters, this general public policy exception is considered sufficient to achieve the results envisaged by Article 16.

As for Article 17, the draft provides that Polish courts shall have jurisdiction when the claimant has its domicile in Poland, if the proceedings initiated outside the EU were exclusively or mainly aimed at suppressing or harassing public debate. This corresponds to the notion of abusive proceedings against public participation. However, the implementation does not expressly refer to costs incurred in the foreign proceedings, but only to “compensation for harm sustained”. Article 17(2) of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is implemented by referring to legal disputes which “aim or aimed” at suppressing public debate, meaning that the Polish draft does not require pending proceedings for the remedy to apply.

From a critical standpoint, Maciej De Abgaro Zachariasiewicz noted that the decision to implement the Anti-SLAPP Directive through a separate statute, combined with only minor amendments to the KPC, may raise coherence issues within the Polish procedural framework. The introduction of a special jurisdiction rule outside the section of the KPC dedicated to international jurisdiction could lead to practical and interpretative challenges. Furthermore, several open questions remain: will courts interpret “harm” broadly enough to include costs incurred in foreign proceedings, especially where a success fee was granted to the abusive plaintiff? More broadly, given the absence of any legislative change with regard to Article 16, doubts persist as to whether the general public policy exception will be an effective tool to prevent the enforcement of manifestly unfounded or abusive SLAPP judgments from outside the EU, and whether Polish courts will interpret that exception in line with the objectives and scope of Article 16.

The report continues in Part II, dedicated to the open discussion and critical reflections emerging from the analysis.

Reminder: The Upcoming Edition of the the EAPIL Winter School

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

The EAPIL Winter School 2026: Values in Private International Law

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

First Meeting and Questionnaire of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions – Report

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The authors of this post are Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua, co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions. The post is the result of the collective work of the members of the Working Group.

On 27 June 2025, the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions held its first online meeting, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert and Marco Pasqua. The meeting brought together a wide array of participants, all sharing a strong commitment to the objectives of the Group.

The Working Group currently comprises 40 members from across the European Union, and this broad, EU-wide composition was emphasized as a key strength. It allows the Working Group to benefit from a rich diversity of legal cultures and procedural systems – an essential asset in addressing the challenges posed by the domestic transpositions of Directive (EU) 2024/1069, particularly its provisions on private international law and other procedural ones with private international law relevance.

After a warm welcome and brief round of self-introductions, which provided everyone with a better sense of the community being built, the co-Chairs offered an overview of the Working Group’s planned activities and timeline. Over the next months, the Group will engage in comparative research, discussion and outreach, with several milestones already outlined. Participants offered thoughtful input, which has already helped refine the direction of the Group’s work.

A central point on the agenda was the presentation of the draft questionnaire, result of a collective work which will serve as the main tool for assessing (draft and final) national transposition acts, including official accompanying materials, and for conducting comparative analysis.

The discussion highlighted a number of legal and practical issues that must be carefully monitored in the transposition phase of Directive (EU) 2024/1069. The exchange made it clear that several elements of the Directive raise complex interpretative questions. The questionnaire has also been supplemented  by contributions from members received via mails.

The distinctive feature of this Working Group lies in its focus on private international law and, more broadly, on how private international law intersects with the safeguards introduced by the Directive.

A first area of focus concerns the scope of the Directive. It is important to verify whether Member States transpose the indicators of SLAPPs and the definition of “cross-border implications”. Some raise concerns about the risk of a fragmented approach, particularly where national legislatures choose to extend – or conversely to restrict – the application of the Directive beyond civil and commercial matters. While the Directive is limited to cross-border civil and commercial matters, both the European Commission, in Recitals 20 and 21 of Recommendation (EU) 2022/758, and the Council of Europe, in point 6 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2, advocate that SLAPP safeguards should also apply in national, criminal and administrative procedures. In this regard, it is essential to observe whether Member States will voluntarily apply the safeguards of the Directive, or its principles, to purely domestic cases, or even to criminal and administrative proceedings. Such decisions significantly affect the coherence and reach of anti-SLAPP protection within the EU.

The core of the analysis is then devoted to the provisions of the Directive that specifically address private international law issues concerning recognition and enforcement, as well as jurisdiction.

A critical point of discussion is Article 16 of the Directive, which introduces grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments when these link to manifestly unfounded or abusive proceedings. This provision plays a central role in bridging EU private international law with fundamental rights protection, and its national transposition requires particular attention. The Working Group will examine the need for specific provisions to give effect to this safeguard and the consistency of national definitions of “judgment”, as well as of “manifestly unfounded” claims and “abusive” proceedings. It is noted that Member States may adopt diverging thresholds and legal interpretations, potentially affecting legal certainty and mutual trust.

Article 17 is equally debated. This provision grants a special jurisdictional ground allowing SLAPP victims to seek damages before the courts of their Member State of domicile, where they suffer harm due to third-country proceedings initiated by claimants domiciled outside the EU. Members will report whether national legal systems require explicit legislative measures to activate this jurisdictional basis, or whether existing provisions suffice. Particular attention has to be paid to the law applicable to this compensation claim, the types of damage (financial, reputational, emotional) that should be compensable, the evidence and burden of proof on third-country proceedings, and how the rules on limitation periods and procedural suspension align with the Directive’s objectives.

In both areas – recognition and enforcement and jurisdiction – members of the Working Group will assess the degree of compatibility with existing national frameworks. They will consider whether ordinary national mechanisms can be adapted in light of the duty of uniform interpretation and the need to ensure the effet utile of EU law.

The conversation also touched upon a crucial gap in the Directive: the question of applicable law. Although the Directive does not directly address this issue, it has far-reaching practical consequences. For instance, Article 12 – which governs burden of proof and substantiation of claims – may be applied differently depending on whether the lex fori or the lex causae is used under national private international law rules. Without clear guidance, Member States adopt divergent approaches, leading to inconsistencies in how the Directive’s safeguards operate across the EU. This reveals a deeper tension between harmonized procedural rights and conflict-of-laws traditions.

Moreover, the issue of applicable law extends well beyond procedural matters, as it is also highly relevant to substantive aspects. The absence of EU-wide harmonization concerning conflict-of-law rules – for instance, on the law applicable to defamation claims – poses a serious threat to the effet utile of the Directive. In this regulatory gap, strategic choices regarding applicable law may be used to weaken or even delay the protective framework that the Directive seeks to establish. A key concern in this regard is whether claimants in SLAPP cases (potentially covering both contractual or non-contractual matters) might deliberately choose a law applicable which is difficult to ascertain, including for the purpose of the early dismissal assessment, thereby increasing the procedural and financial burden on the defendant. Without coordinated rules on applicable law, SLAPP claimants may engage in forum shopping not only for jurisdiction but also to benefit from more favorable substantive laws, thereby undermining the safeguards designed to protect public participation and freedom of expression. This highlights the urgent need to address the applicable law alongside the Directive’s procedural innovations. In this respect, the work carried out within the Working Group aligns closely with the objectives of the ongoing fifth project of the EAPIL Young Research Network. The latter initiative aims to shed light on the fragmentation of conflict-of-law rules in areas that remain outside the scope of the Rome II Regulation, such as defamation and other violations of personality rights. This synergy reflects a broader associative effort to promote coherent and comprehensive solutions to private international law challenges, fostering dialogue between the Group and the Network.

The analysis is further enriched by an examination of additional procedural aspects introduced by the Directive, which could be affected in cross-border contexts and raise important private international law considerations.

Particular attention is devoted to the legal nature and cross-border circulation of decisions on early dismissal under Article 11 of the Directive, specifically if decisions issued in other Member States have a preclusive effect under national law. Under Brussels I bis Regulation, a judgment does not need to be final to be recognized in another Member State. Nonetheless, if a party seeks to rely on the decision as having preclusive effect – e.g., to prevent the filing of subsequent claims concerning the same cause of action – the res judicata status must be assessed under the law of the Member State of origin. While not a requirement for recognition, res judicata may be crucial to avoiding fragmented parallel litigation, thus rendering it an important element in the analysis.

Additionally, the Working Group considers the extent to which national law allows foreign associations, organisations, trade unions and other entities to support the defendant in court proceedings, as provided for in Article 9 and Recital 35. The focus here is on whether the procedural and substantive conditions imposed by national legal systems enable such support on equal footing with domestic entities, or whether they create additional burdens – especially in cross-border cases – that risk undermining the Directive’s protective aims.

Finally, some additional aspects of the Directive deserve careful consideration and critical reflection.

Among these, the interaction with other legal instruments, as governed by Article 18, raises important questions about the consistency and clarity of national transposition measures. It remains unclear whether all Member States will expressly incorporate the safeguard clause into their domestic legal systems, and in several cases, doubts persist as to how its temporal scope – particularly the relevance of the cut-off date of 6 May 2024 – will be addressed in practice. The lack of explicit coordination with national private international law clauses may further complicate the practical application of this safeguard, especially in cross-border disputes.

Political and societal resistance has also emerged in certain contexts, often rooted in concerns about the potential chilling effect on legitimate claims, or fears that the Directive could unduly shift the balance in favour of defendants. These reactions highlight the delicate political economy of anti-SLAPP regulation, where freedom of expression, access to justice and legal certainty must be carefully reconciled.

Equally important is the awareness and preparedness of the judiciary. While Recital 49 of the Directive explicitly calls for training initiatives, the development of such programs should not be uneven across Member States.

Lastly, the monitoring and publication of judgments, mandated by Article 19, is a crucial tool for transparency and comparative analysis. However, it is not always clear whether mechanisms are in place to ensure timely and accessible publication of relevant decisions. In some countries, the obligation to publish judgments electronically may require additional legislative or administrative action, suggesting a potential disconnect between the Directive’s objectives and existing national infrastructures.

The timing and relevance of the Working Group go hand in hand. The meeting showed that the state of transposition across EU Member States is highly diverse: in some countries, a transposition act is already being drafted or discussed; in others, no draft act is available yet.

The meeting concluded with a brief preview of the upcoming activities, such as a webinar which will provide a further opportunity for dialogue with multiple stakeholders.

The Third Edition of the EAPIL Winter School: A Preview

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

 

EAPIL Call to Join the Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The European Association of Private International Law calls for expressions of interest from its members in participating in a Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions (hereinafter, ‘WG’).

The WG, co-chaired by Birgit van Houtert (Netherlands) and Marco Pasqua (Italy), seeks to contribute to the study and development of private international law (PIL) by identifying challenges and best practices in transposing the PIL aspects of the Anti-SLAPP Directive across EU Member States.

The primary goal of the WG is to critically assess whether EU Member States are correctly transposing the PIL aspects of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Initially, the WG will study and discuss the draft national implementation acts. To gain practical insights and consider human rights perspectives, the WG will present its preliminary findings in a webinar or online workshop, engaging with experts on SLAPPs (e.g., legal practitioners, human rights defenders, NGOs) and stakeholders such as journalists. In the second phase, the WG will focus on evaluating the final national transpositions of the Anti-SLAPP Directive on the basis of a questionnaire. The results of this comparative assessment will be published in a publication and/or position paper, which will be submitted to the European Commission and shared with national parliaments, governments and other stakeholders.

