Although a wide range of topics were discussed, I would like to focus on four items: parentage/surrogacy project, the cross-border recognition and enforcement of protection orders, the jurisdiction project and a Note on the Trusts Convention.

In my view, the C&D are significant for two reasons. First, the work related to a possible new instrument of a long-standing topic at the HCCH has been concluded (without a Convention) and secondly, a “new” topic has been inserted into the agenda of the HCCH. For more information, see below.

Parentage/surrogacy project

The parentage/surrogacy project has been a recurrent topic in the work of the HCCH. It has expanded more than a decade, starting in 2010 with some preliminary research, which resulted in the establishment of an Experts Group (EG) and subsequently, a Working Group (WG).

In preparation for this meeting, a document was drawn up by the Working Group (WG) on Parentage / Surrogacy entitled: Final Report on the Feasibility of a possible Convention on the Recognition of Judgments on Legal Parentage (Preliminary Document (Prel. Doc.) No. 1). This is a monumental work, which includes a text of a draft Convention (as of p. 13).

The specific proposal of the WG to the Council was the following:

“The WG acknowledged the importance of the HCCH Parentage / Surrogacy Project to develop an international instrument on legal parentage in cross-border situations. The WG agreed that such an instrument is desirable, as it could enhance legal certainty, predictability and continuity while protecting the rights of children and families, and all persons involved.”

It further acknowledged that policy differences remained and for some experts these were fundamental, and as a result, consensus could not be reached on a way forward (i.e. advancing to a Special Commission, which is the usual path when negotiating a HCCH Convention and which are meetings held prior to a Diplomatic Session).

With this Final Report, and as its name suggests, the work of the WG has concluded and this Preliminary Document is the last document drawn up by the WG on this topic.

Reflecting the disagreement existing at the WG level, the Council decided on this topic the following: “While recognising the progress made by the Working Group, CGAP decided not to advance to a Special Commission at this stage, with the understanding that this issue may be revisited at a later stage.”

Accordingly, this year marks the end of this project (if not the end of an era), with the exception of monitoring legal and practical developments on the subject that are to be presented at the 2028 meeting of the Council (C&D No. 5). Perhaps this topic may be revived in the future when and if the time is ripe.

Cross-border recognition and enforcement of protection orders

While the ashes of the Surrogacy/Parentage project were still warm, a “new” proposal for a Convention emerged and was tabled by the UK as: Prel. Doc. No 25 of January 2026 – Proposal from the United Kingdom to establish a Working Group on Recognition and Enforcement of Protection Orders – not publicly available.

The Council mandated the establishment of a WG on a potential future convention on cross-border recognition and enforcement of protection orders (see C&D No. 22).This is remarkable and underlines the importance of keeping women and children safe. By tabling this proposal, the UK makes clear that this is an absolute priority.

This initiative will build on previous work conducted by the Permanent Bureau from 2011-2018, during which an Experts Group was established (see C&D No. 23 and 24). At its 2018 meeting, the Council noted that “14. The Council decided to remove from the Agenda of the HCCH the topic of recognition and enforcement of foreign civil protection orders, with the understanding that this issue may be revisited at a later stage.” A statement that now is history.

This will be an important initiative to follow in the future.

Jurisdiction project

The decision on the future of the jurisdiction project has been delayed until the next meeting of the Council in 2027. At that meeting a decision will be made whether that project advances to a Special Commission “or decide on any other outcome of the Project” (C&D 9).

A Report of the Chair of the Working Group on matters related to jurisdiction in transnational civil or commercial litigation was presented as Prel. Doc. No 2A of December 2025. This Report includes a draft text of a future convention on parallel proceedings and related actions (from p. 13, with many [square brackets], signalling lack of consensus or agreement on the text).

Last year a public consultation was launched on the Draft Text of a possible new convention on parallel proceedings and related actions, the results of which still need to be analysed. The Council mandated that a document be submitted analysing such responses by the end of September 2026 and gave specific instructions on how it should be drafted (C&D No. 8). The responses will be published subject to the permission of the respondents.

We will keep you informed of any new developments.

A Note on the Trusts Convention

Finally, a Note on the Application and Interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition and on the Institutions Analogous to Trusts was submitted as Prel. Doc. No 12B of January 2026 (for the actual Note see Annex V, p. 25). In particular, a fascinating explanation of the terms used in English (estate) and French (patrimoine) is included in pages 28-29. Equally interesting is Annex A to Note (for Section V) – Institutions Meeting the Criteria in Article 2 of the Trusts Convention. This Note was approved and will be published together with its Annexes (C&D 69).

In sum, this Council’s meeting decided on crucial matters related to treaty making on Private International Law at the HCCH. The next meeting of the Council in 2027 will also be of great importance as it will decide on the future of the jurisdiction project. With regard to specific projects, the cross-border recognition and enforcement of protection orders attests to the fact that a topic can indeed return to the agenda of the HCCH, and thus some experts may harbour the wish that the parentage/surrogacy project may rise one day like a phoenix from the ashes.

And submit a proposal of up to 500 words, together with a short bio/s in the same word document, to law.events@ed.ac.uk by 10 April 2026 with the email subject clearly marked “Proposal PIL Festival_ Surname/s”. Selected speakers will be informed in May 2026.

More information about the event and the call for papers below.

The case in Trustees of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc., precedential opinion by Judge Dyk (joined by Judges Prost and Reyna), published this morning.  This is a very complicated matter, involving among other things an inventorship dispute that devolved into a contempt order against trial counsel for the defense (which contempt order is reversed in a separate appellate decision also handed down today, which I need not address here), as well as two previous appeals on claim construction and validity (which I also will not address).  The current decision involves questions of patent eligibility, claim construction, and damages; and as is my typical practice for purposes of this blog, I will focus only on the last of these.

There are two patents in suit, both of which related “primarily to protecting computer systems from viruses and other malicious activity” (p.2).  The claims at issue consist of one system claim, two method claims, and a computer-readable medium claim, all of which allegedly are infringed by software marketed by the defendant under the Norton brand.  The district court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility.  Then jury then returned a verdict of willful infringement and awarded damages of $185,112, 727; the district court awarded enhanced damages and fees.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit reverses and remands for further proceedings on the issue of patent eligibility--but “[b]ecause other issues may arise on the remand,” the court addresses one remaining issue of claim construction as well as the issues pertaining to damages and fees.  As noted, I will address the damages and fees issues only.  The most interesting of these—at least in my view, since I’ve written a fair amount now about this topic—is whether, on the facts of this case and assuming the patents in suit are valid, the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales of Norton software.

As readers may be aware, the general rule that seems to be emerging from Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and district court case law over the last few years is that, although U.S. patents are territorial rights, if the defendant engages in the unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale of patented products in the United States, and this domestic infringement causes-in-fact and proximately causes either (1) the plaintiff to lose sales that the plaintiff would have made to foreign customers, or (2) the defendant to make sales abroad that the defendant otherwise would not have made, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, respectively, either its own lost profit on its lost foreign sales, or a royalty reflecting some portion of the profit the defendant would have expected to earn from the defendant's foreign sales, as of the date of the hypothetical ex ante bargain.  In view of this precedent, the district judge gave the jury the following instruction:

Columbia is entitled to damages based on sales to customers located outside of the United States if you find that the infringing product sold to those customers was made in or distributed from the United States, even if the infringing product is delivered to a customer and used by the customer outside the United States (p.23; emphasis added by the Federal Circuit).

The jury found that the defendant (referred to throughout the opinion as “Norton”) sold antivirus software abroad, and that “the infringing product” was made in or distributed from the United States.  (The jury did not find that the sales to foreign customers “substantially occurred in the United States,” (p.24 n.7)).  The appellate panel nevertheless agrees with Norton that “no reasonable jury could conclude that any infringing copies of Norton’s software that were sold to customers outside the United States were made in the United States or distributed from the United States” (p.24). 

This seems correct to me under the governing standards for determining what an infringing software product is, principally Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2006).  As the panel explains:

Microsoft establishes that software in the abstract—that is, software not physically encoded in a “tangible copy” like a CD or hard drive—is akin to a “blueprint” or “a schematic, template, or prototype.” Id. at 449–50. If someone abroad builds an infringing product based upon a blueprint that exists in the United States, for example, then the product was still made abroad. See id. at 442. So too, software is not tangible—or capable of infringing the asserted claims—until tethered in a particular copy of the software encoded in a computer-readable medium (p.25).

Applying this principle:

The system claim, ’322 patent, claim 27, includes a “processor.” Like the apparatus claim at issue in Microsoft, this claim is not infringed until a particular instance of software is installed onto a computer with a processor. See Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns. Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because the instances of software sold to customers located abroad are not installed on a computer in the United States, those instances were not made in or distributed from the United States.

The same conclusion follows as to the other claims asserted here. A method claim is only infringed when the claimed process is performed; it is not infringed by the mere existence of software that, if installed on a computer, could perform the method. See Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because the infringing software is only capable of performing either of the claimed methods once installed on a computer, the versions installed abroad also cannot give rise to domestic infringement. In any event, “[t]here is no established recognition in patent law of direct infringement by ‘making’ a ‘method.’” See Brumfield, 97 F.4th at 879. The methods here were not “made” in the United States nor “distributed” from the United States.

This leaves only claim 11 of the ’322 patent, the computer-readable medium claim. Columbia argues that this claim must be treated differently, because it does not require that a particular version of software be first installed on a computer with a processor to be infringing. It is true that claim 11 does not require software to be installed on a device with a processor, but claim 11 does still require that the software be encoded in a particular “non-transitory computer-readable medium.” ’322 patent, claim 11. While a non-transitory computer-readable medium may be created on a server in the United States, that medium is not exported abroad. The computer-readable media sold to foreign customers are only created once the foreign computer encodes the software on its hard drive, which occurs outside the United States. These computer-readable media are—like the apparatuses in Microsoft—created outside the United States and therefore cannot be domestically infringing. Under the logic the Court applied in Microsoft, these cannot constitute infringing products that were made in or distributed from the United States (pp. 25-26).

Columbia tries a few additional arguments on appeal, but none of them work.  The one that might have worked, had it been presented at trial, was that “the jury could have found that the domestic infringement involved in creating its master copies, which enabled the foreign sales, were the cause of the foreign sales damages. However, the jury was not instructed, and Columbia did not seek an instruction, that they could grant a reasonable royalty for foreign sales based on this theory. We cannot reform the damages theory actually presented to the jury in favor of an alternative that was not, even if the alternative would have been legally valid. . . . We thus need not reach the question of whether Columbia’s theory of foreign damages was proper under the causation theory of Brumfield.” (p.25).  My initial reaction is that that theory probably wouldn’t have worked either, because the causal connection between the domestic manufacture of the master copies and the foreign sales is too tenuous to satisfy proximate causation, though I would want to know more about the underlying facts to assert that opinion with confidence.  (Alternatively, if the domestic manufacture of the master copies could have been outsourced, then in my opinion outsourcing should count as a noninfringing alternative, and any royalty awarded for the resulting foreign sales should reflect only the cost saving, if any, of domestic over foreign manufacture of the master copies.  Whether the courts would agree with me on this remains to be seen.)  The appellate court also rejects arguments that Norton could be liable as a joint infringer with the foreign customers, or that Norton could be liable under an inducement theory (pp. 27-28).

As for willfulness and enhanced damages, the court affirms the finding of willfulness, primarily on the basis of evidence that Norton was aware in advance of “‘the Columbia professors’ designs and work before the patents issued’ including the provisional application,” and the lack of evidence that, during the relevant time period, Norton was aware of and acted upon its subsequently asserted objectively reasonable defenses (pp. 21-22).  The court nevertheless vacates the district judge’s enhancement of actual damages (2.6 times the actual damages) and the award of attorneys’ fees, in part because the amount awarded and the finding of exceptionality were based on the vacated finding of contempt of court.  In addition, the case was close (on patent eligibility) and Norton’s assertion of allegedly “repetitive” arguments did not amount to litigation misconduct.

Early bird registration will close on 15 March 2026. You are welcome to register using this link.

EAPIL is looking forward to seeing you in Geneva!

I’ve been busy the last several days reviewing the page proofs for my forthcoming book, Wrongful Patent Assertion:  A Comparative Law and Economics Analysis (Oxford Univ. Press 2026), which is due out in late spring or early summer.  Now that I have some time to resume blogging, I’ll start by discussing a short (but precedential) Federal Circuit decision from last Friday, Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. (opinion by Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judges Taranto and Stoll).  It presents an interesting question relating to damages calculation. 

