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.
Other editions
The inaugural edition of the School ran from 12 to 16 February 2024. A report can be found here.