The work will be conducted through virtual meetings, national reports based on the questionnaire and updates on the implementation of the Anti-SLAPP Directive in EU Member States shared via a private online platform (e.g., Teams).

The WG will hold its first online meeting in June 2025 to discuss the draft questionnaire and identify key issues and challenges in the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.

EAPIL Members interested in joining the WG are invited to contact Birgit van Houtert (birgit.vanhoutert@maastrichtuniversity.nl) and Marco Pasqua (marco.pasqua@unicatt.it) by 2 June 2025.

Seventh In-Person Meeting of the EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law to Take Place in Antwerp

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The author of this post is Jonathan Schenk (University of Antwerp).

The EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law will hold its seventh in-person meeting in Antwerp from 22 to 24 May 2025. The University of Antwerp will warmly receive the participants as host of the meeting.

Since its establishment nearly four years ago, the Working Group has brought together legal scholars and practitioners from across Europe with the objective of drafting a legal instrument concerning the applicable law to property rights in tangible assets.

The agenda for the Antwerp meeting covers both topics that have been the subject of previous discussions — for which no definitive conclusions have yet been reached — and newly introduced matters.

Among the issues to be examined are the applicable law to immovable property, cultural and stolen objects, motor vehicles, and assets located beyond territorial waters, particularly within exclusive economic zones. The Group will also continue its deliberations on conflit mobile and overriding mandatory provisions.

The meeting is expected to lead to the finalisation of positions on a number of key topics, marking a significant milestone in the ongoing work of the Group.

Following the Antwerp meeting, the Group aims to produce a first complete draft of the envisaged instrument. This draft will serve as the basis for broader dissemination and discussion, in particular at the EAPIL Conference to be held in Geneva in June 2026.

EAPIL to Establish Working Group on Digital Tokens

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The European Association of Private International Law calls for expressions of interest from its members in participating in a Working Group on the private international law aspects of digital tokens.

The immediate goal of the establishment of the Working Group is to prepare for the participation of and represent EAPIL in an Experts’ Group on the private international law issues raised by Digital Tokens established by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (see more here). EAPIL has been invited to participate in the meetings of the Expert’s Group as an observer.

The Hague Conference Experts’ Group will hold its first meeting from 16 to 18 June 2025. While EAPIL should be represented during the meeting, it is not necessary that all members of the EAPIL Working Group participate (in fact, limits may be imposed on the number of persons attending a meeting on behalf of any given observer).

The board of the association has designated as interim chair of the EAPIL Working Group Professor Francesca Villata. EAPIL Members interested in joining the EAPIL Working Group are invited to contact Francesca Villata at  before 7 April 2025, stating “EAPIL WG on Digital Tokens” in the object of the message.

The members of the EAPIL Working Group will then designate the chair of the Working Group and define the scope of its mission.

EAPIL Establishes Working Group on Carbon Markets

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The European Association of Private International Law has established a Working Group to deal with the private international law aspects of carbon markets. Alex Mills agreed to serve as chair.

The immediate goal of the Working Group is to prepare for the participation of EAPIL in the Experts’ Group on the private international law issues arising from Carbon Markets which the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has recently decided to establish, as reported here (more on information on the Carbon Markets project of the Hague Conference can be found here). EAPIL has been invited to attend the meetings of this Expert Group as an observer.

The Hague Conference Expert Group will hold its first meeting from 13 to 15 May 2025. While EAPIL should be represented during the meeting, it is not necessary that all members of the EAPIL Working Group participate. In fact, according to the rules and practice of the Conference, limits may be imposed on the number of persons representing any single observer at a given meeting.

EAPIL Members willing to join the EAPIL Working Group are invited to contact Alex Mills at a.mills@ucl.ac.uk by 5 April 2025. They are encouraged to state “EAPIL WG on Carbon Markets” in the object of the message and explain briefly any relevant expertise relating to the topic.

EAPIL to Establish Working Group on Institutions Analogous to Trusts

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The European Association of Private International Law calls for expressions of interest from its members in participating in a Working Group on Trusts and Institutions Analogous to Trusts in the context of the 1985 Hague Trusts Convention.

The immediate goal of the establishment of the Working Group is to prepare for the participation of and represent EAPIL in a Working Group to review and finalise the Report of the Study on Institutions Analogous to Trusts established by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (for more on this, see the Conclusions and Decisions adopted at the latest meeting of the Conference’s Council on General Affairs and Policy, paras 70-73). EAPIL has been invited to attend the meetings of the Experts’ Group as an observer.

The Hague Conference Expert Group will hold its first meeting from 6 to 8 May 2025. While EAPIL should be represented during the meeting, it is not necessary that all members of the EAPIL Working Group participate (in fact, limits may be imposed on the number of persons attending a meeting on behalf of any given observer).

The board of the association has designated as provisional chair of the EAPIL Working Group Professor Gilles Cuniberti. EAPIL Members interested in joining the EAPIL Working Group are invited to contact Gilles Cuniberti at gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu before 7 April 2025.

The members of the EAPIL Working Group will then designate the chair of the Working Group and define the scope of its mission.

While it will be for the EAPIL Working Group to decide whether it also wants to work on other topics related to the 1985 Convention, the Hague Working Group is more specifically concerned with institutions analogous to trusts within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. It would therefore be particularly useful if the EAPIL Working Groups included EAPIL members familiar with such analogous institutions from Contracting States to the Hague Trusts Convention belonging to the civil law tradition (Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco).

5th Research Project of the EAPIL Young Research Network: Call for Participants

, , ,
Marco Pasqua
by

The EAPIL’s Young Research Network has just launched its fifth research project, which is being led by Mathilde Codazzi, Paul Eichmüller and Marco Pasqua. The project will focus on the national rules governing the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of privacy and personality rights.

The aim of the project is to enable a comparison of the above-mentioned national rules, which, in turn, will allow to assess the suitability of different solutions for the harmonisation process currently underway as part of the ongoing Rome II Regulation revision.

The fifth project – like the previous and third one – will consist in the drafting of national reports, based on a questionnaire, by rapporteurs. Each national report will be expected to be roughly between 5,000 and 12,000 words (including footnotes). A first draft of the report will need to be sent to the heads of the project by 7 September 2025. The Chairs are striving to publish the reports (together with other materials) in a volume similar to the one from the last projects.

The Chairs warmly invite junior researchers (below full professor) or practitioners under the age of 45 to provide a national report on the legal framework of the EU Member State they are based in (or which they are otherwise qualified to provide).

Reports are currently requested from the following EU Member States: Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

If you are interested in providing a national report – with respect to the Member States listed above – the Chairs would be grateful if you could come back to them by sending an email to youngresearch@eapil.org by 31 March 2025.

On European PIL, Codification and (Simple) Better Law-Making

, , , ,
Marta Requejo Isidro
by

On 4 March 2025, Prof. Thomas Kadner-Graziano presented publicly on line the project of research and the achievements to date of the EAPIL’s Working Group on the Feasibility of a European Private International Law Act (to which I belong).

A few days earlier, the EAPIL blog had informed about an article of Prof. K. Boele-Woelki available on SSRN entitled The next step in the unification of private international law in Europe: should it be codification?, published in November last year. Further references can be found there to recent publications on the topic, such as Prof. C. González Beilfuss’s Reflexiones en torno a una eventual codificación del Derecho internacional privado europeo (Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 2024). It can be claimed that, at least for the ‘invisible college’ of PIL scholars, the topic is recovering momentum.

The EAPIL project is the only ongoing attempt to draft a wide-ranging European Private International code (rather: act), understood as something different to a simple structured compilation of unchanged law.

Still, according to the Working Group’s name, the final goal of the project is not necessarily to produce a code (act). The key word is ‘feasibility’: the possibility that something can be made, done, or achieved, or is reasonable. In this regard, one could say that the Group follows the European Parliament resolution of 7 September 2010 on the implementation and review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. There, the Parliament encouraged the Commission ‘to review the interrelationship between the different regulations addressing jurisdiction, enforcement and applicable law’; it considered that ‘the general aim should be a legal framework which is consistently structured and easily accessible’ and that ‘for this purpose, the terminology in all subject-matters and all the concepts and requirements for similar rules in all subject-matters should be unified and harmonised (e.g. lis pendens, jurisdiction clauses, etc.).’ Eventually, it posited that ‘the final aim might be a comprehensive codification of private international law’ (italics added).

It is indeed known that no proposal for a binding EU PIL code or act, even partial or restricted, will be put forward by the Commission any time soon.

The reason does not lie with it rejecting ‘codification’ as a law-making method. Codification, as well as consolidation and simplification of legislation figure expressly in the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, of 18 July 2024. ‘Codes’ exist in other areas of EU law, such as those regulating medicinal products for human use, or the movement of persons across borders. In principle, this kind of codification appears to be related to amendments to the original legislative measure: after a number of amendments by way of new acts, the whole is assembled in a single document ‘in the interests of clarity and rationality’. The word ‘code’ is sometimes used, though, to designate the outcome of a recast of an act in need of amendment, as it happened with the Union customs code.

As things stand, coming up with a text like the one the EAPIL Working Group has in mind would prove that codification of European PIL is feasible. A second step to bring such a code or act into being would be to convince the legislator that it is not only convenient, but also needed and worth the effort and the investment. An impact analysis of non-economic and, above all, economic advantages would be required. Such analysis falls outside the remit of the EAPIL Working Group and , to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been done. Neither the study commissioned by the European Parliament ‘A European Framework for Private International Law: Current Gaps and Future Perspectives’ (2012) nor the workshop organized for the JURI committee ‘Towards a European Code on Private International Law? In -Depth Analysis for the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament’ (2014) addressed the point.

A report drawn up in 2013 by the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, aimed at quantifying the cost of not having a Code on Private International Law. However, this ‘Cost of non-Europe’ report, based on a study by Nick Bozeat, mainly identified areas directly related to the citizens’ day-to-day lives which, at the time (and today), were still unregulated at European, in order to provide an estimation of the related costs for said citizens – around €138 million a year.

Assuming numbers confirmed that a codification of EU PIL is a sound policy option, there would be other obstacles to surmount for it to become a reality. The transactions and legal relationships falling under the scope of PIL rules are not a priority focus for the second half of this decade, neither at the political level nor for the lawmaker. Concern for cross-border civil and commercial matters, particularly those related to family, fits probably better with periods of calm and stability.

In theory, the time is ripe for a legislative proposal aimed at improving the regulatory environment for said matters. To start with, after the 2015 assessment on the implementation of the 2003 Inter-institutional Agreement on better law-making, new better regulation guidelines and a new Better regulation toolbox were respectively published in 2021 and 2023. Secondly, as already hinted, the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, of 18 July 2024, proclaim the will to ‘make proposals to simplify, consolidate and codify legislation to eliminate any overlaps and contradictions while maintaining high standards’.

As a follow up, last February the Commission published its communication Simpler and Faster Europe. Communication on Implementation and Simplification. Indeed, the 2025 Commission work programme has a stronger focus on simplification than ever before. However, the Omnibus packages and the other simplification proposals listed (although non-exhaustively) in the above-mentioned Communication are meant to tackle specific priority areas, which, according to the Communication, have been identified with stakeholders over 2024.