Exafer owns two patents in suit relating to “systems and methods for optimizing communication paths between virtual network devices by controlling data forwarding rules at intelligent switches” (p.2).  Exafer claims that “Microsoft’s Azure Platform, and specifically the Azure Smart Network Interface Cards (SmartNICs) and Virtual Filtering Platform (VFP) Fastpath technology (Accused Features),” infringe the two patents.  Exafer’s damages expert Mr. Blok was prepared to present an opinion concerning the hypothetical royalty the parties would have agreed to ex ante, using as the royalty base the value of certain noninfringing virtual machines (VMs).  The theory is that Microsoft’s use of the patented technology enabled “Microsoft to reduce the central processing unit (CPU) usage in Azure servers, freeing up CPU cores to host additional VMs” (p.6); and that the value to Microsoft of using the patented technology is therefore the revenue derived from hosting those additional VMs.  The district court agreed with Microsoft’s argument that it was impermissible to use the noninfringing VMs as the royalty base, but the Federal Circuit reverses and remands.

I think the Federal Circuit got it right, though I can understand the appeal of Microsoft’s argument that the royalty should not be calculated using the value of some other, noninfringing product.  (Going back in time, one might perceive a similar perspective in cases such as Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 135 (1969), which held that setting royalty rates on the basis of the licensee’s sales of unpatented products constituted patent misuse (while also holding that, if the licensee is not coerced into taking unwanted patents, but instead agrees for convenience to take a portfolio of patents, the arrangement is not misuse).)  The premise that the royalty must be related to the use of the patented technology is of course correct, but I think the Federal Circuit is right in finding a sufficient causal connection between that use and the increase in the number of VMs Microsoft can host; and as long as the revenue derived from that increase is a type of benefit that Microsoft would have anticipated ex ante, it stands to reason that the amount Microsoft would have been willing to pay ex ante would have reflected that expected benefit.  This is essentially the court’s view, as I read it:

[Exafer’s technical expert] Dr. Congdon opined that the network optimization and efficiency improvements achieved by the claimed inventions “would translate to, among other benefits, the ability to operate more virtual machines on a single CPU or host (i.e., increasing virtual machine density). Accordingly, by increasing virtual machine density, Microsoft would be able to sell more virtual machines without the need for additional network infrastructure.” . . . Mr. Blok’s VM-hour royalty base captured this incremental benefit of being able to offer additional VMs due to operation of the Accused Features within the Azure Platform. . . . This methodology is tethered to the patented invention and does not expand Exafer’s patent monopoly to unpatented technology. Mr. Blok’s testimony therefore satisfies the admissibility standards of Rule 702 (p.8).

Put another way, as long as the additional revenue associated with hosting more VMs was, ex ante, a foreseeable consequence of the use of the patents in suit, a willing licensee would have taken that added benefit into account in determining how much it was willing to pay for a license.  By contrast, requiring that the royalty be limited to the immediate benefit of the use (perhaps the cost savings associated with reduced CPU usage for purposes of powering the Azure platform, without any consideration of the next-best use of those otherwise idle CPUs) strikes me as a formalistic constraint lacking in economic substance.  That said, if the actual benefit derived ex post from freeing up some of the CPUs were of a type that would not have been foreseeable ex ante, then it should be excluded from consideration; but that is not my understanding of the facts here.

The case does make me think about the connections between the hypothetical bargain construct; the situations in which it might be rational for courts to make use of ex post information (which Norman Siebrasse and I wrote about a few years back); and the doctrine of proximate cause, which limits damages to those that are, inter alia, foreseeable.  I may have more to say about this in a future post.

After GEMA had already scored a famous victory against OpenAI in November 2025, when the same chamber of the Munich Court had held that the company had been violating the copyrights of several artists and composers by reproducing their song texts, the present proceedings differed not just in scope (focusing on the musical arrangement rather than texts) but also in its international dimension. For the first time, the claimant explicitly included the use of the protected works for training that had happened (according to both parties) exclusively in the US.

As far as those claims are concerned, the main obstacle to overcome for the claimant is the German court’s jurisdiction. As Germany has no (codified) law on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants, international jurisdiction is established by extending the rules on local jurisdiction (venue) to international jurisdiction (so-called ‘double funtionality’; see Lutzi/Wilke, in Lutzi/Piovesani/Zgrabljic Rotar (eds), Jurisdiction over Non-EU Defendants (Hart 2024), 111 et seq). In the present case, this appears to provide an opportunity for the claimant to rely on a little-known norm of the German Verwertungsgesellschaftsgesetz (VGG; own translation and emphasis):

§ 131 Exclusive Jurisdiction

(1) For legal disputes concerning claims by a collecting society for infringement of a right of use or right of consent administered by it, the court of the district in which the infringing act was committed or in which the infringer has their general place of jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction. (…)

(2) If, pursuant to paragraph 1, sentence 1, different courts have jurisdiction for multiple legal disputes against the same infringer, the collecting society may bring all claims before any one of these courts.

While the provision is clearly aimed at allocating local jurisdiction within Germany, nothing in its wording seems to exclude an international understanding, similar to other norms on local jurisdiction. While this would create a clearly exorbitant forum actoris for German collecting societies in cases falling under paragraph 2, this might be justified by the peculiar nature of collecting societies, which are heavily regulated in German law and are required, for instance, to enter into licensing agreements under ‘appropriate’ conditions (§ 34 VGG). Indeed, the Munich court appeared rather amenable to the proposition of applying § 131 VGG internationally.

In the present case, this would raise further interesting questions.

For once, does paragraph 1, according to which the courts of the place of infringing and the courts of the defendant’s seat are competent, lead to ‘different courts’ being competent in the sense of paragraph 2? Traditionally, the provision was supposed to solve the problem of traveling showmen performing committing similar infringements in numerous places. As far as the training of AI is concerned, there might only be a single place of infringement, though. Then again, paragraph 2 only requires multiple competent courts for proceedings ‘against the same infringer’, which should allow other infringements, such as the streaming of allegedly copyright-violating output in Germany to be taken into account.

Assuming that the court would not consider this sufficient to trigger the forum actoris of paragraph 2, it would need to answer another question, namely if paragraph 1 as a rule of exclusive jurisdiction would also prevent the claimant from (subsidiarily) relying on § 23 of the Civil Procedure Code (ZPO), which creates jurisdiction at the location of the defendant’s property. In other contexts, authors have argued that provisions of exclusive local jurisdiction should not be understood as provisions of exclusive international jurisdiction so as not to render the recognition and enforcement of decisions from other fora impossible.

If the Munich court accepted its international jurisdiction on either of those bases, the applicable law would, of course, still be US copyright law (including its relatively far-reaching exceptions for ‘fair use’, which the defendants argue should apply here) pursuant to Article 8 Rome II. Thus, if the decision – which has been scheduled for 12 June – includes a positive decision on international jurisdiction regarding the US-based training, it might not yet include a decision on the substance in this regard, but could instead include an order for expert evidence on foreign law (§ 293 ZPO).

The claimants would understandably still consider this as a win, though, as it would provide a basis for future claims by German collecting societies against AI companies. In this sense, it would fit neatly into what Linda Kuschel and Darius Rostam have described, in reaction to the previous decision against OpenAI, as ‘the current popular narrative of a tightly regulating EU that protects rightsholders and a US that favors AI-friendly market solutions.’ While the Munich judges said rather little about their own preferred interpretation of the law at yesterday’s hearing, especially with regard to international jurisdiction, they also made no effort to dispel this narrative.

On February 24, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled on the Kingdom of Morocco’s claim against the German news portal “Zeit Online” (Case no. VI ZR 415/23). In 2021, the journal alleged that Morocco had spied on several lawyers, journalists, and high-ranking politicians, including French President Emmanuel Macron, using the surveillance software “Pegasus”. Morocco denied the allegations and sued the publication for damages, claiming an infringement of its general right of personality. The Federal Court of Justice of Germany, the highest court for civil and criminal matters, rejected Morocco’s claim, arguing that states do not have such a right. This decision is interesting because it lies at the intersection of private international law, national tort law, and public international law. The following article aims to present the main points of this decision in terms of both its international and substantive aspects.

I. Aspects of Private International Law: A too Easy Gateway into German Law?

First, the court had to determine if it was competent and which law should apply to this claim (Nos. 7 et seq.). Despite the claimant’s status as a Third State, the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation (EU 1215/2012) was unproblematic here. Morocco’s claim was not made “in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii)” (Art. 1(1) Brussels Ibis), and the defendant is based in a European Union Member State (Hamburg, Germany).

However, the determination of the applicable law revealed some hesitation on the part of the Court (Nos. 11 et seq.). Surprisingly, the Court did not decide whether the Rome II Regulation or German autonomous private international law should apply to the case (no. 13). Although the court considered the possible application of the exception of Art. 1(2)(g) Rome II (“non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation.”), the Court did not address whether an infringement of a legal person’s reputation falls under this exception (nos. 15 and 16). However, infringements of rights relating to personality through the media clearly fall under the exception of Art. 1(2)(g) Rome II. The debate about applying this exception to legal persons is actually caused by the application of the Rome II Regulation to claims related to unfair competition (Art. 6(1) and (2) Rome II), not by their mere quality as legal persons (see CJEU, ECLI:EU:C:2017:766, Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan, mn. 38). However, the present case is not related to business matters or competition claims; therefore, the exception of Art. 1(2)(g) Rome II should clearly apply.

Therefore, German private international law should apply, which the Court also examined (nos. 18 et seq.). The Court found that the parties had made an implied choice-of-law agreement for German law (no. 19). The Court ruled that, throughout the entire procedure, the parties’ exclusive reference to substantive German law satisfied the conditions of such an agreement under Art. 14(1)(a) Rome II (no. 17) and Art. 42 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code (EGBGB). This decision, if it can be understood, left some kind of an aftertaste of insecurity of the Court, as it appeared to be the simplest way to reach German law. Art. 40 EGBGB, relating to the applicable law for torts, allows the claimant to choose between the place where the harm arose (Erfolgsort) and the place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred (Handlungsort). The eventual question of the claimant’s (Morocco) choice for determining where the harm occurred would have led to the well-known difficult question of the localization of such an infringement through the Internet and the possible application of Moroccan law. In such a case, the Court would also have had to consider the application of Art. 40(3)(2) EGBGB, which states that this law is inapplicable if the claimant’s purpose is not actually to seek compensation (e.g. to exert pressure on the defendant). The Court did not address these issues and concluded that German law applies.

II. Aspects of Substantive Law: A Panorama of Public International Law for the Benefit of Private Law

German tort law is based on a restrictive approach. The central norm, Sect. 823(1) of the Civil Code (BGB), lists the legally protected rights: Life, Body, Health, Freedom, Property and “other right”. This last category allows for the protection of interests comparable to those listed, such as the right to one’s personality, or the protection of victims from certain types of professional pure economic loss. Schematically, damages can only be granted for other interests if the tortfeasor infringed upon a protective law (Sect. 823(2) BGB) or if the harmful act is immoral (Sect. 826 BGB), which conditions are stricter.

Therefore, the claimant first tried to obtain damages based on the general case law regarding the infringement of personality rights under Sect. 823(1) BGB, and second, based on the infringement of criminal laws as protective laws under Sect. 823(2) BGB. However, the claims based on criminal legislation (Sect. 90a, 90b, 185 et seq., 102 to 104a of the Criminal Code, StGB) failed because foreign states are not subject to these norms (nos. 62 et seq.).

Therefore, the debate focused on Sect. 823(1) BGB and, logically, if such a right of personality also exists for states. After establishing that domestic law does not grant states such a right according to settled case-law (nos. 21 et seq.), the Court considered whether such a right exists as a general principle of public international law (nos. 23 et seq). In doing so, the Court examined an extensive body of case law (nos. 28 et seq.) from international courts and arbitral tribunals, the European Court of Humans Rights, diverse international and regional organizations (e.g. the Council of Europe, the European Union, the OSCE…) and national courts (USA, England, Scotland, France and Germany). The Court concluded that a protection of an alleged right of personality for states against private individuals does not exist. Most of the relevant decisions involve cases concerning diplomats or claims from state to state. In fact, the Court noted that many organizations encourage states to refrain from suing journalists regarding questions of the state’s reputation to guarantee freedom of speech and press freedom (cf. no. 54). Although the Court does not explicitly refer to it, the idea of extracontractual liability that does not “open the floodgates” of liability, as well as the weighing of interests, are typical to German tort law. The interest of a foreign state in protecting its honor against statements by private individuals is neither necessary nor worthy of protection under civil law.

III. Final remarks

By ruling that foreign states do not have a right of personality that can be enforced against private individuals, the German Federal Court aligned itself with the decision of the French Cour de Cassation. The highest French court for civil and commercial matters also decided on the very same case in 2024, i.e. a claim of the Kingdom of Morrocco against a French journal regarding the very same accusations. In this case too, the French Cour de cassation – without spending a word on the aspects of private international law – decided that “a foreign state is not entitled to bring a public defamation action against an individual” (no. 12). These decisions are certainly welcome, as they reinforce the independence of the press against foreign attempts to influence press freedom in Europe, especially in these troubled times.

