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.
Other editions
A report on the 2024 and 2025 editions of the Winter School can be found, respectively, here and here.