None of them connects directly with the legal issues dealt with in the currently in force PIL regulations, or in the one(s) in the making. An indirect association is also far from evident. Only with good will, some PIL rules could be linked to the motto ‘Making business easier’ to which the quote of the Political Guidelines reproduced above corresponds.

Against this background, the task and findings of the EAPIL Working Group could be of a practical use in a different way. Code or no code, it is always legitimate to expect from the Commission, the EU Parliament and the Council that they care for consistency among the legal instruments they propose and adopt.

To this effect, formulae like (by way of example) recital 21 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, are clearly not enough. The interface between the Directive and the Brussels I bis regulation has been put to the test before the Court of Justice in case C-34/24, but the potential difficulties it generates do not stop there. In order to establish the exact terms of the relationship between both instruments it is necessary to consider as well the acts listed in Annex I to the Directive: while some of them express their intention to apply without prejudice to Regulation No 1215/2012, others indicate the opposite (see, for instance, recital 80 of Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, and recital 147 of the GDPR).

More sophisticated solutions are viable and actually being implemented. An example is the proposed Directive to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law. Said proposal, of 7 December 2022, aims to encourage cross border investment within the single market through targeted harmonisation of insolvency proceedings. It was published after stakeholders consultation, and is preceded by several studies, one of them (not publicly available, to the best of my knowledge) assessing abusive forum shopping practices in insolvency proceedings after Regulation (EU) 2015/848.

In principle, nothing new there. More interesting is the fact that the proposal and the impact assessment led to critical comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, an independent body within the Commission that examines the quality of impact assessments, replacing the former Impact Assessment Board and being endowed with a strengthened role. The Board concluded in its first opinion on 24 June 2022 that adjustments were necessary before proceeding further with this initiative. Among other, more extensively explanations of the differences between Regulation (EU) 2015/848 and the Commission’s proposal were required.

In line with it, the Directive proposed by the Commission acknowledges the existence of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings and connects both instruments (see recital 2, Articles 20, 45, 59, 68). It is therefore admitted that even if the Regulation has no impact on the contents of national insolvency law, it is a) possible to build on it for harmonization purposes and, b) clashes with the Directive may exist. The Partial general approach of the Council, dated November 29, 2024, insists on creating bridges  between the texts, and clarifies some of the links between them (see recital 2 , Article 2, Article 36, and, in particular, recutal 58 and Article 68).

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 is not the only EU legal act which the proposed Directive takes into account. The final product and how the ‘dialogue’ among instruments will fare in practice remain to be seen. In any case, the law-making process shows already a refined and cautious attitude in that it accords relevant weight to systemic coherence.

It is in this context that I see the added value of  a project such as the EAPIL one on the feasibility of a European PIL Act. Whatever its final conclusion (that is to say, even if it ends up denying the feasibility of the Act as such), it will map the areas where systemic coherence is more needed, indicate whether achieving it is or not possible, and if yes, how. Because of the wide material reach of the project and the thorougness of the research, it will fill an existing gap. It can thus provide precious support to the European lawmaker both in the drafting of new limited-in-scope PIL rules, and in producing an all-inclusive recast of the current ones, if and when, in his view, the time comes.

Save the Date: The Third Edition of the EAPIL Winter School in Como

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

EAPIL Working Group on Property Law Publishes Interim Results

, ,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

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

The Working Group will next meet in Antwerp in May 2025 and hopes to produce a first complete draft which it will then be able to share, present and discuss, in particular at the EAPIL Geneva Conference in June 2026.

Several members of the Group participated in a conference on Rights in Rem in EU Private international law, which was held in Tarragona in Aprile 2024, and presented some interim results of the work of the group. The proceedings of the conference have now been published in an open-access book edited by Maria Font-Mas, which was announced yesterday on this blog.

The book includes the following contributions of the members of the Working Group: Eva-Maria Kieninger, A European Regulation for International Property Law; Afonso Patrão, Choice of Law in Land Security Rights – An Impossible Solution?; Gilles Cuniberti, Rethinking conflit mobile: Applying the Law of COMI to rights in rem; Jonathan Schenk, Drafting an EU Choice-of-law Rule for Property Rights in Means of Transport. Something Old, Something New; Janeen M. Carruthers, Looking at Cultural Objects Through a Private International Law Lens.

Finally, Ivan Heredia published a paper on an issue which is not directly within the scope of the Working Group (Garantías reales y reestructuración en el sistema español de insolvencia internacional).

The EAPIL Winter School on Multistate Torts: Report

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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. 

First Book in the EAPIL Series: Private International Law in an Era of Change

, , , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The first book in the European Association of Private International Law series, announced in an earlier post on this blog, is out.

Edited by Morten M. Fogt (Aarhus University), the volume, published by Edward Elgar, builds on the presentations delivered at the EAPIL Founding Conference held in Aarhus in June 2022.

The chapters discuss current and future challenges of private international law.

While the focus is on the developments of European private international law, the relationship with thirds States is also considered in the various chapters.

Opened by a contribution by Peter Arnt Nielsen titled Civil cooperation in the EU from 1960 to 2024, the volume features a first set of chapters dealing with private international law and technology, covering digital platforms (Marie-Élodie Ancel), digital assets and smart contracts (Matthias Lehmann), transfer of digital assets (Burcu Yüksel Ripley), and digital judicial cooperation (Burkhard Hess).

The book goes on with a chapter on the fragmentation of European private international law in family matters (by Thalia Kruger), a chapter on family courts and inter-country arbitration on cross-border custody disputes (by Gian Paolo Romano), one on international property law and territoriality (by Marta Pertegás Sender) and one on selected challenges in international succession law (by Haris Pamboukis).

More information available here.

EAPIL Blog: The Year 2024 in Review

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

It’s been another busy year for the EAPIL blog.

More than 300 new posts have been published over the past twelve months. Around 80 of them focused on cases brought before the Court of the Justice of the EU, the European Court of Human Rights and domestic judicial authorities. There were fewer posts on case law in previous years, but we realized readers are especially interested in judicial developments and tried to devote more energy on the latter.

While most posts were prepared by the blog’s permanent team of editors, we were especially happy to publish contributions written by no less than 25 guests. We never had so many! Warm thanks to all guests. And thanks in advance to those who plan to contribute in the future: new submissions are always welcome (information on how to contribute can be found here).

2024 was also a year of on-line symposia, i.e., series of posts on the same topic, written by different contributors and published in the space of a few days. The blog managed to host four such symposia in 2024 (we only had one or two per year in the previous years), namely on the rulings of the Court of Justice in Inkreal and Air Berlin, the ruling of the UK Supreme Court in UniCredit Bank and, recently, the book of Ekaterina Aristova, on Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts. A big thank you to Gilles Cuniberti and Ugljesa Grusic for organizing the symposia!

Interaction with readers through comments on individual posts was also intense, and always enriching. On average, one third of our posts formed the object of a comment in 2024. Anna Wysocka-Bar’s post on the Hantoch case (The CJEU on Subsidiary Jurisdiction in Succession Matters) and Erik Sinander’s post on The Court of Justice on the Subrogation of Forum Selection Clauses were among the most commented posts.

The most read posts of 2024 include Gilles Cuniberti’s French Supreme Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Paternity Claim against Alain Delon, Lydia Lundstedt’s Foreign Patent Disputes under the Brussels I bis Regulation: AG Emiliou’s Opinion,  Marion Ho-Dac’s The EU AI Act and Private International Law: A First Look, Matthias Lehmann’s A Conflict-of-Laws Rule for Companies at Last? – The CJEU in Edil Work 2, Horatia Muir Watt and Dominique Bureau’s Inkreal: Jurisdictional Barrier-crossing in Domestic Cases: A Threefold Critique, and Vincent Richard’s CJEU Rules on the Material Scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, on the Mahá case.

We were delighted to witness, for the fourth year in a row, an increase in the number of visits, both through the website and through our LinkedIn page. We were also happy to learn that 100 more regular visitors decided to subscribe to the blog to be notified of new posts.

So, once again, huge thanks from the editors to the readers, the guests, the subscribers and all those following us on social media. And all the best for 2025!

EAPIL Winter School 2025: Only a Few Days Left to Benefit from the Early Bird Fee

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

Concluding Workshop of the 4th EAPIL Young Research Network Project – Report

, , , ,
Marco Pasqua
by

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.

Webinar on Multistate Torts Ahead of the EAPIL Winter School

, , , ,
Pietro Franzina
by
Read more

Registrations are Open for the Second Edition of the EAPIL Winter School, on Multistate Torts

, , ,
Pietro Franzina
by
Read more

Save the Dates: Second Edition of the EAPIL Winter School in Como

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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. 

Fellow EAPIL Members, Have You Received Your Credentials?

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

A few days ago, the redesigned EAPIL website was launched. Among other things, it features a reserved area for members of the European Association of Private International Law (MyEAPIL).

An automated e-mail message was sent to all the 560 members of the Association on 11 March 2024, with their personal login credentials.

Several members have since accessed MyEAPIL to check (and update, where necessary) their personal data and browse the members’ database for networking and other purposes.

Those EAPIL members who haven’t received their credentials may write an e-mail to the Associations’ Secretary General, Giesela Rühl, at secretary.general@eapil.org, and ask for the creation of new credentials. Before you do so, please check whether the automated e-mail that was sent in the first place ended in your spam folder.

The Redesigned EAPIL Website Now Online

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

As announced on this blog a few days ago, the website of the European Association of Private International Law has a new look and some new contents.

Take a tour of the new website and learn about who we are, what we do, and how members can contribute to the Association’s goals, including by launching new activities, such as the establishment of Working Groups.

Those interested in joining EAPIL will find more on how to apply for membership here.

Potential and current members willing to know more about the community of scholars and practitioners that EAPIL represents may want to look at some statistical data.

Between 11 and 12 March 2024, existing members will be receiving an e-mail with the credentials to access MyEAPIL, the member’s reserved area. Within MyEAPIL, members will be able to update their personal information and browse the members’ database.

The EAPIL blog, too, has been redesigned. Old posts remain available (their URL is unchanged), and new ones will come out as usual.

An EAPIL blog archive has been created to facilitate access to the on-line symposia that the blog has been hosting over the years. The archive will be further expanded in the future to include a broader selection of “views and comments” posts, as these may be of interest to readers months or years after their publication.

The visitors of the website and the readers of the blog are encouraged to share their views on the new website, and help us spot the issues that remain to be addressed: the transition from an old website to a new one is a relatively complex process, and we’re aware that a few corrections are needed, here and there. For this, just add a comment to this post or send an e-mail to Pietro Franzina at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

Many thanks, and feel welcome to the Association’s new virtual home!

The Inaugural Edition of the EAPIL Winter School

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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 first 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 12 to 16 February 2024.

The five-day course was organized by the University of Insubria in partnership with the University of Murcia, the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek. 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 School’s programme, set out by a dedicated EAPIL Working Group consisting of Javier Carrascosa González, Silvia Marino and Anna Wysocka-Bar, addressed a broad range of concerning Personal Status and Family Relationships.