C. Budzikiewicz/H.-P. Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2025: Im Windschatten der Weltpolitik [German]

This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from January 2025 until December 2025. It presents newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. The authors discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article also looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

P. Stenko: Employer’s Liability Towards Subcontractors in International Construction Disputes: Direct Claims of the Subcontractor Against the Employer in European Civil Procedure Law and the New Interpretation of the Term “Matters Relating To a Contract” [German]

This paper examines international jurisdiction for direct claims of subcontractors against employers (clients) in international construction disputes under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. In several European legal systems, subcontractors are granted a statutory direct claim for payment of remuneration against the employer, in addition to their claim against the general contractor. Central to the analysis is whether such direct claims may be qualified as “matters relating to a contract” within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, even though there is no direct contractual relationship between the subcontractor and the employer. Traditionally, the CJEU required an “obligation freely assumed” for the application of the contractual jurisdiction under Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast Regulation. However, recent CJEU case law has relaxed this requirement: statutory claims arising in the context of a contractual relationship may also be treated as “matters relating to a contract” even if there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties. As a result of this change, the subcontractor’s claims against the employers may be qualified as “relating to a contract” and the subcontractor may sue at the contractual place of performance (Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast Regulation).

C. Wendland: The Jurisdiction of Member State Courts under the EU Maintenance Regulation in Cases Involving Third Countries [German]

While there have been repeated calls to extend the scope of the EuGVVO to third countries, the universal application of jurisdiction rules has been a reality in international maintenance law since the adoption of the EU Maintenance Regulation. The exhaustive nature of the jurisdiction rules in the Regulation was the focus of the ECJ’s ruling in the case Amozov, which is discussed here. While the court’s decision is hardly surprising, it nevertheless provides an opportunity to consider the challenges and opportunities of a conclusive jurisdiction system at the EU level.

S. Mock: Eligibility of US funds to apply for special court ordered audits under German corporate law [German]

The so-called Diesel-scandal has sparked interest, particularly among Volkswagen AG shareholders, in a comprehensive investigation into the responsibility for this scandal. Since the resolution of the annual meeting failed to achieve the required majority, several US shareholders applied for a court order for a special audit. Following several court decisions, including two successful constitutional complaints, the Court of Appeal Celle, in its decision of 27 November 2024, denied the US shareholders the capacity to participate in the proceedings, arguing that they were funds whose legal capacity was unclear. This article critically examines this decision and demonstrates that US funds are also eligible to participate proceedings in German courts.

J. Adolphsen: ECJ answers questions of jurisdiction of courts of the member states in patent infringement cases when patent infringers defend themselves with the argument the patent is not valid [German]

The judgment is the subsequent decision following a ruling from 2006. At that time, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) first addressed the question of the jurisdiction of courts of the member states in patent infringement cases when defending with the argument that the patent is not valid. It was established that any assessment of the validity of the patent is exclusively reserved for the courts of the granting state. Other questions remained unanswered. These are now answered by the present judgment. The infringement court may, but is not required to, stay its proceedings. It can also assume the validity of the patent and decide the infringement dispute accordingly. At the same time, the ECJ rejects the question of whether Article 24 Nr. 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation also applies when a third country has granted the patent. In this case, the ECJ denies a reflexive effect of Article 24 Nr. 4 Brussels Ia Regulation and allows the infringement court to also examine the validity of the patent for the purpose of deciding the infringement dispute with inter partes effect. As a result, the judgment strengthens the possibilities for patent holders to take action against infringers at the defendant’s court, especially when multiple national patents are involved across different member states.

H. Roth: Possible Legal Remedies for Debtors in the Enforcement of Provisionally Enforceable EU Titles in Germany (Art. 39 Brussels I Regulation (recast)) [German]

In principle, the debtor is required to utilize the legal remedies against the provisional enforcement of a judgment that are available in the member state of origin, in this case before the Italian appellate court (Art. 283 of the Italian Codice di procedura civile [CPC]). Applications for enforcement protection by the debtor may only be submitted to German courts or enforcement authorities insofar as European law permits. This is the case, for example, under Article 44 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) in conjunction with Section 1115 (6) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and Article 44 (2) of the Brussels Regulation (recast) in conjunction with Section 1116 ZPO. If the conditions outlined in these provisions are not met, European law prohibits the debtor from seeking a suspension of enforcement based solely on German procedural law (e.g., by analogy to Sections 719 or 707 ZPO). The exhaustive regulation in Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) excludes additional legal protection under national law.

J. F. Hoffmann: Cross-border payment to the debtor after the opening of insolvency proceedings – continuation of the ECJ‘s restrictive rulings on Art. 31 EIR [German]

In its unambiguous scope of application, Art. 31 (1) of the European Insolvency Regulation protects a third-party debtor who has honoured his obligation to the benefit of the debtor in good faith after insolvency proceedings have been opened. The third-party debtor is protected from having to perform to the insolvency administrator for a second time. The ECJ had to decide whether the third-party debtor should also be protected if not only he had made his payment to the debtor after the opening of the proceedings, but also if the debtor had provided counter-performance belonging to the estate after the opening of the proceedings. A need for protection may also be apparent in this case, as the third-party debtor faces comparable economic losses. To achieve this, Art. 31 (1) EIR would need to recognise also the debtor’s counter-performance as being effective vis-à-vis the insolvency estate. However, national legal systems often do not grant any legal protection concerning asset dispositions made by the debtor after the opening of insolvency proceedings. The ECJ now continues its restrictive interpretation of Art. 31 (1) EIR, likely because the provision’s underlying regulatory purpose remains highly controversial.

K. Duden: From the principle of recognition in EU primary law to the replication of status: a doctrine decades in the making [German]

Since Grunkin-Paul, the principle of recognition based on primary EU law has – through the jurisprudence of the ECJ – gained increasing importance in international family law. The Cupriak-Trojan decision marks a milestone in this respect: the Court demands the comprehensive recognition of marriages concluded between Union citizens abroad. Not only characteristics of one’s individual status but also status relationships – at least between Union citizens – must be recognized as effective across borders. This makes the free movement of status the law in force for Union citizens. Although some open questions remain, Cupriak-Trojan, coupled with the previous Mirin decision, expands the jurisprudence on the recognition principle in a way that allows it to be consolidated into an independent doctrine of private international law. To describe this doctrine, I suggest the term “replication of status” (Statusnachvollzug), which distinguishes the replication of status from the recognition of judgments and from the referral method. Another differentiation is also necessary: between the replication of status as a doctrinal approach in conflict of laws and international civil procedural law on the one hand and the principle of recognition and the free movement of status as mandates of EU primary law on the other. While the latter currently provide their normative framework and basis, the replication of status could, in future legislation, be detached from this origin.

A. Schulz: Name and Gender: German Federal Court of Justice Ruling on a Name Change via UK Deed Poll [German]

A recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addresses two key issues in Private International Law. First, the Court held that a name change effected through a British “deed poll” can be recognised as a change of birth name under German civil status law. In this respect, the Court clarified that it is irrelevant whether the change concerns a person’s “legal name” or their “conventional name”. However, the Court ultimately rejected the requested amendments in their entirety, as the requirements for recognizing the applicant’s new legal gender had not been fulfilled. In particular, the applicant had not completed the formal procedure as required by the applicable Gender Recognition Act 2004.

On 2 March 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; “BGH”) held an oral hearing in two proceedings concerning the civil liability of companies regarding climate change. The authors of this blog post attended the hearing as members of the audience.

The German NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) is suing the car manufacturers BMW and Mercedes Benz, requesting a legal order obliging both companies to refrain from placing combustion engine cars on the market beyond 2030. These two proceedings join the club of (strategic) climate change lawsuits in Germany. Crucially, they are the first of their kind based on tort law to reach the German Federal Court of Justice. Accordingly, the hearing was eagerly awaited by many. The decision, which will be rendered on 23 March 2026, will undoubtedly have an impact on future climate lawsuits.

While no issues of international jurisdiction or applicable law arose in the proceedings in question – as all Parties are seated in Germany –, the judgment of the BGH could further motivate foreign parties to bring claims against German companies, thereby giving rise to questions of international jurisdiction and the applicable law (see for more details Weller/Weiner, Corporate Climate Liability in Private International Law, in: Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 26 (2024), 2). In this context, one may refer to the deliberations of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm in Lliuya against RWE (OLG Hamm, 28. Mai 2025, 5 U 15/17).

1. Legal Framework

The climate goal of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz; GG) derived from its Art. 20a  was specified by the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in line with the Paris Agreement, namely, to limit the rising global average temperature to well below 2°C and preferably to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Combustion engine cars contribute to the global CO2 emissions and hence to the greenhouse gas effect and the global warming. Against this background, the question arises whether the constitutional climate goal can (additionally) be enforced through private lawsuits against companies, notwithstanding the fact – as emphasized in the present case – BMW and Mercedes are acting in accordance with the existing public regulatory framework in Germany.

In both proceedings, the claim of DUH relies on Section 1004(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; BGB) in conjunction with Section 823(1) BGB.

Section 1004(1) BGB allows an owner of an absolute individual right (like property or health) to demand that a disturbing party (“Störer”) – i.e. the party interfering with the individual right – remove an interference or refrain from future interferences. Section 823(1) BGB provides claims for damages in the event of a violation of such a right.

DUH bases its claim – to prevent the manufacturers from placing combustion engine cars on the market from 2030 onwards – on an infringement of the so-called “General Right to Personality” (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht), which is provided for by the German constitution (Art. 2(1) in connection with Art. 1(1) GG) and which is recognized as protected right within the meaning of Section 823(1) BGB and Section 1004(1) BGB. Hence, infringements of that personality right can be stopped via an injunction based on Section 1004(1) BGB.

In the proceedings against BMW and Mercedes-Benz, the claimants want to activate an intertemporal dimension of that “General Right to Personality” called “Right to greenhouse gas-related freedom” (Recht auf treibhausgasbezogene Freiheit). This approach would be new in private law. It builds upon the famous “Klimaurteil” (climate judgment) of the Bundesverfassungsgericht from 24 March 2021. In this judgment, the Constitutional Court established a new legal figure called “eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung”. It extends the basic rights protection to a protection against infringements by the state in the future that are grounded in present state omissions or insufficient actions (in the sense of a right to intertemporal freedom). By analogy to this legal concept in public law, DUH argues that the legal figure “eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung” should also apply in tort law to actions by private companies (such as BMW and Mercedes).

The claims of DUH were rejected in the previous instances (LG München I, 07 Feb 2023, 3 O 12581/21, OLG München, 12 Oct 2023, 32 U 936/23 for the claim against BMW and LG Stuttgart, 13 Sept 2022, 17 O 789/21, OLG Stuttgart, 08 Nov 2023, 12 U 170/22 for the claim against Mercedes).

2. Inside the courtroom: key legal arguments

In the oral hearing before the BGH, the arguments focused on two legal aspects:

(1) Does the legal figure of intertemporal protection of basic freedoms in the form of an “eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung” apply also to private actors if – as is currently the case in Germany – the national CO2 budget has not yet been attributed among industrial sectors, the federal states, or even single actors? According to the Constitutional Court, the state has the obligation to concretize the remaining national budget (“Konkretisierungsauftrag”) by assigning CO2 budgets to the different actors. What does this mean for the duties of private actors if the state fails to comply with this obligation by not assigning specific reduction targets? May civil courts assign specific reduction targets?

According to the claimant (DUH), the intertemporal protection of basic freedoms subsidiarily applies to such private actors that considerably contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions. The less reduction measures were taken now, the more strenuous reduction measures would be needed in the future, which would interfere in the basic rights freedoms more severely. CO2 budgets for private actors such as the car manufacturers could in that case be measured by scientific data (such as attribution science), so even without state-allocated CO2 budgets.

In the opinion of the defendants (BMW and Mercedes), it would exceed the competences of the courts if they were to allocate individual CO2 residual budgets to companies in such climate lawsuits. The counsels for the defendants relied on the argument of separation of powers and the complexity of climate change requiring multi-level solutions. Climate change would be a topic too complex to be solved by courts and by private law – instead, a mixture of legal instruments and a balancing of interests by the democratic legislator was needed. Any private law based litigation, being bilaterally restricted to the involved parties, would be arbitrary and could not solve the climate challenge which was a problem of societal scale. Courts would put themselves at the place of the legislator or at least thwart the legislator’s concept or solution. The defendants’ counsels also argued with the margin of appreciation granted by the German Federal Constitutional Court in its 2021 decision.

The defendants also raised the argument that a CO2-budget for civil actors would be ineffective, as the climate reduction goals could only be achieved globally – as such, if in other states major emitters did not comply with their obligations, the national emitters had to make “extra” efforts to make up for the gaps. Besides, “national solo runs” would endanger international cooperation.

(2) Can private actors, such as BMW and Mercedes, be treated as “disturbing” within the meaning of Section 1004(1) BGB for contributing to the risk of future state climate protection measures? The BGH raised the question whether the manufacturers could be qualified as indirect disturber by action (“mittelbare Handlungsstörer”). This was argued to result from an evaluative tailoring of the manufacturers’ responsibility (“wertender Zuschnitt von Verantwortungsbereichen”). A main point in the arguments in that respect revolved around the question if a private actor can be a disturber within the meaning of Section 1004(1) BGB if it complies with all legal requirements and duties. This was at least an indicator against a disturbance triggering liability under Section 1004(1) BGB.

