Archive for category: Association’s events

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.