Thirty people, coming from Belgium, Germany, Italy, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, 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.

12 February

Camelia Toader, former Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and Ioan-Luca Vlad, attorney at law, kicked off the Winter School with an introductory lecture on cross-borders families and the free movement of persons within the EU. They discussed the historical development of the law in this area, the relevance of judicial cooperation to the enjoyment of fundamental rights and the freedom of movement enshrined in EU law. They stressed the need for a uniform and coherent set of rules of private international law governing the broad range of issues that cross-border families experience in practice.

Pietro Franzina, Professor of International Law at the Catholic University of Sacred Hearth in Milan, provided an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, delving into their mutual relationships and their impact on private international law. He noted that human rights concerns may prompt private international law rules to take, depending on the circumstances, a defensive or a pro-active posture. The first scenario is where the need arises to avoid such infringements of a right as may arise from the application of a foreign law or the recognition of a foreign judgment. The opposite situation occurs, in particular, where the actual enjoyment of a right depends on the right-holder being in a position to rely on such right in two or more States: by ensuring a spatially continuous enjoyment of that right, private international law rules positively contribute to the full realisation of the tight in question.

In the afternoon, Satu Heikkilä, lawyer and non-judicial Rapporteur at the European Court of Human Rights, went through the case law of the Strasbourg Court relating to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right for respect of private and family life.

Special attention was devoted in her lecture to the concern for continuity of personal and family status across national borders and the rulings of the Court that address that concern.

13 February

Day two started with a discussion with participants aimed to identify the main problems faced by cross-borders families in Europe, moderated by Silvia Marino. The attendees exchanged views on what they perceived to be the most relevant challenges. The discussion put the bases for the closing workshop scheduled for day five, aimed to assess whether the current rules of private international law in force in the EU properly address such challenges.

Michael Wilderspin, former Legal Advisor of the European Commission, discussed the concept of mutual recognition, as understood in EU law for the purposes of free movement and in the context of private international law. The lecture presented the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In the afternoon, Anna Wysocka-Bar, Senior Lecturer at the Jagiellonian University, offered a comparative overview of some European Countries legislations on sex reassignment and went through the pertinent case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Katja Karjalainen, Senior Lecturer at the University of Eastern Finland, examined the issues that surround the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations, stressing the importance of cooperation among States in this area, notably in light of the 2000 Hague Convention on the Protection of Adults.

14 February

On day three, Laura Carpaneto, Associate Professor at the University of Genova, provided an overview of the provisions on parental responsibility in the Brussels II ter Regulation. She also introduced the issue of surrogacy, especially in light of the ongoing Parentage Project at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

Ester di Napoli, Research Fellow at the University of Ferrara,  discussed a number of issues relating to adoption, covering both inter-country adoption and the recognition of foreign adoption decrees. Starting from a human rights perspective, she focused, in particular, on the 1993 Hague Convention and the issues raised by its practical operation.

Cristina González Beilfuss, Full Professor at the University of Barcelona, addressed the sensitive issue of surrogacy. She shared some inspiring views on parenthood grounded on non-genetic ties, and outlined the policies that are likely to shape any harmonisation effort in this area through EU  legislation.

Finally, Nadia Rusinova, attorney at law in the Netherlands and in Bulgaria, presented the topic of child abduction. She discussed a practical case showing the interplay of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, the 1996 Hague Child Protection Conventions and the Brussels II ter Regulation.

15 February

Day four started with a lecture by Etienne Pataut, Full Professor at the Paris 1 – Sorbonne University, on Acceptance and recognition of personal status. He discussed the relationship between the European Union and the International Commission on Civil Status, stressing the important role played by the latter and the potential of continuing cooperation between the two.

Ian Summer, Judge and Full Professor at Tilburg University, addressed the cross-border recognition of marriages and registered partnerships. He provided a comparative overview before encouraging participants to discuss in groups about the issue of recognition in cases involving unknown legal institutions.

Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, Associate Professor at the University College of Dublin, focused on cross-border separations and divorce, in light of the 1970 Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, the  Brussels II ter Regulation and Rome III Regulation, in light domestic and European case law.

The closing lecture of the day,  by Javier Carrascosa González, Full Professor at the University of Murcia, dealt with remedies against infringements to rights of personality. The focus was on the interaction of family law rules with tort law, and the potential of the latter for the protection of indivudals from the violation of rights related to private life.

16 February

Day five started with three parallel sessions. The first one, on The recognition of unknown family status: the pillar cases: Coman, Pancharevo and beyond, was chaired by Anna Wysocka-Bar; the second one, on The right to name according to ECtHR and CJEU case-law, was guided  by Silvia Marino; Javier Carrascosa González led the discussion on The notion of habitual residence: comparing HCCH and EU systems.

Participants were invited to choose among the three and take part in the discussion, based, among other things, on reading materials that had been shared before the start of the Winter School.

Raffaele Sabato, judge at European Court of Human Rights, held the final lecture. He illustrated the key principles arising from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to respect for private and family life, and discussed the need for private international law rules that reflect the evolving notion of family and the emerging challenges faced by people on the move.

— The topic of the next edition of the EAPIL Winter School will be announced in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

EAPIL Winter School in Como – Registrations End Soon!

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

EAPIL Winter School Teaser Webinar

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the HCCH Special Commission on Child Abduction and Child Protection Conventions

, , , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The author of this post is Costanza Honorati, professor of EU law and private international law at the University of Milan Bicocca. She chaired the working group that prepared a position paper on behalf of the  European Association of Private International Law in view of the eight meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation on the 1980 Child Abduction and the 1996 Child Protection Conventions, and attended the meeting on behalf of EAPIL.

The Special Commission (SC) charged by the Hague Conference on Private International to discuss  the practical operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Child Protection Convention met for the eighth time from 10 to 17 October 2023. The meeting was attended by 471 delegates, in person and online, representing 66 HCCH Members, 13 non-Member Contracting Parties, 27 observers from inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, including the European Association of Private International Law (see its position paper as Info. Doc. No 18 of October 2023)

As usual, at the end of the meeting the SC adopted a set of Conclusions & Recommendations (C&R), whose content is briefly summarized below, with a focus on a selection of issues. To the reader’s benefit the two Conventions are addressed here separately.

The 1980 Child Abduction Convention

The SC took note that, since the Seventh Meeting of the SC in 2017, five States have become Contracting Parties to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention (Barbados, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Cuba, and Guyana), bringing the total number of Contracting Parties to the Convention to 103.

Interesting information were drawn from the fifth Statistical Study drawn by prof. Nigel Lowe and Victoria Stephens for the year 2021 (Prel. Doc. No 19A ). While the data in that year are likely to have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a few relevant findings are worth mentioning. Among these, the increase in the average number of days it took to reach a final decision; the increase of refusals to return; the almost double increase of proportion of refusals to return on the basis of the Article 13(1)(b) exception, compared with the results of the 2015 statistical study; the small decrease in cases going to court; the increase of cases being settled outside court .

While the SC has reaffirmed and reiterated some of the conclusions adopted in previous meetings, a few specific topics have been discussed in greater detail.

Under the heading Addressing delays under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the SC found that delays continue to be a significant obstacle in the operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the SC strongly recommended Contracting Parties experiencing delays to review their existing processes in order to identify potential causes of delays.

With this in mind the SC reiterated

the effectiveness and value of the use of information technology for efficient communication between authorities, sharing of data, and to assist in reducing delays and expedite return proceedings.

The SC thus encouraged States to continue implementing and enhancing the use of information technology and to make use of the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention as a helpful resource (para 5-9).

The SC then addressed the Relationship of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention with other international instruments – 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Having recalled the rationale for the return of the child and the scope of the return proceedings, the SC emphasized how return proceedings should not include a comprehensive ‘best interests assessment’. In particular the SC stated, at para 14 e 15 that

[w]hile the exceptions derive from a consideration of the interests of the child, they do not turn the return proceedings into custody proceedings. Exceptions are focussed on the (possible non-) return of the child. They should neither deal with issues of custody nor mandate a full “best interests assessment” for a child within return proceedings.

Similar findings are featured in the communication No 121/2020 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure.

The SC had a lively discussion on the Application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention in a contest of Domestic violence. The C&R reflect the discussion summarizing some of the results as following. It firstly makes reference to the Guide to Good Practices on Article 13, noting that, according to paragraph 33,

harm to a parent, whether physical or psychological, could, in some exceptional circumstances, create a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The Article 13(1)(b) exception does not require, for example, that the child be the direct or primary victim of physical harm if there is sufficient evidence that, because of a risk of harm directed to a taking parent, there is a grave risk to the child.

In light of the ongoing discussions and initiatives promoted by advocates for victims of domestic violence, the SC supported the proposal to hold a international open forum allowing for discussions amongst organisations representing parents and children and those applying the Convention. The Philippines offered to assess hosting the forum in Manila in 2024 and States have been invited to contribute in the organisation and funding of such a forum (para 26)

Closely connected to domestic violence is the related issue of Safe return and measures of protection. Interestingly, the SC made it clear that a court may also order protective measures to protect the accompanying parent in order to address the grave risk to the child (para 28). As regards undertakings, the SC reiterated that the efficacy of the measures of protection will depend on whether they are enforceable in the State of habitual residence of the child. Insofar, voluntary undertakings are not easily or always enforceable and, because they may not be effective in many cases, they should be used with greatest caution. It was also suggested that, when undertakings are made to the court of the requested State, they should be included in the return order in order to help facilitate enforcement in the State of habitual residence of the child. This is a new practice that could come result interesting.

The issue of hearing of the child again attracted much interest. Based on the fact that States follow very different approaches when hearing the child, C&R aim to circulate some good practices, such as (para 37)

a) the person who hears the child, be it the judge, an independent expert or any other person, should have appropriate training to carry out this task in a child-friendly manner and training on international child abduction; b) if the person hearing the child speaks to one parent, they should speak to the other; c) the person hearing the child should not express any view on questions of custody and access as the child abduction application deals only with return.

It was also emphasised that when hearing the child for the purposes of Article 13(2), this should be done only for such purpose and not in respect of broader questions concerning the welfare of the child, which are for the court of the child’s habitual residence. In other terms, the hearing of the child should be kept in the framework of an exception to return and not embrace a wider scope.

The very topical issue of asylum claim lodged in abduction cases was also shortly discussed, on the basis of Prel. Doc. No 16 . The C&R only indicate that such proceedings should be examined expeditiously (para 40).

The 1996 Hague Convention

Eight new States have become Contracting Parties to the 1996 Child Protection Convention since the 2017 SC, namely Barbados, Cabo Verde, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay, thus bringing the total number of Contracting Parties to the Convention to 54 (27 of which are EU Member States).

Some interesting clarifications were given in relation to recognition and enforcement of protection measures. First, in relation to the scope of application of Article 26(1) – a rule which provides that, where measures taken in one Contracting Party require enforcement in another Contracting Party, such measures shall be declared enforceable or registered for the purpose of enforcement in that other Contracting Party – the SC made it clear that not all measures of protection require enforcement under Article 26. Enforcement shall be required, for example, for the forced sale of property; or in relation to a parent refusing to abide by the orders made by the competent authority in another State. Because not all cases fall under Article 26, the SC invited Contracting Parties (in relation to their laws) and competent authorities (in relation to their procedures) to differentiate between those measures that require enforcement and those that do not (para 74-75).