The defendants argued that Section 1004(1) BGB as a bilateral claim was per se not suitable for resolving issues like climate change, which is a problem concerning our society as a whole, not only two parties in a civil proceeding. Civil law could not provide for protection if the threat caused concerned a mass of persons, not only another party.

Furthermore, according to the defendants, the disturber and the affected party would coincide since everyone contributed to climate change. It therefore would remain unclear where a distinction was to be drawn between who qualifies as a disturber and who does not. Besides, there was neither a general duty of care (“Allgemeine Verkehrspflicht”) nor specific CO2-budgets that the defendants are currently violating. Where the contested conduct was currently lawful, it could not be prohibited under civil law through the mechanism of Section 1004(1) BGB.

The claimant’s counsel argued that formal concerns against emitters being disturbers in the legal sense had to remain unapplied, as otherwise private law in general could not provide legal protection in the field of climate change.

The defendants relied finally on the argument that private law based litigation such as the given proceedings were arbitrary for the reason that (1) it was “random” which emitter would be the target of such litigation and (2) that there could be no redress in a bilateral two party relationship as this would lead to the same emission being litigated in several proceedings (e.g. car manufacturers, car rental agencies and car drivers).

III. Assessment and outlook

The final decision of the German Federal Court of Justice will be rendered on 23 March 2026. The Court will implicitly decide whether combating climate change primarily falls within the responsibility of the legislator, or whether civil courts can also play a meaningful role in addressing this global challenge.

VENUE: Ashurst Lawyers

Level 8, 39 Martin Place

Sydney, New South Wales 2000

AUSTRALIA

PANELS AND SESSIONS:

• Jurisdiction
• Private International Law and Digitalisation
• Regional and International Cooperation
• Arbitration
• Applicable Law

Attendance at conference sessions can be used for CPD; you will need to check local requirements.

REGISTRATION FEES:

If you are coming for both days, please select Friday. 

Non-member 2 days: $160

Non-member 1 day: $90

AAPrIL member 2 days: $120

AAPrIL member 1 day: $70

Student: Free to attend the conference only

Conference dinner: $110 for dinner and a selection of drinks

REGISTRATION INCLUDES:

Access to all conference sessions

Morning tea and coffee, morning teas and lunches

Access to purchase a conference dinner ticket at an additional cost of $110

As already announced in another post, there will be a Webinar organized by the European Law Institute (ELI) on March 12 to present and discuss the Project Report of the ELI Project “Enhancing Child Protection: Private International Law on Filiation and the European Commission’s Proposal COM/2022/695 final”

More information, esp. the possibility to register and possible updates, can be found on this website.

Jochen Herr, Nikita Alymov, and Martin Nothmann have published an article titled Can the UPC set global FRAND rates?, 1/2026 GRUR Patent 18-24.  Here is the abstract:

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is emerging as a key forum for SEP and FRAND disputes, yet its authority to set FRAND rates remains only partly defined.  This article examines whether, and under what conditions, the IPC may determine global FRAND rates focusing on procedural hurdles such as the party disposition principle, judicial discretion, territorial scope and the Huawei/ZTE compliance.  Furthermore, a recent order by the Local Division Paris confirms jurisdiction for counterclaims but leaves critical questions unresolved including whether stand-alone FRAND rate-setting actions are admissible beyond counterclaims in infringement actions.  This article will shed light on how the UPC’s evolving role could reshape licensing practices and forum selection.

The authors begin with a brief survey of FRAND determinations (or non-determinations) in Germany, the U.K., the U.S., and China, before taking on the principal topic of whether the UPC has competence to engage in FRAND rate-setting.  As noted in the abstract, in October 2025 the Paris Local Division in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider Sun Patent Trust’s request that the court, as an incident to Sun’s infringement claim, whether its offer was FRAND or if not.  (That order is now before the UPC Court of Appeal.  As the authors note in the body of the article, the request is not technically a counterclaim, notwithstanding the description of it as one in the above abstract; and it is fairly limited in what it says, to wit "The claimant has merely anticipated the so-called 'FRAND defence' that the defendant is raising against this type of infringement action. This FRAND defence falls within the jurisdiction of the UPC, according to a consistent UPC CFI caselaw which indicates that the FRAND issue can be dealt with incidentally by the UPC . . . . [A] discussion of FRAND terms, at least as a defence raised by VIVO at the time of the statement of defence, will undoubtedly follow, as anticipated by both parties. In the present case, all facts and arguments relevant to the determination of FRAND terms, whether admissible or not, will have to be debated by the defendants.")  The article then discusses the UPC’s decisions in Panasonic/OPPO and Huawei/Netgear, both of which concluded that they were competent to consider a FRAND rate-setting counterclaim, but did not actually do so after finding the implementers to be unwilling licensees.  The authors also discuss the possibility of stand-alone FRAND rate-setting actions in the UPC, but describe it as “problematic” in view of the various legal and practical obstacles that would have to be overcome.  

Following the 20th Anniversary Conference in London (2025), we are pleased to announce that the Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 11^th Conference at the University of Zurich from 1 to 3 April 2027.

We are now inviting the submission of paper proposals for the conference. Please submit an abstract if you would like to make a presentation at the conference and you are willing to produce a final paper that you will submit for publication in the Journal. Abstracts should be up to 500 words in length and should clearly state the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s). Participants are also welcome to propose collective panels. If the proposal is for a panel, it should include the names and affiliations of all proposed participants.

Presentations can be on any subject matter that falls within the scope of the Journal and can be offered by people at any stage of their career, including postgraduate students and practitioners. Presentation at the conference will depend on whether your abstract is selected by the Editors of the Journal (Professor Jonathan Harris KC, King’s College, London and Professor Paul Beaumont FRSE, University of Stirling) and the conference organisers (Professors Tanja Domej and Christiane von Bary, University of Zurich). The subsequent article should be submitted to either of the editors of the Journal before the end of 2027. Publication in the Journal will be subject to the usual system of peer review.

The Conference will be held at the University of Zurich. There will be a mixture of plenary and parallel panel sessions. Speakers will not be expected to pay a conference fee but will be expected to pay for their own expenses in relation to their attendance at the conference in Zurich. Non-speakers will be expected to pay a conference fee. A conference dinner will be held on Friday (2 April 2027), at additional cost and with limited places. Details about registration, the conference dinner and options for accommodation will be made available on the conference webpage: https://t.uzh.ch/1WV.

Please send your proposal to the following e-mail address by Tuesday, 30 June 2026:

jpil2027@ius.uzh.ch

We look forward to receiving your proposals, and to welcoming you to Zurich in April 2027!

At the University of Oxford, a conference on “Assimilated law – the role and future of retained EU law in the UK” will be held on 13 and 14 April 2026. It is jointly organised by Professor Anne Davies and Dr Johannes Ungerer; it is funded by the Institute of European and Comparative Law as part of its 30th anniversary events.

The concept, category or chimaera of assimilated law emerged in the UK after Brexit: when becoming a Non-Member State, the UK chose to retain many EU laws in its domestic legal system, and this body of law has since been labelled ‘assimilated law’. There is an urgent need to explore and understand how assimilated law operates and might develop in future in the UK. Pressing questions concern how assimilated law is to be applied and interpreted and how it and the underlying EU laws might develop and diverge over time. Courts in the UK and on the Continent already had to deal with complex matters arising with regard to assimilated law, so there is a real need to distil and disseminate academic insights. In Lipton, the UK Supreme Court dealt with some initial questions, but they only addressed a small portion of the underlying issues.

The conference will bring together legal scholars and practitioners to establish a common understanding of the practices and challenges regarding assimilated law. The conference will be structured in two parts over the course of one and a half days: first, general questions about assimilated law will be debated, so that common themes, trends, and topics can be explored. Secondly, particularly tricky issues will be addressed which pertain to assimilated law in specific areas.

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

The full advertisement reads as follows:

The Institute of Civil Procedure Law at the JKU’s Faculty of Law is seeking to fill a tenure-track position for a person with a doctorate/Ph.D at the earliest possible date. The position is full-time and limited to a period of six years in accordance with the collective agreement for university employees and the Austrian Universities Act (Universitätsgesetz, UG).

The position is open to highly qualified junior researchers holding a doctorate/PhD in the field of European and International Civil Procedure Law and includes the option of concluding a qualification agreement which could result in a permanent position as Associate Professor (Section 99 (5) (6) of the Austrian Universities Act (Universitätsgesetz, UG)).

The candidate should have a record of excellent publications and relevant teaching experience and is expected to be willing and able to teach courses in German and English. The prospective applicant is expected to possess a sound knowledge of Austrian civil procedure law or be willing to familiarize themselves with Austrian civil procedure law in a timely manner. The applicant should have completed their doctoral or PhD studies no more than five years prior to the date of application.

Detailed information regarding the position, responsibilities, and requirements is available at: www.jku.at/tenuretrack. The job description contains information regarding the position and its requirements and strategic direction of research, the areas of priority, the type of research expected, the expected scope of contributions to teaching/education, the required degree of professional experience, the key qualifications and objectives to be met during the course of employment, key information regarding the existing research infrastructure, and other position-specific conditions.

The annual minimum salary under the collective agreement is EUR 70,200.20 gross. The annual minimum salary under the collective agreement may be raised to EUR 82,656.00 after the possible conclusion of a qualification agreement (as of 2026). A higher salary is a matter of negotiation.

For further information, please contact Univ. Prof. Dr. Thomas Garber, +43 732 2468 3671,
E-mail: thomas.garber(at)jku.at.

When assessing the candidates’ accomplishments, performance, and future potential, the JKU will take the candidates’ individual background and personal history into account by acknowledging that academic and professional success and accomplishments can happen at different stages in life (and can include periods of reduced employment, or career interruption on account of having to provide care, childcare, etc.). In this regard, qualifications are assessed and evaluated in terms of equal opportunity, taking life-course factors, such as academic age, into account.

The Johannes Kepler University wishes to increase the proportion of academic female faculty and, for this reason, especially welcomes and encourages applications by qualified women. If applicants are equally qualified, a woman will be given preference for this position. The university welcomes applications from qualified applicants with disabilities. These applications will be given special consideration.

Prospective applicants interested in the position are requested to electronically send a complete application to the Rector of the Johannes Kepler University by no later than March 18, 2026, observing the three-week application deadline. Please submit the application electronically, in German/English, at: https://forms.jku.at/pm/tenuretrack, opens an external URL in a new window.

Please enclose the following documents with your application: A letter of application (addressing in particular your reasons for applying and suitability for the position), a current curriculum vitae, a list of publications (including a ranking of the three publications you consider to be the most important), a description of prior activities in education and lecturing, including any student evaluations, a description of research projects, studies, and collaboration efforts, a description of prior professional practices and activities related in content to the activities in research and teaching, an outline of prospective projects and objectives in the field of research and teaching.

More information is available here.

This monograph constitutes the first systematic treatment in Spain of international estate planning from the perspective of patrimonial private international law. Conceived for practitioners advising globally mobile families and cross-border wealth structures, the work offers a rigorous comparative analysis—particularly attentive to Anglo-American legal systems—of the legal instruments available to preserve, structure, and transfer family wealth efficiently across generations.

The study opens with an examination of the classical connecting factors that determine personal status in private international law—nationality, habitual residence, and domicile—and explores their practical implications in cross-border planning. It proceeds to address the preventive protection of vulnerable adults through enduring powers of attorney and related mechanisms, as well as the safeguarding of minors’ patrimonial interests.

A substantial portion of the book is devoted to matrimonial property regimes and their distinction from the financial consequences of divorce. Through comparative analysis, with particular emphasis on English and U.S. law, the author examines the interaction between these categories and the preventive structuring tools available to spouses, including marital agreements and prenuptial arrangements, as key instruments of wealth preservation.

At its core, the monograph provides an in-depth study of succession planning techniques. It distinguishes between lifetime planning devices—such as inter vivos gifts and trusts—and testamentary dispositions, including functional equivalents to wills (will-like devices). Special attention is given to the conflict-of-laws solutions offered by Regulation (EU) 650/2012 on international successions, particularly the role of the professio iuris and its potential to coordinate universal and territorially limited wills within a coherent cross-border strategy.

The final chapter addresses estate administration, focusing on the anticipatory design of executorial structures within the will, the appointment and confirmation of executors under Anglo-American probate procedures, and their capacity to act in respect of assets located in Spain.