Second, it was noted that, in order to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of measures of protection, the competent authority should carefully describe those measures in the decision and the grounds upon which it based its jurisdiction, including when jurisdiction is based on Article 11(1) (para 77-78).

Another interesting topic on which the SC focused is the placement of children. In this regard the SC endeavored to clarify what should be regarded as placement under Article 3(e) and Article 33 (i.e. any placement of the child in a foster family or in institutional care, or the provision of care by kafala or an analogous institution) ) and also what should not be regarded as a placement (i.e. purely private arrangements, including the ones in the form of an agreement or unilateral act, including a notarial kafala; a child travelling abroad for tourism purposes with their foster parent) (para. 83 et seq).

It then offered a useful guidance on minimum steps for the procedure under Article 33. These include the following:

1. The competent authority of the State which is contemplating the measure of alternative care must consult the Central Authority or competent authority in the State where it is proposed that the measure will be exercised by: (1) discussing the possibility of such a placement in the receiving State; (2) transmitting a report on the child; (3) explaining the reasons for the proposed placement or provision of care outside the requesting State and in the requested State.

2. The Central Authority or competent authority of the State where it is proposed that the measure will be exercised gives its consent to the proposed placement or provision of care.

3. If the requested State has consented to the placement or provision of care, taking into account the child’s best interests, the competent authority of the requesting State then issues its decision.

 Call for Further Action

Finally, as a result of the lively debate in the course of the SC, the need for further future action of both the Permanent Bureau (PB) and Contracting States was recommended. This was further reflected in the C&R with respect to the following topics.

In relation to direct judicial communications and the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ), the proposal was advanced to develop a short model guide to court practice and further initiatives to hold a regional in-person meeting of the IHNJ in Brazil (May 2024) and a global in-person meeting of the IHNJ in Singapore (May 2025) (para 19).

Regarding the determination of wrongful removal pursuant Articles 8, 14 and 15, the SC invited the PB to draw up a note containing information on the use of such rules, drawing from the contents of Prel. Doc. No 14. (para 46).

As to the revised Request for Return Recommended Model Form and the new Request for Access Recommended Model Form, the SC concluded that further work needed. A Group of interested delegates will assist the PB in finalising both revised Forms (para 50).

Concerning relocation, after noting the strong impact on international abduction and the diversity of approaches of States in this matter, the SC proposed the development of a questionnaire by the PB directed to States to gather information about procedures that States have in place to facilitate lawful relocation (para 54);

With regard to transfer of proceedings under Article 8 and 9 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention, besides recalling the general duty to cooperate among Central Authorities and direct judicial communications between judges involved in a transfer of jurisdiction, the PB was asked to circulate the questionnaire annexed to to all Contracting Parties to the 1996 Child Protection Convention, with a view to collecting information from judges and Central Authorities regarding requests under Article 8 or 9 and to then review such document in light of the responses from Contracting Parties (para 69).

Finally, on the placement of children, the PB was asked to start collecting information on the operation of Article 33 from Contracting Parties in addition to that set out in Doc. No 20 and that a Working Group be established to develop: (a) a model form for cooperation under Article 33; and (b) a guide on the operation of Article 33.

Registrations Are Open for the EAPIL Winter School in Como

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

Save the Dates – EAPIL Winter School in Como, 12 to 16 February 2024

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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.

Analysing the EU Parenthood Proposal – Many Questions and Some Tentative Answers

, , , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

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).

Consumer Protection under the Brussels I bis Regulation: Room for Improvement

, , , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The author of this post is Willem Visser. He is one of the editors of the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law and Unfair Commercial Practices (Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht & handelspraktijken).

In April 2023, the EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation issued a preliminary position paper formulating proposals for reforming the Regulation. On 29 March 2023, the European Commission published a study to support the preparation of a report on the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

In my opinion, consumer protection seems to be only marginally on the radar in these documents. Therefore, I wrote this article, which was published in the Dutch Journal for Consumer Law, where I propose to extend the material scope of the provisions dealing with consumer contracts (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation) and to significantly simplify the entire chapter on jurisdiction. A summary of my article and proposals is set out below.

Consumers are protected through EU regulations not only when it comes to their substantive rights (against unfair commercial practices, unfair terms, etc.), but also when it comes to procedural law, in particular the assesment of international jurisdiction in disputes over consumer contracts.

This procedural protection is enshrined in the Brussels I bis Regulation and its predecessors (Regulation No. 44/2001 and the 1968 Brussels Convention). These instruments will be referred to below as ‘the Brussels regime’.

The Brussels regime protects consumers by giving jurisdiction to the courts of their country of residence (Articles 17-19 Brussels I bisRegulation). That seems like a great deal, but in practice there are several limitations to that protection.

First, the consumer protection only applies to consumer contracts and not to any non-contractual obligations invoked by consumers (for example, tort, unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio). In these types of cases the consumer cannot litigate before the court of his or her domicile, but will probably have to seek the courts of its professional counterparty: the defendant’s domicile. It is not desirable for consumers to be forced to litigate outside their country of residence, because that means extra travel time, litigating in an unfamiliar country and in a different language, with the help of a foreign lawyer, in a procedure that may well be more expensive than in his or her home country. Moreover, it is not always clear – on the basis of the various rulings by the EU Court of Justice – whether an obligation should be qualified as a ‘contractual obligation’ or a ‘non-contractual obligation’. There have been several cases where the natural person was the weaker party and needed protection, but did not get it because of the non-contractual nature of the obligation in question (see the ECJ decisions in Wikingerhof, Kolassa and Deepwater Horizon). I therefore believe that consumer protection in the Brussels Ibis Regulation should not be limited to consumer contracts but should be extended to non-contractual consumer obligations.

Second, the ECJ interpretes the concept of ‘consumer’ restrictively: it “must necessarily be interpreted strictly, in the sense that it cannot be extended beyond the cases expressly mentioned in that Regulation” (amongst others: Poker Player, C-774/19, para. 24). This restrictive approach resulted in a natural person not being able to claim consumer protection under the Brussels regime in the following situations: if he/she was a consumer but transferred his/her rights; in that case, the person to whom the rights have been transferred cannot be considered a ‘consumer’ (C-89/91); if the contract was entered into with a view to an as yet unexercised but future professional activity (C-269/95); if it concerns a class action initiated by a group of consumers (C-167/00); if both parties are consumers (C-508/12); if the consumer does not have a contract with the issuer of the certificates (C-375/13); if the agreement subsequently acquired a professional character (C-498/16); if the contract was concluded for a dual purpose, unless the contract, in view of the context of the transaction – considered as a whole – for which it was concluded, is so distinct from that professional activity that it is evident that it was concluded primarily for private purposes (C-630/17); if there is a claim by a consumer against an airline that is not a party to the transport contract (C-215/18).

So, there are quite a few situations where a natural person is not considered a ‘consumer’, and therefore cannot litigate before the courts of his or her own domicile. This is remarkable, because the European Union ensures “a high level of consumer protection” (Article 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). I believe that in several of the situations mentioned above, there is an unjustified lack of protection. In my opinion, the regime of Article 17-19 Brussels I bis Regulation should therefore be applied less restrictively by entering an assumption into the Regulation that a natural person acts in his capacity as a consumer. It is up to the counterparty to prove that the natural person has unmistakably acted in the context of his or her profession or business.

In addition, I believe that consumer protection should also apply to consumer collective actions. There is no valid reason why the collective nature of a claim should result in a group of consumers no longer being considered a weaker party. At the time the contracts were concluded, the consumers represented had less room to negotiate with their professional counterparty, and thus to that extent still had a weaker position. Moreover, it leads to a divergence between the competent court and the applicable law. Still, collective actions based on a breach of consumer contracts remain governed by the law of the consumers’ country. The freedom to conduct a business, guaranteed in Article 16 of the EU Charter, does not necessitate the exclusion of collective actions from consumer protection. The professional counterparty of the consumer has already had to take into account that individual consumers could bring proceedings against it in their own place of residence. That this is different in the case of a consumer collective action is therefore, in that sense, an unexpected advantage for the counterparty.

Third, in my opinion the ‘targeting requirement’ in Article 17 (1)(c) Brussels I bis Reguliation is not workable in practice. This requirement has given rise to much ECJ case-law and leads to legal uncertainty (see the legal commentary on the Alpenhof judgment). In my opinion, in this digital day and age a consumer contract should only be excluded from consumer protection where the professional would not have to expect litigating in the courts of the consumer’s domicile. This is the case only, when the contract is concluded in a physical sales area or when the consumer cannot get the goods or services delivered in his place of residence under the trader’s terms and conditions.

In light of the above, I conclude that consumer protection under the Brussels regime has not kept pace with substantive consumer law in which consumer protection has become more extensive.

But that’s not the only comment I would like to make on the current Brussels I bis Regulation. The complexity of the chapter on jurisdiction (Chapter II of the Regulation) results even today – more than 50 years after its predecessor, the Brussels Convention, was signed by the the EEC members States – in large numbers of preliminary rulings. The Brussels/Lugano regime accounts for the majority of the 245 preliminary rulings on private international law sources from 2015 to 2022. That means more than 120 questions (128 to be precise) over a 7-year period. In my opinion, that is too much for an instrument that is in place more than 50 years.

Reducing the Court of Justice’s workload is not necessarily a compelling reason to simplify a regime, but it should be borne in mind that behind every case submitted to a court, there are two or more parties who – until the preliminary question is answered – cannot proceed with their legal proceedings. The delay is considerable, since preliminary reference proceedings before the Court of Justice take 16.6 months on average.

I therefore propose to replace the articles which give rise to the largest amount of preliminary questions (Article 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation) by an article which aligns jurisdiction and applicable law. My proposal is that Article 7(1) and (2) (and perhaps other parts of Article 7) should be replaced by the following rule:

A person domiciled in one Member State may also be sued in another Member State whose laws governs the relevant contractual or non-contractual obligation underlying the claim. Where there are several claims governed by different laws, the courts of the Member State which laws governs the most far-reaching claim shall have jurisdiction.

The advantage of aligning jurisdiction and applicable law is that it improves coherence between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome I and Rome II Regulations (which designate the law that is applicable to a contractual or non-contractual obligation). These Regulations all aim to promote predictability of the outcome of litigation, legal certainty and mutual recognition of judgments.

Simplifying the Brussels regime would give rise to fewer preliminary questions and fewer delays. Preventing delays is one of the objectives of procedural law. As the saying goes: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.

I admit that I have not yet thought through all consequences of my proposals, and it is going too far to elaborate all of them in the context of my article. But it seems right to discuss these proposals further and, if possible, to include it as an option in the ongoing review of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

4th Research Project of the EAPIL Young Research Network: Call for Participants

, ,
Marco Pasqua
by

After the  completion of  three research projects, the chairs of the EAPIL Young Research Network (Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani and Dora Zgabrljić Rotar) are happy to announce the next endeavor.

The Network is ready to start working on the national rules of the Member States governing the recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgements in civil and commercial matters.

The aim of the project is to enable a comparison of the above-mentioned national rules, which, in turn, will allow a broader comparison between the latter rules and those of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

The fourth project – like the previous and third one – will consist in the drafting of national reports, based on a questionnaire, by rapporteurs. Each national report will be expected to be roughly between 5,000 and 12,000 words (including footnotes). A first draft of the report will need to be sent to the heads of the project by the end of September 2023. Chairs are confident that the reports will be published (together with other materials) in a volume similar to the one from the third project.

Chairs are warmly inviting young researchers (see here for the notion) to provide a national report on the legal framework of the Member State they are based in (or which they are otherwise qualified to provide).

In particular, reports are currently requested from the following Member States: Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, Rumania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

If you are interested in providing a national report – with respect to the Member States listed above – chairs would be grateful if you could come back to them at youngresearch@eapil.org by 21 May 2023.

EAPIL Working Group on Brussels I bis Reform: Last Opportunity to Take the Survey

, , ,
Elena Alina Ontanu
by

Readers of this blog are aware that an EAPIL Working Group has been set to reflect on the reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A survey has been launched to collect feedback and comments on the proposals included in the Working Group’s preliminary position paper (see further here and here). Those wishing to share their views are invited to take the survey by 15 April 2023.

Participation in the survey is opened to anybody familiar with Brussels I bis, regardless of their membership in the European Association of Private International Law.

The members of the Working Group are eager to know about the opinion of scholars and practitioners both  on the operation of the Regulation and on the improvements proposed by the Group.

All the received input is valuable for the work that is being done in preparation of the Brussels I bis Reform. Warm thanks to those who have already provided their feedback and to those who plan to so in the next few hours!

EAPIL Working Group on Brussels I bis Regulation Reform: Extended deadline for the survey

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation has set up a survey to collect feedback and comments on the proposals formulated in the preliminary position paper.  

By now, over 60 participants from many different Member States have answered the survey. To allow an even broader participation, the deadline for taking the survey has been extended until 15 April 2023.

Participation in the survey is open to anybody interested in the reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation, non matter whether they are members of the European Association of Private International Law, or not.

EAPIL Working Group on Digital Assets Issues Position Paper

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EAPIL Working Group on the Law Applicable to Digital Assets has issued a Position Paper to comment on the private international law aspects of the Draft Principles and Commentary on Digital Assets and Private Law issued by UNIDROIT in January 2023.

The Position Paper can be found here.

The issue of the applicable law to digital assets, which is the subject matter of the Position Paper, will be taken up jointly by UNIDROIT and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which have announced earlier this month their plan to launch the HCCH-UNIDROIT Project on Law Applicable to Cross-Border Holdings and Transfers of Digital Assets and Tokens.

The EAPIL Working Group will follow the joint work of HCCH and UNIDROIT.

EAPIL Working Group on Brussels I bis Regulation Reform: Preliminary Report and Survey

, , , ,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

The EAPIL Working Group on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation has issued a preliminary position paper formulating proposals for reforming the Regulation.

The proposals are based on the opinions expressed by the members of the working group and the participants at the conference held at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg in September 2022. The proposals of the members of the Members Consultative Committee were also forwarded to the drafters of the position paper.

The chairs of the Working Group (Burkhard Hess and Geert van Calster) now invite all interested members of EAPIL and readers of the blog to participate in a survey on the proposals formulated in the position paper until 13 March 2023. The survey can be accessed here.

EAPIL Working Group on the Law Applicable to Digital Assets

, , ,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) and Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) are considering establishing an EAPIL Working Group on the Law Governing Digital Assets.

The first project of the Working Group would be to write a position paper to be filed for the purpose of the online consultation of the Draft UNIDROIT Principles and Commentary on Digital Assets and Private Law. The consultation ends on 20 February 2023.

The EAPIL position paper would focus on the private international aspects of the UNIDROIT proposal.

Any EAPIL Member interested in joining the Working Group should contact either Matthias Lehmann (matthias.lehmann@univie.ac.at) or Gilles Cuniberti (gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu) as soon as possible.

Joint EAPIL-BIICL (Virtual) Seminar on the Review of the Rome II Regulation: Last Chance to Register!

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

As noted earlier on this blog, on 2 December 2022, from 4 pm to 5.30 pm (MET), EAPIL will hold a joint Seminar via Zoom with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL). The Seminar will focus on the review of the Rome II Regulation.

Those wishing to attend have time until 30 November 2022 at noon (MET) to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar by e-mail the day before the Seminar (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

For more information, please write an e-mail to secretary.general@eapil.org.

Review of the Rome II Regulation – Analysis and Recommendations: Register Now for the Joint EAPIL-BIICL (Virtual) Seminar!

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

As noted earlier on this blog, on 2 December 2022, from 4 pm to 5.30 pm (MET), EAPIL will hold a joint Seminar with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL). The Seminar will focus on the review of the Rome II Regulation and will, in this context, shed light on the Study that was prepared in 2021 by BIICL and Civic Consulting to support the preparation of the Commission report on the Regulation’s application. The seminar will focus on general issues as well as a selection of specific subjects.

The Seminar will take place via Zoom. If you wish to join, please register here by 30 November 2022 at noon. Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar on 1 December 2022.

The Seminar’s programme is as follows:

4.00 pm
Introduction: Overview of the Study
Constance Bonzé, BIICL (UK)
Eva Lein, BIICL (UK)/University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

— FOCUS I

4.15 pm
Financial Loss
Xandra Kramer, University of Rotterdam (Netherlands)

— FOCUS II

4.25 pm
Artificial Intelligence
Martin Ebers, University of Tartu (Estonia)

—

4.35 pm
A View from Practice
Marie Louise Kinsler, KC, 2 Temple Gardens, London (UK)

—

4.45 pm
Discussion

For more information, please write an e-mail to secretary.general@eapil.org.

The Brussels I bis Reform – Conference at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg

, , , ,
Pietro Franzina
by

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.

EAPIL Young Research Network: New Chairperson and Secretary

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

After more than 3 years of active involvement in the EAPIL Young Research Network, which she had co-founded together with Susanne Gössl in 2019, Martina Melcher has handed over the responsibility as one of the Network’s three chairpersons to Dora Zgrabljić Rotar.

The Association is grateful to Martina for her work for, and continued commitment to, the success of the Young Research Network.

The Network is rapidly growing (membership currently stands at 75). This led the members of the Network itself to elect a Secretary. The position will inaugurally be assumed by Marco Pasqua. In case your personal details (including, most importantly, your e-mail address) change or if you want to reach out to one or several members of the Network, please feel free to contact Marco Pasqua at youngresearch@eapil.org.

The activities that the Network is conducting are being worked on. In relation to the current third research project the Network has been dealing with, which focuses on the domestic rules on international jurisdiction in light of Article 79 of the Brussels I bis and the possible extension of the Regulation to defendants without a domicile in an EU Member State, results will be published in a dedicated volume of the Hart Studies in Private International Law series.

In addition, opportunities to discuss the findings directly with the EU Commission and the Working Group on Jurisdiction of the Hague Conference are currently being scheduled. The future fourth research project is being defined after the summer break. The focus could shift to the recognition and enforcement issue, quite similar to the jurisdiction one in the sense that it is partly governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation and partly governed by national law.

Highlights from the 2022 EAPIL General Assembly

, ,
Pietro Franzina
by

The General Assembly of the European Association of Private International Law met in Aarhus on 3 June 2022 in the framework of the Association’s founding conference.

Some sixty members attended in persons, while twenty more joined on-line.

Chaired by Dário Moura Vicente, the Assembly heard reports about completed and ongoing activities of the Association, namely those channelled through the EAPIL Working Groups, the EAPIL Young Research Network and the EAPIL blog. The Assembly was also informed of planned new activities, including a journal that the Association intends to launch in due course.

The Assembly also witnessed the presentation of the upcoming EAPIL conference, due to take place in Wrocław, in 2024, organised by Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska.

The results of the election of EAPIL officers, which occurred online in the days preceding the Assembly, were then announced to members.

The new EAPIL board consists of six members: Apostolos Anthimos, Gilles Cuniberti, Morten M. Fogt, Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, Pietro Franzina and Giesela Rühl.

The following have been elected to the EAPIL Scientific Council: Apostolos Anthimos, Gilles Cuniberti, Pedro De Miguel Asensio, Morten M. Fogt, Agniezska Frąckowiak-Adamska, Pietro Franzina, Susanne Gössl, Thomas Kadner Graziano, Bettina Heiderhoff, Marion Ho-Dac, Alexander Layton, Vesna Lazić, Tobias Lutzi, Johan Meeusen, Ralf Michaels, Dário Moura Vicente, Marta Requejo Isidro, Giesela Rühl, Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm and Jan Von Hein.

Finally, the results were announced of the choice made by the members of the Association’s logo, to replace the provisional logo that has been used so far. The new logo is featured above in this post.

EAPIL Working Group on Reforming Brussels I bis

,
Gilles Cuniberti
by

EAPIL has established a working group on Reforming Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). In the light of the evaluation of the Brussels I bis Regulation which is currently being conducted by the European Commission, the aim of the working group is to assess the functioning of the Regulation and make proposals for its improvement.

The Working group is chaired by Burkhard Hess and Geert van Calster.

The members of the group include Apostolos Anthimos, Katarina Burdova, Gilles Cuniberti, Andrew Dickinson, Tanja Domej, Aleksandrs Fillers, Pietro Franzina, Cristina González Beilfuss, Viktória Harsági, Boriana Musseva, Nikitas E. Hatzimihail, Christian Kohler, Xandra Kramer, Thalia Kruger, Alexander Layton, Vesna Lazic, Eva Lein, Peter Lysina, Ulla Liukkunen, François Mailhe, Chrisoula Michailidou, Dario Moura Vincente, Maire Ni Shuilleabhain, Anna Nylund, Paul Oberhammer, Alina Oprea, Krzysztof Pacula, Thomas Pfeiffer, Fausto Pocar, Michiel Poesen, Marta Requejo Isidro, Vesna Rijavec, Camelia Toader, Peter F. Schlosser, Andreas Stein, Maciej Szpunar, Vigita Vebraite, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca Villata, Jan von Hein, Hans van Loon and Eiríkur Elís Þorláksson.

The project is co-organised and generously funded by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

Conference

The working group will present its results and discuss proposals for reform in a conference organized by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg on 9 September 2022.

The conference will be held in an hybrid format and it will be possible to participate either in person or online.

Members Consultative Committee

Any EAPIL member interested in following the work of the working group is invited to join the Members Consultative Committee (MCC). The chair of the MCC is Gilles Cuniberti, who can be contacted at gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu.

Members of the MCC will be invited to make any suggestion of reform that they may have before 1 July 2022. The suggestions will be forwarded to the WG for discussion.

After the September conference, the working group will circulate in the MCC its preliminary report for comments.

EAPIL Takes Part as an Observer in the HCCH Special Commission on Maintenance

,
Pietro Franzina
by

The first meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation of the 2007 Child Support Convention and on the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol is due to be held on 17, 18 and 19 May 2022.