Overall, the work offers a comprehensive and technically sophisticated framework for international estate planning, positioning patrimonial private international law as a central discipline for the structuring of global family wealth.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

Bulat Karimov, “Arrest of Associated Ships from a Common Law Perspective”

The Arrest Conventions 1952 and 1999 provide for the arrest of ships owned by the person who would be liable for the claim in personam. The widespread use of one-ship companies has effectively circumvented these provisions. It has allowed shipowners to limit or avoid their liability by distributing their fleet between one-ship companies. The only country that has introduced separate associated ship provisions is South Africa. Other countries do not follow this example and generally deal with one-ship companies through beneficial ownership and piercing the corporate veil. The article examines the law and practice of arresting associated ships in South Africa, the US , England, Singapore and Australia. Particular focus is paid to the impropriety criterion, which is part of piercing the corporate veil but is irrelevant to the South African approach. It is concluded that the primary function of impropriety is preventing overreaching, which means subversion of the idea of separate legal personality of a shipowning company. The “objective” and “reasonableness” approaches are suggested as a middle ground to the problem discussed.

Steven Gee, “Enforcement of Judgments against Wealth Structures: Receivers, Trusts, Insolvency Act 1986, S.243 and Mareva Injunctions”

This article considers remedies leading to compelling satisfaction of a judgment, from assets in a wealth structure used by a judgment debtor, or assets produced by them, or from persons who have received such assets. These include (1) enforcement by equitable execution, (2) enforcement disregarding “sham” or invalid trusts or through an undisclosed legal power, (3) the effect of the Model Form of Freezing Injunction, and (4) use of the Insolvency Act 1986, s.423 to unwind transactions prejudicing creditors, including when to attribute to others a debtor’s purpose to prejudice creditors. It considers the relevance of a person having legal or de facto control of assets to the availability of these remedies.

Adrian Briggs, “The Death of Henry v Geoprosco“

Michal Hain, “Is a Foreign Judgment a Debt?”

Joseph Khaw, “Going Cherry Picking”

Paul MacMahon, “Pre-emptive Challenges to Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards”

In April 2025, the highest chamber (Corte Especial) of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ), under Justice Maria Isabel Gallotti as rapporteur, ruled on ‘Recognition of a Foreign Judgment’ (HDE) no. 7.091/EX. The case concerned the recognition of a United States ruling changing the last name of a Brazilian national who had acquired US nationality. The Plaintiff sought recognition of (i) his US naturalisation and (ii) a ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which changed his name from ‘Ariosto Mateus de Menezes’ to ‘Matthew Windsor’.

The Court decided it had no competence to ratify the naturalisation. Granting US citizenship is a prerogative of the US Government. And loss of Brazilian nationality is ruled by a specific domestic administrative procedure, under the Brazilian Ministry of Justice. The Court concluded that, because of lack of competence, the documents presented did not satisfy the statutory requirements for recognition under the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure and the Court’s internal rules. By contrast, the Court granted recognition of the name-change judgment. It found that the formal requirements for recognition had been met: the decision was rendered by a competent authority, had become stable, and was properly documented and translated. The decisive issue, therefore, was whether recognition would violate Brazilian ordre public.

Justice Gallotti grounded her analysis in Article 7 of the Introductory Statute to the Norms of Brazilian Law (LINDB), a statute inspired by the German Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (EGBGB). LINDB provides that the law of the person’s domicile governs name and capacity. The applicant was domiciled in the United States. The name change was carried out under US law. The case did not fall within any area of exclusive Brazilian jurisdiction (Article 23 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure).

The Attorney General’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) argued that Brazilian law does not permit total suppression of family names. The foreign judgment therefore offended public policy. The Court rejected this view.  It held that the mere fact that Brazilian legislation does not provide total suppression or change of surnames does not invalidate a foreign act. The prohibition is not a “nuclear” or foundational norm of the Brazilian legal order. There was no violation of ordre public, national sovereignty, or human dignity. Justice Gallotti stated: ‘The “ordre public clause” is intended to prevent the recognition of rights that contradict the fundamental principles of our legal order. In general, private international law doctrine considers, for example, that Western countries tend not to recognise more than one spouse, even when the husband is domiciled in a country governed by Islamic law. Polygamy (the marriage of a man to multiple women) is understood to violate the basic and core rules of national family law and succession law.’ Nothing of that nature was present in the case, said the Court. A foreign name change, even one involving the substitution of a surname, does not approach the level of structural incompatibility exemplified by polygamy.

The Court also placed the case in the context of recent domestic legal reform. Brazilian Law no. 14.382/2022 significantly facilitated changes of forenames in Brazil. A person may now change their first name extrajudicially (before a notary), without demonstrating a relevant reason. But such a change can only happen once in a lifetime and solely encompasses first names. Surname changes have also been made more flexible, but exclusively by allowing the recovery and inclusion of ancestral surnames. Brazilian law therefore no longer reflects a rigid immutability model, even if surnames remain harder to change than forenames. In HDE 7.091/EX, the Court considered it understandable and reasonable that the applicant adopted anglophone first and last names in the United States in order to avoid possible discrimination in the country of his new nationality. The change did not harm any relevant public or third-party interest.

 From a comparative perspective, the decision sits at an interesting point. In Common Law jurisdictions, name change is generally available with considerable freedom, often through unilateral instruments such as a deed poll, subject to modest administrative formalities. In Germany and Austria, by contrast, name changes are treated as exceptional and typically require an ‘important or relevant reason’ under public-law procedures. Christian von Bar’s comparative study Gemeineuropäisches Privatrecht der natürlichen Person (pp. 567–604) illustrates precisely the different models regarding name change. Some systems conceptualise the name primarily as an element of personal identity. Others see it as a structured institution embedded in family and public-order concerns. Brazil’s domestic law still reflects elements of the latter approach. Yet in recognition proceedings, Brazil’s highest Court with private law jurisdiction clearly opted for continuity of status formed at the domicile.

The decision is also consistent with a long Brazilian tradition of construing public policy narrowly in cross-border cases. As noted in a recent article, Brazilian law was frequently referenced in Ernst Rabel’s writings. For instance, Rabel noted how Brazilian Courts would recognise foreign divorces at a time when divorce was not yet permissible in Brazil. HDE 7.091/EX fits that pattern: foreign status effects may be recognised even when domestic law would not have produced the same result internally.

Ultimately, HDE 7.091/EX is a restrained and technically precise decision. It does not liberalise Brazilian internal surname law. It does not dissolve the state’s control over civil status. What it does is confirm that ordre public remains a high threshold in recognition proceedings of foreign rulings. In an era of increasing personal mobility and multi-layered identities, this approach reinforces a central intuition of private international law: the stability of personal status across borders is itself a value worthy of legal protection.

February was an unusually busy month for me, and my week-long bout with COVID didn't help, so I am behind schedule in blogging about recent events of relevance to the world of patent remedies.  One of the biggest of these was the European Union’s announcement on February 12 that it would be requesting the establishment of a WTO panel to determine whether China’s practice of establishing global FRAND royalties without consent of both parties violates the TRIPS Agreement.  The request for establishment of a panel in DS632 China-Worldwide Licensing Terms for Standard-Essential Patents is available here, and the EU's brief summary of the case here.  The WTO site for the case is here.

As previously noted on this blog, in January 2025 the EU instituted consultations with China concerning the issue of global FRAND royalties.  In addition, in July 2025 the EU prevailed in its other WTO dispute with China (DS611-Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights), concerning China’s antisuit injunction policy, when an arbitration panel (assembled in the absence, for several years now, of a functioning WTO appellate body) concluded (contrary to the initial panel decision) that that policy violated TRIPS articles 28.1 and 28.2 as read in light of article 1.1, because it “frustrate[d] the exercise of the exclusive right of a patent owner to prevent the use of the subject of its patent without its consent” and “alter[ed] the negotiating position of SEP holders in a fundamental way.”  Much the same logic is expressed in the EU’s current request, along with additional reliance on Paris Convention 4bis (which is incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement).  In particular, the EU argues that the challenged measure (of setting global FRAND rates without consent of both parties) violates the following:

Article 28.1, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, of the TRIPS Agreement, because China's measure has as its effect to restrict the ability of the owner of a non-Chinese patent to exercise the exclusive rights conferred on it by other WTO Members under Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, i.e., to prevent third parties not having the patent owner’s consent from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product.

Article 28.2, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence, of the TRIPS Agreement, because China's measure has as its effect to restrict the ability of the owner of a non-Chinese patent to meaningfully exercise its right to conclude licensing contracts, as conferred in the territory of other WTO Members under Article 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, by freely negotiating and concluding licensing contracts for the non-Chinese patents.

Article 4bis of the Paris Convention (1967), as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by virtue of Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because China’s measure undermines the principle of territoriality and restricts the possibility for the parties subject to a decision rendered in China to start or continue proceedings before the courts of the WTO Member that granted the non-Chinese patents, and thus for the courts of that WTO Member to adjudicate actions relating to those patents in their respective jurisdictions.

Two obvious points to note.  One is that, although the EU is challenging China’s policy only, it would seem that if the EU’s position turns out to be sound, the U.K.’s policy of establishing global FRAND rates without consent of both parties would be equally vulnerable.  Second, if the EU’s position on Paris Convention 4bis is sound—and there is language in DS611 that is consistent with that position, as I noted here—wouldn’t that place the CJEU’s decision in BSH v. Electrolux in jeopardy as well, to the extent that decision appears to contemplate that courts in EU member states may adjudicate patent infirngement claims arising under non-EU member state law (as discussed, e.g., here and here?)   

1. Seminar: Nuevas perspectivas de la insolvencia internacional: reestructuraciones preconcursales y concursales

On Friday, 6 March 2026 (12:45), a seminar will be held at the Faculty of Law of UAM (Seminario II) in the framework of the research project “Nuevas perspectivas de la insolvencia internacional: reestructuraciones preconcursales y concursales” (PID 2022-140017OB100), coordinated by Professors Iván Heredia Cervantes and Elisa Torralba Mendiola.

On this occasion, Prof. Ángel Espiniella Menéndez (Universidad de Oviedo) will deliver a lecture entitled:

“Práctica relativa a los procedimientos territoriales de insolvencia”

The seminar addresses the practice of territorial insolvency proceedings, a topic of particular relevance in the evolving landscape of European and international insolvency law.

Venue:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Facultad de Derecho – Seminario II

Date and time:
Friday, 6 March 2026 – 12:45

2. Seminario Julio D. González Campos 2026

Reform of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis)

Throughout 2026, the Área de Derecho Internacional Privado of UAM will host the Seminario Julio D. González Campos, dedicated to the reform of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

Both the above-mentioned insolvency seminar and the present seminar series will be held in Spanish. Only Sessions 2 and 3 of the present series will be conducted in English.

All sessions will take place at the Faculty of Law (Seminario V – J.D. González Campos, 4th floor), from 12:30 to 14:00.

The programme is as follows:

Session 1 – 13 March 2026
La revisión del ámbito de aplicación del RBIbis
Speaker: Rafael Arenas García (UAB)
Discussant: Miguel Virgós Soriano (UAM)

Session 2 – 24 April 2026 (in English)
The European Commission’s report on the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation
Speaker: Laura Liubertaite (European Commission)
Discussant: Elena Rodríguez Pineau (UAM)

Session 3 – 26 June 2026 (in English)
Issues relating to recognition and enforcement
Speaker: Costanza Honorati (Università di Milano-Bicocca)
Discussant: Elisa Torralba Mendiola (UAM)

Session 4 – 18 September 2026
Acciones colectivas en el RBIbis
Speaker: Fernando Gascón Inchausti (UCM)
Discussant: Francisco Garcimartín (UAM)

Session 5 – 30 October 2026
Revisión de los foros de competencia judicial internacional ¿a la luz de la jurisprudencia del TJUE?
Speaker: Marta Requejo Isidro (Court of Justice of the European Union)
Discussant: Iván Heredia Cervantes (UAM)

Session 6 – 11 December 2026
Digitalización de la economía y revisión de las reglas de competencia judicial
Speaker: Pedro de Miguel Asensio (UCM)
Discussant: José Ignacio Paredes Pérez (UAM)

This seminar series offers a comprehensive and forward-looking discussion of the potential reform of Brussels I bis, addressing questions of scope, jurisdiction, collective litigation, recognition and enforcement, the case law of the CJEU, and the challenges posed by digitalisation.

Introduction

On 25th July 2025, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in Engineering Projects (India) Limited v. MSA Global LLC (Oman) in CS (OS) 243 of 2025[1] that has stirred considerable discourse in international arbitration circles. The fundamental question at issue in the instant case was whether an Indian Court can grant an anti-arbitration injunction to stay proceedings in a foreign-seated arbitration on grounds of the proceedings turning oppressive and vexatious due to procedural impropriety, notwithstanding internationally well-settled principles of minimal judicial intervention, party autonomy, and lex arbitri that govern international commercial arbitration? The Delhi High Court answered in the affirmative, holding that Indian civil courts possess inherent power under Section 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to intervene under exceptional circumstances where the arbitral process itself becomes a vehicle of abuse.

This ruling carries profound implications for India’s aspirations to position itself as a global arbitration hub. By granting relief that undermines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at the Seat (Singapore in the instant case), the ruling has invited scrutiny vis a vis its alignment with the territorial principle as elaborated upon in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (“BALCO”)[2], and with internationally accepted ‘best practices’ which are well-settled considering that they promote predictability and finality in cross-border dispute resolution.