The purpose of the meeting, which is only open to delegates or experts designated by the Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, invited non-Member States and International Organisations that have been granted observer status, is to discuss a range of issues surrounding the interpretation of the two instruments mentioned above and their implementation in the domestic legal systems.

The Hague Conference, through its Permanent Bureau, has recently invited the European Association of Private International Law to take part in the meeting as an observer.

A Working Group has been immediately created for this purpose, formed by Alexandre Boiché (lawyer in Paris), Tena Hoško (University of Zagreb), Anna Nylund (University of Bergen), Francesco Pesce (University of Genova, Chair), Ian Sumner (Tilburg University), Lara Walker (Warwick University), and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University).

In the space of just a few weeks the Working Group has prepared a position paper focusing on a selection of issues that the Special Commission plans to discuss. The provisional version of the paper, pending a review by the Scientific Council of EAPIL, is available here.

The conclusions reached by the Working Group are as follows:

I. The concept of marriage/spouse, being de jure included in the scope of application of the Convention, unlike other family relationships to which the Convention might apply by virtue of declaration under Art. 63 of the Convention, has a pivotal role in determination of the Convention’s scope. The main problem arises with reference to same-sex marriages. However, other relationships that could be equated to marriage in the national law of the State of origin, such as cohabitation, should also be considered. There are two potential options: (i) allow each Contracting State to define the concept based on its national law (so that differences between the law of the State of origin and the requested State can be faced accordingly) or (ii) find an autonomous definition of the concept; 

II. The concept of creditor: based on domestic experiences, it is clear that there are two opposing models concerning the formal ownership of the legal action. On the one hand, those systems where it is the child him/herself who qualifies as ‘creditor’ acting for the protection of his/her own interests, even if procedurally through an adult (parent) acting on his/her behalf. On the other hand, some State laws provide that a dependent child cannot be the creditor, so the action for the maintenance recovery is brought by the parent on his/her own behalf. It seems that a preference should be (uniformly) given to always granting a direct indication of the real creditor, even in case of a child.

III. The concept of residence: a more precise explanation seems to be appropriate on (i) the “minimum threshold” which can be requested (in addition to the negative definition which is fixed by the second sentence of Art. 9); and/or (ii) the fact that it should be possible for the applicant to be considered as resident in more than just one Contracting State, making him/her able to apply before different Central Authorities under Art. 9. 

IV. the (uniform) interpretation of Art. 4 of the Protocol, considering that the CJEU has explained how this provision should be interpreted when a maintenance debtor applies on the basis of a change in his income, for a reduction in the amount of maintenance awarded by a decision that has become final (see Mölk, C-214/17): considering that the CJEU’s interpretation is only binding for those Contracting States which are EU Member States, it would be necessary to discuss it with non-EU Contracting States, in order to understand how do they interpret this provision; 

V. The relationship between the 2007 Child Support Convention and the Lugano II Convention, as all EU Member States and Norway are parties to both instruments: the instruments seem to suggest different solutions, each pointing to the other one. Considering that Article 52 of the 2007 Child Support Convention allows creditors to select an instrument or arrangement that has more effective rules than the Convention, this could also be interpreted as giving the creditor the right to choose between the 2007 Child Support Convention and the Lugano II Convention. The principle of favor executionis should undoubtedly guide the choices of the court, where the convention to be applied is not directly indicated by the creditor/claimant. In the writers’ opinion, it would be appropriate to provide for a specific duty to inform creditors of the possibility to choose between the two instruments, in certain situations. 

The EAPIL blog will report in the coming days about the meeting of the Special Commission.

EAPIL Issues a Position Paper on the Protection of Adults in the European Union

,
Pietro Franzina
by

In February 2022, a Working Group has been established within the European Association of Private International Law. The task of the Group was to respond to a public consultation launched by the European Commission on the prospect of an EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults, i.e., persons aged 18 or more who are unable to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties.

The Group presented the preliminary draft of a position paper prepared for this purpose at a webinar on 10 March 2022.

Having taken note of the feedback received from the participants in the webinar and other interested academics, practitioners and stakeholders, the Working Group shared a final draft with the Association’s Scientific Council.

The position paper, as approved by the EAPIL Council and submitted to the European Commission, is available here.

Here are some of the key takeaways of the paper:

  1. Private international law has an important role to play in the realisation of the fundamental rights of persons aged 18 and more who are not in a position to protect their interests due to an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculty.
  2. The Union should urgently adopt measures of judicial cooperation aimed to support, in cross-border situations, the exercise of legal capacity by the adults concerned, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  3. In taking the above measures, the Union should preserve the operation and the prospect of success of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. To this end, the Union should combine external action and legislation, meaning that the Convention should provide the basic legal framework in this field, common to all Member States, but legislation should be enacted by the Union to strengthen cooperation between Member States and improve the operation of the Convention in their relations.
  4. The legal basis for the above measures would be Article 81 TFEU, with the clarification that the protection of adults should not be deemed to fall within the scope of “family law” within the meaning of Article 81(3).
  5. The Union has external competence, based on Article 216 TFEU to authorise the Member States that have not yet done so to ratify, or accede to, the Hague Adults Convention “in the interest of the Union”, on the ground that the conclusion of the Convention would be “necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union’s policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties”.
  6. The legislation of the Union aimed to improve the Hague Convention regionally should relate, inter alia, to choice of court by the adult concerned and the law applicable to ex lege powers of representation.
  7. Specifically, the Union should enact a rule whereby ex lege powers of representation are governed by the law of the (Member) State where the adult concerned has their habitual residence at the time when those powers are relied upon, without prejudice to the application of the provisions on ex lege powers of representation as may be in force in the Member State where the powers are invoked, whenever the provisions themselves are meant to apply regardless of the law specified by conflict-of-laws rules.

EAPIL Young Research Network Project on the Recognition of Status – Reports Published

, , , ,
Pietro Franzina
by

In 2019 in Würzburg a group of young researchers from several EU Member States met for a comparative Private International Law project and to create what later became the EAPIL Young Research Network.

The first project, initiated by Susanne Lilian Gössl (Germany) and  Martina Melcher (Austria), dealt with the national implementation of the CJEU/ECtHR case law regarding the so-called “recognition of status”.

The results, a comparative report and most of the national reports, of this project have now been published in the latest issue of the open-access journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.

The issue comes with national reports from Austria (Florian Heindler and Martina Melcher), Belgium (Sarah Den Haese), Baltic States (Katažyna Bogdzevič and Natalja Žitkevitš), Croatia (Tena Hoško), France (Marion Ho-Dac), Germany (Susanne Lilian Gössl), Hungary (Tamás Szabados), Italy (Marta Giacomini and Martina Vivirito Pellegrino), the Netherlands (Tess Bens and Mirella Peereboom-Van Drunick), Poland (Natalja Žitkevitš) and Spain (María Asunción Cebrián Salvat and Isabel Lorente Martínez)

A report from Sweden, by Laima Vaige, will be published in the forthcoming issue, in Autumn 2022.

Funding Opportunities and Help for Scholars from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EAPIL Board has been closely monitoring the evolving situation in Ukraine during the past two weeks and established contact with the Ukrainian members of EAPIL. Some members have left the country, others are still in Ukraine. All are in need of support.

Several academic institutions in Europe offer funding or have established scholarships for refugee scholars and scientists. The funding is either available for refugee scholars from any country, for refugee scholars from Ukraine only, or for refugee scholars from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The EAPIL Board has collected information on those funding opportunities, which appear below. The list is certainly not complete. We, therefore, invite all readers of the blog to let us know if there are further funding opportunities not yet mentioned.

In addition, the EAPIL wishes to communicate that some members are looking for a way to finance their living through remunerated work. If you know of any opportunities (notably work that can be done remotely from Ukraine or other places) please let us know.

The list below is reproduced (and will be updated, as the case may be) here.

For all further details and information please get in touch with the Secretary General at secretary.general@eapil.org.

General Sources
Germany
  • Volkswagen Stiftung
    • Funding for refugee scholars and scientists from Ukraine
    • Nomination for Ukrainian scholars due March 18
  • LMU Munich
    • Emergency funding for Ukrainian researchers at LMU
Western / Central Europe
  • KU Leuven (Belgium)
    • KU Leuven is setting up a fund for the accommodation of Ukrainian students and researchers looking for shelter, or for necessary extensions of stay for those already at KU Leuven; contact: ukraine@kuleuven.be
  • University of Reading (UK)
    • Sanctuary scholarships for refugee scholars
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
Others
  • NEP4DISSENT
    • EU-funded, international scholarly network dedicated to research on resistance and dissent in former socialist countries
    • Emergency Funding for Ukrainian scholars
Further Resources

Vulnerable Adults – EAPIL Working Group Tasked with Responding to a Public Consultation

, , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the prospect of an EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults, i.e., persons aged 18 or more who are unable to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties.

In the document presenting the initiative, the Commission notes that vulnerable adults, together with their legal representatives, “currently face multiple barriers when they move abroad, buy or sell properties, or just manage their bank account in another Member State”. This is so, “because the rules governing cross-border cases (private international law rules) differ from one Member State to another”.

Actually, none of the legislative measures enacted  so far by the Union on the basis of Article 81 TFEU deals with the support that vulnerable needs may need to access to exercise their legal capacity.

The aim of the consultation is to “gather evidence on the problem and its consequences and to give all interested parties the opportunity to share their views on the possible policy options”.

The deadline for contributing to the consultation is 29 March 2022.

The Scientific Council of the European Association of Private International Law has approved a proposal for the creation of a Working Group charged with drafting a response to the consultation on behalf of the Association.

The members of the group are Pietro Franzina (co-chair), Estelle Gallant, Cristina González Beilfuss (co-chair), Katja Karjalainen, Thalia Kruger, Tamás Szabados and Jan von Hein.

The Working Group plans to hold a webinar in the coming weeks in order to publicly present a preliminary draft and collect the views of experts and stakeholders.

Further details will be made available in the Group’s dedicated page.

For information: pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

First Meeting of EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

From November 15 to 17, the members of the Working Group on International Property Law held a first meeting in Würzburg. Everyone was warmly welcomed by the chair of the working group, Eva-Maria Kieninger. The group assembled in a hybrid way, so that members who could not join in person, had the opportunity to participate online. This very first meeting already led to fruitful discussions and successful results.

The three-day meeting was kicked off by all members presenting the rules on international property law of their own country, as well as other countries. Statutory provisions and case law were discussed. The national reports covered the jurisdictions of Belgium, France, England, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), Poland, Portugal, and Scotland.

The members spent the rest of their time in Würzburg discussing several specific topics, relevant for the project. They debated inter alia on the specific nature of cultural goods, the ambit of party autonomy in the context of immovable security rights, the influence of the free movement rules on international property law, several possibilities to solve the conflit mobile problem for movables, and whether Article 345 TFEU can form an obstacle for a future Regulation on international property law.

More details on the Working Group can be found here.

EAPIL Establishes Working Group on International Property Law

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The Scientific Committee of the European Association of Private International Law has approved the establishment of a Working Group on a future European Regulation on International Property Law.

Aims

The aims of the Working Group will be to exchange information on current legislation and case law in the field of international property law, with a focus on (but not limited to) the EU Member States and to draw up proposals for law reform and codification of international property law both on the level of the EU and on national/international levels.

Composition

The Working Group is chaired by Eva-Maria Kieninger.

It is composed of the following members: Janeen Carruthers (University of Glasgow), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxemburg), Morten Fogt (University of Aarhus), Teemu Juutilainen (University of Turku), Eva-Maria Kieninger (University of Wuerzburg), Teun Struycken (University of Utrecht), Jonathan Schenk (University of Antwerpen), Afonso Patrão (University of Coimbra), and Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo (Madrid)

The Working Group is still considering applications for membership, especially from Eastern European Member States.

Consultative Committee

The Working Group will include a limited number of Members. Other Members interested in following its progress may join the Consultative Committee of the Working Group.

The Working Group wil report and seek comments from the Consultative Committee at least once a year.

Members intersted in joining the Consultative Committee may contact its chair, Gilles Cuniberti (gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu).

First Meeting

The Working Group will hold its first meeting in Wuerzburg in November 2021.

Further Information

Further information on the project can be found on the Working Group’s webpage and sought from its chair, Eva-Maria Kienienger (kieninger@jura.uni-wuerzburg.de).

EAPIL Young Research Network: Call for Participants

,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EAPIL’s Young Research Network has just launched its latest research project, which is being led by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Rotar. The project will focus on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, in light of the report envisioned in Article 79 Brussels Ia Regulation.

As the project will primarily be based on national reports describing the situation in each Member State (structured by a detailed questionnaire), the organizers are currently looking for participants who would be interested in providing a national report for one of the following Member States: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.

The full Call for Participants can be found here.

If you are a junior researcher (below full professor) or practitioner under the age of 45 and would like to receive information about similar projects before they are posted publicly, you can join the EAPIL Young Research Network by simply filling out this form.

New Chairpersons of the EAPIL Young Research Network

, ,
Pietro Franzina
by

Tobias Lutzi (University of Cologne) and Ennio Piovesani (University of Turin) have taken over the responsibility of chairing the EAPIL Young Research Network from Tamás Szabados (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University). They are joining Martina Melcher (University of Graz), who founded the Network in 2019 together with Susanne Gössl (University of Kiel).

The Young Research Network aims to facilitate academic exchange between junior faculty members working on questions of private international law across Europe and to further comparative research through international cooperation. It became part of the EAPIL in 2020 as an official ‘activity’ of the Association.

Since its creation, the Network has successfully completed two research projects, further information on which can be found here.

Together with Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (University of Zaghreb), Tobias and Ennio are currently working on a third research project, that is going to focus on the national rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters over non-EU defendants, in light of the report envisioned in Article 79 Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Young Research Network can be contacted via e-mail at youngresearch@eapil.org.

Service of Process and Taking of Evidence Abroad in the Era of Digitalization: Register Now for the Third EAPIL Virtual Seminar!

, ,
Apostolos Anthimos
by

On 5 March 2021, from 5 to 6.30 p.m. (CET), the European Association of Private International Law will host its third (Virtual) Seminar (see here and here for the previous events in the series). The Seminar will focus on the digitalization aspects of the revised Service of process and Taking of evidence Regulations.

The speakers will be Andreas Stein (European Commission), Elizabeth Zorilla (Hague Conference on Private International Law), Michael Stürner (University of Konstanz and Court of Appeal of Karlsruhe), Jos Uitdehaag (International Union of Judicial Officers) and Ted Folkman (attorney at law, Boston, and Letters Blogatory).

Gilles Cuniberti will introduce the Seminar, while Giesela Rühl will provide some concluding remarks.

Attendance is free, but those wishing to attend are required to register here by 3 March 2021 at noon.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar by e-mail the day before the Seminar.

For more information, please write an e-mail to Apostolos Anthimos at apostolos.anthimos@gmail.com.

Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Law of the EU Member States – Publication of the Young EU PIL Research Network

, , , ,
Marion Ho-Dac
by

The General Report on the second project led by the EAPIL Young EU Private International Law Research Network on Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Law of the EU Member States, under the supervision of Tamás Szabados (University of Budapest), has just been published in the ELTE Law Journal, along with the written versions of some of the contributions of the online conference on the topic, organised in November 2020.

The editorial by Tamás Szabados reads as follows:

The Young European Union Private International Law Research Network was established in 2019 in order to promote academic cooperation within the young generation of private international lawyers in the European Union. The activity of the Network centres around projects and the project theme for 2020 was the application of overriding mandatory norms.

Overriding mandatory norms are beloved subjects for private international lawyers. Most often, however, they are analysed in the context of EU private international law, and principally in contract law, without due regard to other situations where overriding mandatory provisions may equally claim application. Therefore, the primary goal of the project was to reveal whether and to what extent overring mandatory provisions are applied in the autonomous private international law of the Member States, i.e. outside the scope of application of the EU private international law regulations. Some findings have been made in the general report prepared in the framework of the project, based on the contributions of national reporters from seventeen Member States. The report, however, clearly demonstrates that the application or consideration of overriding mandatory rules is also admitted in the autonomous private international law of the Member States, and most notably they involve rules on personal status and family law, property law and company law.

This enquiry on the application of overriding mandatory provisions in autonomous private international law is supplemented by the discussion of topics related to the application of overriding mandatory rules in private international law and arbitration. Martina Melcher examines which substantive law rules of EU law may qualify as overriding mandatory provisions under the Rome I and Rome II Regulations. Katažyna Bogdzevič puts the application of overriding mandatory provisions in family law and regarding names under scrutiny. Markus Petsche addresses the application of mandatory rules in international commercial arbitration. Uglješa Grušić discusses the implications of some recent English conflict-of-laws cases concerning the application of overriding mandatory provisions, such as Lilly Icos LLC v 8PM Chemists Ltd and Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc. Finally, the approach of the new Hungarian Private International Law Act towards overriding mandatory norms is presented by Csenge Merkel and Tamás Szabados.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic sadly enlightens a further category of overriding mandatory norms: public health measures. Measures related to the prevention of the spread of the coronavirus, introduced by many states around the world, can be considered as overriding mandatory norms. They include closing borders, cities and workplaces, ordering the cancellation of large-scale events, such as theatre and cinema shows or concerts, a mandatory ban on flights or road transport and the expropriation of local face masks production and stocks.

It was planned to hold a conference at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University with the participation of the project participants in March 2020 to discuss the research outcomes. The coronavirus epidemic interfered with this plan. However, academic cooperation continued without interruption. The conference has been scheduled for a later date and moved to the online space. Moreover, the written versions of the planned conference lectures can now be published in the ELTE Law Journal. The disease could reimpose borders across Europe, but this cannot prevent scholarly exchange. This is proved in this issue of the ELTE Law Journal.

Contributors include Tamás Szabados, Melcher, Katažyna Bogdzevič, Markus Petsche, Uglješa Grušić, and Csenge Merkel.

The full issue is available here.

 

Digital Teaching and Private International Law: Register Now for the Second EAPIL Virtual Seminar!

, ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

Digital teaching formats have been in discussion since they became technically possible. Nevertheless, in law and Private International Law, they never became the standard until spring 2020, when Covid-19 led to a general closure of university buildings in many countries. Thus, universities were forced to switch from in-class teaching to digital formats.

As in general teaching Private International Law already is a challenging task, the digital format does not make things easier. Private International Law faces the problem that it is a very abstract field. Therefore, for teachers it is even more paramount than in other fields to revise and ascertain that the content reaches the students in the correct ways and does not get lost in the communication process.

EAPIL takes this finding as an occasion to devote its Second Virtual Seminar to the digital teaching of Private International Law and it challenges in Corona times. The aim of the Seminar is twofold. First, it will discuss and present tools that may help to improve the digital teaching of our discipline, in particular, by making it more “present” and interactive. Second, it will compare problems and approaches from the perspective of both professors/lecturers and students.

The Seminar will be structured into two parts. The first part will focus on the perspective of professors/lecturers and the challenges of teaching Private International Law in digital formats. Speakers will be Morten Midtgaard Fogt (University of Aarhus) and Marion Ho-Dac (Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France, Valenciennes). The second part will take the students’ perspective and discuss and present different digital teaching tools. Speakers will include Susanne Lilian Gössl (University of Kiel), María-Asunción Cebrián Salvat, Isabel Lorente Martínez and Javier Carrascosa González (all three University of Murcia).

The Seminar will take place on 27 January 2021 from 5 to 7 p.m. (MET) via Zoom.

If you wish to join, please register here by 25 January 2021 at noon. Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar on 26 January 2021.

The Seminar’s programme is as follows:

5:00 p.m.
Opening and Introduction
Susanne Gössl

— PART ONE

5:10 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – The Danish Perspective
Morten Midtgaard Fogt

5:20 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – The French Perspective
Marion Ho-Dac

5:35 p.m.
Discussion

— PART TWO

5:55 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – the Students’ Perpective
Susanne Gössl

6:10 p.m.
Experiences with Certain Tools

“Presence” in Digital Teaching of Private International Law
María-Asunción Cebrián Salvat

Tools to Support Digital Teaching of Private International Law
Isabel Lorente Martínez

Good Things from a Bad Time: Open Experiences in Private International Law Digital Teaching
Javier Carrascosa González

6:35 p.m.
Discussion

7 p.m.
Conclusions

For more information, please write an e-mail to Susanne Gössl at sgoessl@law.uni-kiel.de.

EAPIL Position Paper on the EEO Regulation

, , , ,
The Editors of the EAPIL blog
by

The EU has developed a common judicial area where judgments given in one EU Member State are recognised and can be enforced in all others. To this end, the EU has adopted a number of legal instruments that regulate and ease cross-border enforcement, ensuring legal certainty for all parties and making these processes easier. One of them is Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (the EEO Regulation).

When it was adopted, the Regulation was a ground-breaking instrument that was the first to abolish the need for obtaining a declaration of enforceability in the requested state (the so-called ‘exequatur’). The EEO certificate has replaced it.

Other similar legal instruments were adopted in quick succession, leading to the ‘exequatur’ being abolished by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (the Brussels I bis Regulation), although with different conditions than those in the EEO Regulation.

In 2020, the Commission decided to evaluate the EEO Regulation, and to carry out a consultation as a part of the evaluation process. The Commission sought opinions on how the Regulation is working, also with regard to the Brussels Ibis Regulation. It also aimed to collect practical experiences with the EEO Regulation and views on its use in the future.

Upon an invitation by the Commission, the EAPIL formed a Working Group chaired by Jan von Hein (University of Freiburg/Germany). This Working Group presented a position paper in November 2020 that is now available here.

Members of the Working Group will also participate in the upcoming Commission’s online workshop on the revision of the EEO Regulation in January 2021.

Link to: Who we are

CONTACT US
Association Européenne de droit international privé
European Association of Private International Law
4 Rue Alphonse Weicker, L-2721 Luxembourg

THE SECRETARY GENERAL
secretary.general@eapil.org

THE EDITORS OF THE BLOG
blog@eapil.org