Facts

Engineering Projects (India) Limited (“EPIL”), a public sector enterprise, entered into a sub-contract agreement with MSA Global LLC (Oman) (“MSA”) for the design, supply, installation, integration, and commissioning of a border security system at the Yemen-Oman border. The agreement contained an arbitration clause stipulating that any disputes would be resolved by way of arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) with Oman’s law being the governing law, while conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts at New Delhi, India. For the sake of clarity, Article 19 of the agreement between the parties containing the aforementioned arbitration clause, is extracted in its entirety as under:

“ARTICLE 19

LAW AND ARBITRATION

19.1 Disputes if any, arising out of or related to or any way connected with this agreement shall be resolved amicably in the First instance or otherwise through arbitration in accordance with Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The jurisdiction of the Contract Agreement shall lie with the Courts at New Delhi, India.

19.2 This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and take effect in all respects according to the Laws and Regulations of the Sultanate of Oman.

19.3 Any dispute or difference of opinion between the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement or as to its interpretation or construction shall be referred to arbitration. The Arbitration Panel shall consist of three Arbitrators, one Arbitrator to be appointed by each party and the third Arbitrator being appointed by the two Arbitrators already appointed, or in event that the two Arbitrators cannot agree upon the third Arbitrator, third Arbitrator shall be appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce. The place of the Arbitration shall be mutually discussed and agreed.

19.4 The decision of the Arbitration Panel shall be final and binding upon the parties.”

In the course of performance of the contract, disputes arose between the parties concerning alleged delays in contractual performance. Consequently, MSA invoked the arbitration agreement in 2023 nominating Mr. Andre Yeap SC (“Mr. Yeap”) as a co-arbitrator. Thereafter, on 20.04.2024, Mr. Yeap submitted his statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence to the ICC, expressly declaring that he had “nothing to disclose” with respect to any facts or circumstances that could give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. EPIL nominated Hon’ble Justice Mr. Arjan Kumar Sikri (Retd.) as its co-arbitrator. The Tribunal was duly constituted on 05.09.2023 with Mr. Jonathan Acton Davis KC being appointed as the presiding arbitrator by the co-arbitrators.

In June 2024, the tribunal rendered a first partial award on MSA’s application for interim measures. EPIL challenged this award before the Singapore High Court. In December 2024, in preparation of the evidentiary hearings, EPIL, through a Gujarat High Court Judgment dated 05.07.2024 titled Neeraj Kumarpal Shah v. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, discovered the Mr. Yeap had been previously appointed as an arbitrator in separate proceedings involving Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal who happens to be MSA’s Managing Director, Chairman, and Promoter. This prior involvement had not been disclosed when Mr. Yeap accepted his appointment. As such, on 19.01.2025, EPIL filed a challenge application before the ICC Court under Article 14(1) of the ICC Rules alleging non-disclosure and raising doubts about Mr. Yeap’s independence and impartiality. The ICC Court in its decision acknowledged the non-disclosure as “regrettable” but rejected EPIL’s challenge on merits, finding that the circumstances did not establish justifiable doubts regarding Mr. Yeap’s impartiality or independence. Subsequently, EPIL filed an application before the Singapore High Court under Article 13(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law seeking determination on the validity of Mr. Yeap’s continued participation, and also simultaneously approached the Delhi High Court by filing the instant suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction restraining MSA from continuing the ICC arbitration with the present tribunal composition. Further complicating the matter, MSA filed an enforcement petition before the Delhi High Court for the recognition and enforcement of the First Partial Award while also obtaining an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore High Court restraining EPIL from continuing its proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

The Dispute

The crux of the legal controversy in this case was around three inter-related questions.

1. Whether an Indian Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking an anti-arbitration injunction against a foreign-seated arbitration, particularly in light of the fact that the parties had agreed to arbitrate under ICC Rules with Singapore being designated as the seat. In this respect, MSA relied upon the judgment in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (“Indus Mobile”)[3] to contend that once parties agree to a specific seat of arbitration, it is solely the Courts at that seat that retain supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process to the exclusion of all other Courts. MSA further argued that the suit was barred by Section 5 and Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 which are the statutory embodiment of the principle of minimal judicial intervention and the territoriality doctrine affirmed in BALCO.

11. Whether the non-disclosure by Mr. Yeap rendered the arbitration proceedings vexatious, oppressive, and violative of Indian Public Policy. In this regard, EPIL argued that Mr. Yeap’s failure to disclose this material information constituted a manifest violation of Article 11 of the ICC Rules, which mandates arbitrators to disclose any facts or circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. EPIL contended that such non-disclosure strikes at the root of party consent and procedural fairness thereby rendering the entirety of the arbitral process illegitimate. On the other hand, MSA relied upon Article 11.2 of the ICC Rules read with Clause 3.1.3 of the IBA Guidelines which mandate disclosure only if an arbitrator has been appointed on two or more occasions in the past three years by a party or one of its affiliates; MSA contends this requirement had not been satisfied in the instant case.

III. Whether EPIL was entitled to interim injunctive relief restraining the continuation of arbitral proceedings pending final disposal of the suit.

As such, this dispute was centred around reconciling party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention on one hand, with the Court’s duty to prevent abuse of process and ensure procedural fairness on the other [4].

The Decision

On Maintainability

At the very outset, the Delhi High Court affirmed the strong presumption in favour of the civil court’s jurisdiction as under Section 9 of the CPC, which confers authority to adjudicate all suits that are of a civil nature unless the same is expressly or through implication barred by statutory law. The Court relied on the case of Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh[5] and held that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred and must be clearly provided by law. Further, the Court distinguished the rulings in Indus Mobile and BALCO, noting that while these judgments do affirm the seat principle and the territoriality doctrine, they did not create an absolute bar on civil courts’ power to grant an anti-arbitration injunction in exceptional circumstances. The Court found guidance in the Union of India v. Dabhol Power Company[6] and ONGC v. Western Company of North America [7], wherein it was held that Indian Courts do have the power to grant injunctions against foreign proceedings whenever the circumstances make the proceedings oppressive, or where such an injunction is necessary or expedient, or when the ends of justice so require; with the former specifically referring to Sections 5 and 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and stating that neither of them oust, entirely, the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. Additionally, the Court emphasised the distinction between anti-suit injunctions and anti-arbitration injunctions, noting that the latter require a higher threshold of oppression or vexatiousness to be met, citing examples along the lines of doubts as to the consent of the parties, allegations of forgery, or fundamental procedural impropriety which can meet the aforementioned threshold. Crucially, the Court held that the principle of minimal judicial intervention does not and must not translate into negligible interference[8], and said this crucial difference has been preserved to ensure that private dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration do not turn oppressive or operate in an unruly manner, which can be deemed contrary to the foundational principles of judicial propriety.

On Vexatiousness and Oppressiveness of the Proceedings

The Court began the discussion in this regard by defining “vexatious” as proceedings instituted in the absence of sufficient legal basis and primarily intended to annoy, harass, and/or burden the opposing party, and “oppressive” as conduct that unjustly imposes harsh burdens or unfair disadvantages upon a party to the proceedings. Thereafter, in reference to the ICC Rules, the Court noted that Article 11 therein casts a categorical obligation upon arbitrators to make full and frank disclosure of any circumstance that might give rise to justifiable doubts regarding their impartiality or independence. It was emphasised that this obligation must be assessed from the perspective of the parties as is clear from the language of the provision insofar as it says “in the eyes of the parties”, rather than from an arbitrator’s subjective perception of bias. Further, it was noted that the arbitrator cannot withhold disclosure on the ground that the fact appears benign or remote in lieu of the fact that the obligation arises when there exists even a possibility that the information, if known to the parties, might give rise to an apprehension of bias in the parties’ minds.

The Court found that Mr Yeap’s non-disclosure was deliberate and calculated. Even though Mr. Yeap admitted in his response to the initial challenge application that he had made enquiries and was aware of the potential need for disclosure, he chose not to do the same based on his subjective assessment that four years had passed since the prior appointment in the matter concerning MSA’s Chairman. Moreover, Mr. Yeap had acknowledged in the initial proceedings that “had I made the disclosure, the possibility of the Respondent seeking to challenge my impartiality could not be discounted”. The Court viewed this statement as evidence of the fact that the non-disclosure was intentional and aimed at avoiding objection. Further, the Court held that the ICC Court’s decision on the challenge, while acknowledging the non-disclosure as “regrettable”, erroneously misplaced the burden on EPIL to demonstrate actual bias rather than focusing on the breach of the mandatory disclosure requirement, thereby noting that the decision was a classic case of operation successful, but patient dead. The logic behind this was that, while the ICC Court’s decision may seem sound on the surface and in compliance with the formal procedure, it did not address the substantive loss of confidence in the arbitral process’s neutrality.

On Interim Injunction

As such, applying the triple test of (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable harm for interim injunction as under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Court found that all three conditions were satisfied and accordingly stayed the ICC arbitral proceedings until final disposition of the suit and restrained both parties from participating in the arbitration with the tribunal’s present composition.

Concluding Remarks

While the judgment articulates laudable concerns about procedural fairness and impartiality, the approach that has been adopted raises serious questions about jurisdictional overreach, inconsistency with India’s pro-arbitration legislative intent, potential damage to India’s credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Firstly, the most fundamental flaw in the judgment lies in its erosion of the seat principle which is unarguably a cornerstone of international arbitration law[9]. The UNCITRAL Model Law, which forms the very basis of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is predicated on the seat principle, which has also been unequivocally affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court in cases such as BALCO. By granting an anti-arbitration injunction in this matter, the Delhi High Court effectively usurped the supervisory jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Singapore Court had already considered and rejected EPIL’s challenge to Mr. Yeap’s appointment, yet the Delhi High Court substituted its own judgment on the same issue. This created an untenable situation of conflicting judicial orders: the Singapore High Court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the Delhi proceedings on 23 May 2025, while the Delhi High Court proceeded to grant an anti-arbitration injunction on 25 July 2025. Judicial conflicts of such nature undermine the predictability and finality that parties seek when choosing arbitration, not to mention the violation of principles of comity between courts. Additionally, it’s not as if EPIL was rendered remedy-less before the seat courts at Singapore. There were multiple appeals available to Singapore High Court’s decision on the challenge to Mr. Yeap’s impartiality. The Delhi High Court’s position could still have been appreciated had EPIL had no remedy left at the seat courts except to continue with vexatious and oppressive arbitral proceedings, but this was not the case. Further, the judgment’s reliance on Dabhol Power Company and ONGC v. Western Company were misplaced considering that those cases involved enforcement of foreign awards or bank guarantees, and not the question of intervening in ongoing foreign-seated arbitrations with active supervisory courts. Not to mention that the judgment’s characterisation of MSA’s conduct as vexatious appears rather selective and outrightly ignores EPIL’s own forum shopping tendencies, i.e., filing parallel challenges before ICC, Singapore Courts, and Delhi Courts simultaneously.

Secondly, while the Court correctly emphasised the importance of arbitrator disclosure, the underlying principles were applied in a problematic manner. The Court failed to consider that four years had passed since Mr. Yeap’s prior appointment, and neither the ICC Rules nor the IBA Guidelines mandate disclosure of appointments separated by such a temporal gap unless it can be demonstrated that the same constitutes a pattern of repeated appointments; this standard is akin to Entry 20 of the Vth Schedule to India’s 1996 Act. The ICC Court’s decision carefully considered these standards and concluded that while disclosure would have been prudent, a failure to do the same did not give rise to justifiable doubts about Mr. Yeap’s impartiality or independence. The Delhi High Court’s characterization of this reasoned decision as operation successful, but patient dead is rather dismissive, fails to engage with the substantive reasoning, and fails to also take into account the fact that international arbitration institutions like the ICC possess expertise in assessing arbitrator conflicts; it is a clear case of ‘due process paranoia’ [10]. Domestic courts ought to be cautious about second-guessing such determinations, especially when institutional rules provide clear mechanisms and standards for such challenges. Further, the judgment entirely conflates two distinct issues: whether disclosure was required, and whether non-disclosure renders the arbitrator actually biased.

Lastly, the present judgment runs counter to India’s objective to become an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, as expressed in the Law Commission’s 264th Report. By allowing a non-seat court to stay a foreign-seated arbitration based on alleged procedural impropriety, the decision sends a troubling signal to international parties i.e., choosing India as a contracting party, even with a foreign seat, exposes you to unnecessary intervention by Indian Courts; this is precisely what the BALCO regime sought to eliminate[11]. The judgment also creates a dangerous precedent for other jurisdictions. If Indian courts can intervene in Singapore-seated arbitrations, what is to stop Chinese courts from intervening in London-seated arbitrations, or vice versa? The result would be a race to obtain competing injunctions, undermining the entirety of the international arbitration framework.? Beyond doctrinal concerns, this is also a clear case of practical ineffectiveness. The ICC tribunal and Singapore courts are not bound by the Delhi High Court’s judgment and have continued to recognise the arbitration’s validity. Singapore subsequently issued a permanent anti-suit injunction against EPIL on 18.09.2025, and initiated contempt proceedings when EPIL obtained yet another ex parte injunction from the Delhi courts restraining MSA from participating in the Singapore contempt proceedings. This cycle of competing injunctions serves neither party’s interests and brings both judicial systems into disrepute, which is a massive concern, especially when this ordeal was wholly avoidable considering that under the New York Convention, any award rendered in this arbitration would have ultimately been enforceable in India only through the procedures in Part II of the 1996 Act, at which point EPIL could have raised objections under Section 48, including alleged violation of public policy. The availability of this post-award remedy also undermines the necessity for pre-emptive intervention.

A better approach would have been for the Court to (i) recognise that the seat court in Singapore has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction, (ii) acknowledge that EPIL has adequate remedies through the ICC challenge process and challenges before Singapore courts under Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, along with post-award resistance to enforcement, and (iii) decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds while allowing EPIL to pursue its remedies before the aforementioned appropriate fora.

[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5072.

[2] (2012) 9 SCC 552.

[3] (2017) 7 SCC 678.

[4] See https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/10/20/party-autonomy-or-the-choice-of-seat-the-essence-of-arbitration/ for a discussion.

[5] 1968 SCC OnLine SC 40.

[6] 2004 SCC OnLine Del 1298.

[7] (1987) 1 SCC 496.

[8] See https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2025/08/delhi-high-court-clarifies-scope-of-anti-arbitration-injunctions-in-foreign-seated-proceedings/ for a discussion.

[9] See https://indiacorplaw.in/2025/09/08/jurisdictional-overreach-and-the-illusion-of-equity-a-critique-of-the-delhi-high-courts-intervention-in-epi-v-msa-global/ for a discussion.

[10] See https://forum.nls.ac.in/nlsir-online-blog/arbitrator-non-disclosure-before-the-delhi-high-court/ for a discussion.

[11] See https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/a-shield-of-justice-or-a-sword-through-the-seat-the-delhi-high-courts-contentious-anti-arbitration-injunction/ for a discussion.

FAMIMOVE 3.0 is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2025-JCOO program. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law.

This project seeks to build on the results of FAMIMOVE 2.0 by focusing on children on the move in vulnerable situations and by consolidating the networks already established of experts in family law, child protection and migration law. It involves 7 universities in 6 EU Member States.

The duration of the project is two years from 1 March 2026 to 29 February 2028.

The Consortium is coordinated by Prof. Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University) and is comprised of the following partners: Prof. Thalia Kruger (Antwerp University), Prof. Orsolya Szeibert (Eötvös Loránd University), Prof. Ellen Desmet (Ghent University), Prof. Ulf Maunsbach (Lund University), Prof. Carlos Esplugues (University of Valencia) and Prof. Fabienne Jault (University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines). They will be supported by colleagues with expertise in these fields from their universities and beyond.

As indicated in the project summary, “FAMIMOVE’s general objective is to contribute to the effective and coherent application of the EU acquis in the field of international family law, in particular by ensuring more awareness of international child protection instruments applicable to migrant children […].”  In particular, FAMIMOVE 3.0 “intends to map the measures for the protection of children in 6 EU MS in family law and their interaction with migration law. In addition, it will put in place three transnational sub-projects relating to the portability of civil status documents (with a focus on statelessness and the age of the child), the interrelationship between international child abduction and migration law, and the protection of Ukrainian children in the EU.”

As part of this project, surveys/interviews will be conducted with Ukrainian children in order for them to express their views, which will be duly taken into account, and to fully participate in the results of the project in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

As indicated, FAMIMOVE 3.0 is a spin-off of an earlier project with the same name, namely FAMIMOVE 2.0. The website of FAMIMOVE 2.0 is still operational. To view it, click here. One of the main achievements of this project is the book entitled Children in Migration and International Family Law: The Child’s Best Interests Principle at the Interface of Migration Law and Family Law and may be consulted here. We have previously posted on this project here and here.

FAMIMOVE is based on two insightful documents published by the European Parliament: Children on the Move: A Private International Law Perspective and Private International Law in a Context of Increasing International Mobility: Challenges and Potential.

Any new development will be published here – stay tuned.

Views and opinions expressed in this project are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

This is a call for papers and panels for the Private International Law subject section at the SLS Annual Conference 2026. This year, the annual conference will take place at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. The conference dates are: 2-4 September 2026.

The Private International Law section will meet in the first half of the conference on 2-3 September, and we can run up to four sessions, each lasting 90 minutes.?Doctoral students are very welcome and are encouraged to submit papers for consideration in the Subject Sections Programme. The conference theme is Doing Law Differently, but the Private International Law Subject Section welcomes paper and panel proposals on any topics connected to our discipline.

Conference Information

The 2026 conference at UEA will be fully in-person. This decision reflects a move globally to resume in person conferences, as well as the significant costs surrounding the delivery of a fully virtual attendance. However, it will be possible for members of the SLS to register to view the plenary sessions at the conference online. Furthermore, Council members who are not attending the 2026 Conference will still be able to attend the Council meeting and AGM virtually?and, consistent with our EDI priorities, speakers who cannot attend may, on sufficient notice, be able to present virtually. We will also endeavour to allow speakers unable to attend at the last minute due to ill-health or travel restrictions to present virtually. We continue to offer support for attendance via our Annual Conference Additional Support Fund (ASF) to support those with special circumstances warranting additional support. Priority for support will be given to applicants who have no other source of funding.

Submitting through Oxford Abstracts

If you are interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 27 March 2026. All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed here – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same email address this year (if that address remains current). For those whose papers are accepted, the original submission offers the facility to upload a full paper nearer the time. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

This is the fourth year we will be running first blind peer review, with a subsequent non-blind review once initial decisions have been made to consider profile diversity before final decisions are made and communicated. The feedback from convenors on this process has been very positive. We intend to communicate decisions on acceptance by Friday 8 May 2026.

Submission Format

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

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

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible can present, speakers should not present twice at the conference at the expense of another credible paper.?The general expectation is that authors will submit no more than one single and/or one co-authored paper. There should be a maximum of 3 speakers per paper. For papers with more than 3 authors, the authors should consider submitting a panel. Submissions with multiple authors should clearly identify non-speaking and speaking authors. When you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

The Best Paper Prize

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

To be eligible for the Best Paper Prize :

• Speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS (where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members and must be fully paid up. The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final).
• Papers should be submitted as a word document and must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count).
• Papers must be uploaded to the paper bank by 11:59pm UK time on?Friday 28 August 2026.
• Papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.
• Papers must have been accepted by a Convenor in a Subject Section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the annual conference by at least one of the authors.
• Where a paper is delivered as part of a panel, the paper will only be eligible for consideration where: (a) the abstract for the panel indicates that this specific paper will be delivered at the annual conference, and that abstract has been accepted by a Convenor in a Subject Section; and (b) an oral version of the specific paper has been presented at the annual conference by at least one of the authors.
• Where a Convenor or Final Panellist is unable to judge, for example, where there is a conflict of interest, they will nominate another member of the Section or Executive Committee member to act as an alternate (a conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, where a Convenor, Chair or Judge is a colleague or PhD supervisor of an author).
• The SLS adopts the same policy as Legal Studies as regards AI. The policy is available via this?link.

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

To be eligible for the Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize:

• Speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS who are doctoral students (where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be fully paid up members and all authors must be doctoral students, whatever their discipline. The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final).
• Papers must be submitted in word document format and should not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word; figures and tables are not included in the word count).
• Papers must be uploaded to the paper bank by 11:59pm UK time on?Friday 28 August 2026.
• Papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.
• Papers must have been accepted by a Convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented by at least one of the authors at the annual conference.
• Where a paper eligible for this prize wins the Best Paper Prize, the judges may at their discretion award the prize for Best Paper by a Doctoral Student to a different nominated paper.
• The judges may announce a shortlist at their discretion with the winner to be announced by the first week in November.
• Where a paper is delivered as part of a panel, the paper will only be eligible for consideration where: (a) the abstract for the panel indicates that this specific paper will be delivered at the annual conference, and that abstract has been accepted by a Convenor in a Subject Section; and (b) an oral version of the specific paper has been presented at the annual conference by at least one of the authors.
• Where a Convenor or Final Panellist is unable to judge, for example, where there is a conflict of interest, he or she will nominate another member of the Section or Executive Committee member to act as an alternate (a conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, where a Convenor, Chair or Judge is a colleague or PhD supervisor of an author).
• The SLS adopts the same policy as Legal Studies as regards AI. The policy is available via this?link.

Registration and paying for the conference

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Friday 19 June 2026 to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this deadline is likely to pose any problems for you.?Booking information will be circulated in due course and will open after the decisions on the response to the calls are made. Understanding the challenges faced by higher education, the SLS will keep ticket prices at 2025 rates for the 2026 conference.

With best wishes,

Dr Michiel Poesen
Dr Patricia Živkovi?

Co-convenors of the Private International Law section

INTRODUCTION

The Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law, Law Number 27 of 2022 (Indonesian PDP Law), came into effect on 17 October 2022. Before its enactment, data protection rules in Indonesia were fragmented across different sector-specific laws and regulations. The Indonesian PDP Law aims to unify these laws and regulations, providing greater clarity and ensuring consistent personal data protection across all sectors in the country. The Indonesian PDP Law sets out normative provisions on personal data protection; however, detailed, practical rules have yet to be specified in the implementing regulations. As of now, the drafting of these implementing regulations is still underway.

Many of the fundamental elements of the Indonesian PDP Law, including definitions of covered data and entities, lawful grounds, processing obligations, accountability measures, and relationships between data controllers and processors, are modelled after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Nonetheless, several key provisions are tailored specifically to the Indonesian context. For instance, the Indonesian PDP Law has broad extraterritorial reach, which shall apply to entities insofar as their personal data processing activities have legal implications within Indonesia or pertain to an Indonesian national data subject outside Indonesian jurisdiction.

To date, there have been five decisions by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia) concerning the Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law. Briefly, the Indonesian Constitutional Court functions as one of Indonesia’s apex judicial authorities, alongside the Supreme Court. Its primary jurisdiction involves the constitutional review of enacted laws (undang-undang) in Indonesia to assess their conformity with the 1945 Indonesian Constitution (as lastly amended in 2002), thereby safeguarding the constitutional rights therein. Its decisions are final, legally binding, and possess immediate legal effect upon issuance, with no provisions for appeal or annulment by any other institutional body.

This piece will focus on the most recent ruling by the Constitutional Court issued on 19 January 2026 regarding the Indonesian PDP Law, namely Case Number 137/PUU-XXIII/2025, as it pertains to matters within private international law.

FACTS

The Petitioner mainly requests a constitutional review of Article 56 of the Indonesian PDP Law, which specifies the requirements for cross-border personal data transfers. Article 56 delineates a tiered set of prerequisites for such transfers. A personal data controller responsible for transmitting personal data abroad (data exporter) must verify that the recipient country offers an adequate or higher level of personal data protection than that provided by the Indonesian PDP Law. If this requirement is not met, the data exporter must ensure that sufficient and binding data protections are in place in the recipient country. If neither condition is satisfied, the data exporter is obliged to obtain consent from the data subject prior to transferring personal data abroad. Furthermore, the forthcoming implementing regulations are expected to provide further details on the specific requirements for cross-border data transfers.

The petition was initiated with the briefing announcement issued by the White House on 22 July 2025 concerning the Framework for Negotiating a Reciprocal Trade Agreement between Indonesia and the United States of America (Indonesia-USA Reciprocal Trade Agreement Negotiation Framework). As part of this framework, Indonesia has committed to establishing legal certainty regarding the ability to transfer personal data outside its borders to the United States.

The Petitioner argued that the Indonesia-USA Reciprocal Trade Agreement Negotiation Framework has led to a key interpretation of Article 56 of the Indonesian PDP Law concerning the transfer of citizens’ personal data beyond Indonesian borders. The Petitioner maintained that, under a strict interpretive approach, the PDP Law allows data controllers to assess the adequacy requirement independently, without parliamentary oversight. This could potentially weaken democratic accountability and expose personal data vulnerable to misuse. Additionally, the Petitioner emphasised that such commitments should require approval from the House of Representatives, as they directly impact national sovereignty and the protection of citizens.

The foundation of the Petitioner’s petition is based on Article 28G, paragraph (1) of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, which protects citizens’ rights to their dignity, family, honour, and property, as well as the right to be free from threats to their fundamental rights. Additionally, the Petitioner referred to Article 11 of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, which confers authority on the House of Representatives and the President to conclude international agreements.

Therefore, the Petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court interpret the provisions of Article 56 of the Indonesian PDP Law to mean that transferring personal data to jurisdictions such as the United States should occur only if there is an international agreement approved by the Indonesian House of Representatives. Moreover, transfers to countries considered to lack adequate personal data protection standards should take place only with the consent of the data subjects, after informing them of the risks involved in the cross-border transfers of their personal data.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION

The Constitutional Court rejected all of the Petitioner’s petition and arguments. According to the Court, the cross-border transfer of personal data constitutes part of the administrative and technical measures carried out by the executive branch, rather than an agreement between nations that creates rights and obligations in the domains of politics, defence, or sovereignty. Based on this reasoning, the Court affirmed that there is no constitutional obligation to involve the Indonesian House of Representatives in any cross-border data transfer process, including in determining the adequacy decision regarding such a personal data transfer.

Regarding the adequacy decision, the Court held that the personal data controller (data exporter) shall undertake technical verification procedures to ascertain whether the recipient country of the personal data transfer maintains data protection standards that are adequate or even higher than those provided in the Indonesian PDP Law. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that cross-border personal data transfers do not rely solely on the personal data controller to ensure adequacy or higher protection standards in the recipient country. Instead, it also necessitates the existence and active involvement of the Personal Data Protection Authority (PDPA), as prescribed in Articles 58-61 of the Indonesian PDP Law. The PDPA is tasked with overseeing, evaluating, and implementing technical policy measures to ensure compliance with requirements for cross-border personal data transfers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that such authority has yet to be established.

 REMARKS

Despite the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the petition, Case Number 137/PUU-XXIII/2025 brings to light persistent concerns regarding the Indonesian PDP Law, particularly its provisions on cross-border personal data transfers. These issues call for further discussion and highlight the pressing need to pass the implementing regulations and establish the PDPA.

First, clarification is required regarding the party responsible for conducting cross-border transfers of personal data. Article 56 of the Indonesian PDP Law exclusively employs the term ‘personal data controller’ (pengendali data pribadi) in the context of cross-border data transfers, which seems to imply that only personal data controllers are authorised to carry out such transfers.

Second, it is necessary to delineate which countries are recognised as having adequate or higher levels of personal data protection. In this context, Article 60(f) of the Indonesian PDP Law provides that the PDPA is empowered to assess whether the requirements for cross-border personal data transfers are satisfied. The significant role of the PDPA in cross-border personal data transfer is also emphasised by the Constitutional Court Judges in Case Number 137/PUU-XXIII/2025. Since the PDPA has not yet been established or designated to date, this situation underscores the urgent need to set up or appoint such an authority.

Third, the forthcoming implementing regulations of the Indonesian PDP Law are expected to clarify issues surrounding cross-border personal data transfers, including the incorporation of whitelists and blacklists of specific jurisdictions, standardised contractual language, and specific data processing activities such as pseudonymisation and encryption. It is also presumed that the personal data controller and the forthcoming PDPA will be required to report to the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Digital regarding cross-border transfers of personal data.

Fourth, as set out at the outset of this piece, the Indonesian PDP Law has an extensive extraterritorial scope. In the event of a personal data breach involving cross-border transfer of personal data, any individuals, corporations, public entities, and international organisations—irrespective of their origin or residence—whether functioning as personal data controllers or processors, may be considered potential defendants for violations that affect the rights of an Indonesian data subject. Referring to Article 2 of the Indonesian PDP Law, this applicability is contingent upon the occurrence of their misconduct (1) within the jurisdiction of Indonesia or (2) outside of Indonesia, provided that such misconduct results in legal consequences (a) within the Indonesian jurisdiction or (b) impacting an Indonesian personal data subject outside of Indonesian territory.

The subsequent issue concerns the court’s jurisdiction. As no cross-border data protection litigation has occurred in Indonesia to date, the court’s position in this matter remains indeterminate. Nevertheless, Indonesian courts are notorious for their indifference and insularity when addressing foreign-related issues. Furthermore, Indonesian civil procedural law does not specify provisions regarding parallel litigation. Consequently, in case of parallel proceedings concerning a cross-border data transfer dispute, it is likely that the Indonesian court would exercise jurisdiction and proceed with the legal proceeding in Indonesia, notwithstanding the existence of an ongoing legal proceeding involving the same dispute and parties in a foreign court.

If proceedings are conducted in a foreign court, the complexities of the issues may increase. Indonesia maintains a stringent stance that a foreign judgment is not enforceable unless it pertains to damages arising from marine salvage. Any foreign, other than those on damages resulting from marine salvage, must undergo re-examination by an Indonesian court. In light of this stance, it is apparent that Indonesian courts would not recognise or enforce foreign judgments concerning cross-border personal data transfer disputes and would require such disputes to be relitigated before an Indonesian court.

Practical challenges also include the complexities of seizing assets or digital evidence located in foreign jurisdictions, given that Indonesia has not yet acceded to the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention.

Further details concerning the Indonesian PDP Law and its private international law aspects are available in Priskila Pratita Penasthika, “Chapter 12 – Indonesia” in Adrian Mak, Ching Him Ho, and Anselmo Reyes (eds.), Privacy and Personal Data Protection Law in Asia (Hart Publishing, 12 December 2024).

As noted on this blog previously (see here and here), in December Judge Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.) issued a temporary restraining order, later converted into a preliminary injunction, ordering U.S. patent assertion entity Onesta from adjudicating claims against BMW for the infringement of U.S. patents in the Munich Regional Court.  On February 13, the judge issued his written order explaining his reasoning.  The order is available on Westlaw (2026 WL 474871) and from other sources, such as Pacer.

By way of background, one year ago the Court of Justice for the European Union issued its decision in BSH v. Electrolux.  In that case, the owner of a European Patent filed an action in Sweden, against a defendant domiciled in Sweden, for the infringement not only of the Swedish part of the patent in suit, but also for the infringement of the corresponding parts validated in nine other European Patent Convention (EPC) member states--including at least one (Türkiye) which is not an EU member.  One of the questions presented was whether the Brussels Regulation Recast conferred exclusive jurisdiction over a Turkish court in respect of the part validated in Turkey.  The court held that it did not, but rather that the Swedish court may adjudicate both the infringement and validity of the Turkish part, although the validity ruling would apply only inter partes (in other words, the effect of the ruling would not be to nullify the Turkish part as against the world).  In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that

. . . the court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled which is seised, as in the case in the main proceedings, on the basis of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, of an infringement action in the context of which the issue of the validity of a patent granted or validated in a third State is raised as a defence, does have jurisdiction to rule on that issue if none of the restrictions referred to in paragraphs 63 to 65 of the present judgment is applicable, given that the decision of that court sought in that regard is not such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State, or to cause its national register to be amended.

. . . As the Advocate General observed in point 62 of his Opinion of 22 February 2024 and as the parties to the main proceedings and the European Commission stated at the hearing on 14 May 2024 before the Court, that decision has only inter partes effects, that is to say, a scope limited to the parties to the proceedings. Thus, where the issue of the validity of a patent granted in a third State is raised as a defence in an action alleging infringement of that patent before a court of a Member State, that defence seeks only to have that action dismissed, and does not seek to obtain a decision that will cause that patent to be annulled entirely or in part. In particular, under no circumstances can that decision include a direction to the administrative authority responsible for maintaining the national register of the third State concerned (paras. 74-75).

The court’s reasoning does not, at least explicitly, appear to hinge on the “third State” being a party to the EPC, and thus could be cited in support of the Munich court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for the infringement of a U.S. patent in an action filed against a company (like BMW) domiciled in Germany.  Then again, as Judge Albright notes in his order, the BSH “decision never expressly grants long-arm authority to divest U.S. courts of jurisdiction to enforce U.S. patents.”  Fair enough.

In any event, in granting the ASI, Judge Albright goes through the Fifth Circuit’s test for granting an ASI, which is largely similar to what other U.S. circuits require.  First, it is undisputed that the parties to the U.S. and Munich actions are the same, and the U.S. action (BMW’s action for a declaratory judgment of patent misuse, noninfringement, and invalidity) would dispose of the relevant issues in Munich.  Second, the Munich action would “frustrate a policy of the forum issuing the injunction” or, alternatively, would “cause prejudice or offend other equitable principles.”  In this regard, he writes that “[a]llowing the Munich proceedings to continue threatens the United States' policy interest in adjudicating its own patents and protecting litigants' jury rights in infringement cases. Similarly, proceedings in the Munich court necessarily deprive BMW of critical defendant rights available only here—e.g., fact discovery; invalidity consideration with erga omnes effect; and juries as a bulwark against the improper grant or assertion of U.S. patents. . . .  [E]nsuring that U.S. patent infringement claims are adjudicated in U.S. courts is ‘necessary to provide full justice to the parties’ in this case because BMW seeks a jury trial on the infringement claims” (citation omitted).  Further, in Judge Albright’s reading, the Paris Convention “expressly affirms the independence of each country’s patent system and reserves the ‘provisions . . . relating to . . .  jurisdiction’ to each member state” (quoting Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887, 898-99 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  In addition, although there is case law authorizing the adjudication of U.S. copyright claims in foreign courts (and, I would note, vice versa), the court notes that “[u]nlike with copyrights, receiving patent protections in the U.S. requires a rigorous application and examination process”; and he cites the act of state doctrine, which in general counsels against second-guessing the exercise of another state’s sovereign authority.  Third, the court finds that an ASI would not offend international comity because “comity is implicated by ‘public international issues,’ but not ‘private’ disputes” (though one might ask, if that is the case, why courts should bother considering comity at all in the context of deciding whether to grant an ASI in a private dispute).  He does note, however, that

There are factors present in this case that are abnormal in the ASI context. For instance, the Court is unaware of any cases where an ASI has been granted to terminate the first filed proceedings between the parties. Moreover, this case features the unusual argument by Onesta that BMW would be inconvenienced by defending in a forum outside of its domicile, while BMW seeks courts outside its domicile. . . . But there is no recognized first-filed principle. See Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The mere filing of a suit in one forum does not cut off the preexisting right of an independent forum to regulate matters subject to its prescriptive jurisdiction.”); Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 887 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The order in which the domestic and foreign suits were filed ... [is] not dispositive.”). And making sure that U.S. patents are tried in U.S. courts, which regularly apply U.S. patent law is more “convenien[t]” for the courts of each sovereign. . . .Finally, given Onesta's domicile in the United States and BMW's desire to litigate here, the Court finds that neither party would be inconvenienced by doing so. . . .

It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal if the parties do not settle the matter or at least agree to some procedure for resolving it--though I suspect that under U.S. law it may be difficult to overturn the decision on appeal.  Nevertheless, here are a few random thoughts:

1.     The court invokes the United States’ interest in adjudicating its own patents and protecting litigants’ rights to a jury trial, to fact discovery, and to an invalidity determination with erga omnes effect.  But of course all of those things would be unavailable in a case in which a foreign court adjudicates foreign copyright rights, about which the court is more sanguine.  And is it really true that the adjudication of U.S. patent infringement claims in a U.S. court is “necessary to provide full justice to the parties” because BMW seeks a jury trial?  To my knowledge, no other country in the world provides jury trials in patent infringement actions (or discovery to the same extent the U.S. does, for that matter); does that mean that every country’s system is unjust?  I suppose the response would be no, it’s just that actions for the infringement of U.S. patent rights come with a guarantee of right to trial by jury, as a matter of U.S. constitutional law (and regardless of whether the party requesting a jury is the plaintiff or the defendant, domestic or foreign), and therefore the Munich court’s inability to convene a jury would render its decision on U.S. patent infringement claims unjust.  But again, if that is true, why isn’t it true for copyright claims—or other instances in which foreign courts might make determinations under U.S. law?

2.  A more serious problem, in my view, is that in countries such as Germany infringement and validity determinations are bifurcated—determined by different courts in different proceedings—such that a judgment of infringement may be entered with regard to a patent later determined to be invalid (the “injunction gap”).  Moreover, injunctive relief in favor of the prevailing patentee is near-automatic, indeed often viewed as being part of the claim for relief, rather than merely a remedy as in Anglo-American law.  See my new book, p.10 n.23 (stating that “in common law systems the law of remedies is viewed as something of a stand-alone discipline, albeit one that may be applied in different ways in relation to different bodies of private law.  In civil law countries such as Germany, by contrast, rights and remedies are viewed as being more closely connected, such that, as indicated in the text above, the infringement of a patent (for example) almost always results in the entry of an injunction. See Franz Hofmann and Franziska Kurz, Introduction to the “Law of Remedies,” in Law of Remedies: A European Perspective 3, 5 (Franz Hofmann and Franziska Kurz eds., Intersentia Ltd. 2019) (stating that “[u]nlike in common law countries, the question is not: which remedies are available to cure a wrong? Instead, German lawyers comprehend the legal system as a compilation of ‘subjective rights’”).”  So if a German court were to decide the infringement action against BMW, would it have to depart from its standard practice and consider whether the U.S. patent is valid?  Would the availability of an injunction be determined under German or under U.S. (eBay) law?  Beats me—but I can see why BMW, despite not being “inconvenienced” by litigating in its home forum, might prefer to take its chances in Texas, despite the possible risk of a larger damages award under U.S. law, if the case were to proceed that far.

3.  As many readers know, German courts generally disapprove of other states granting ASIs directed against the litigation of disputes or the enforcement of judgments in German courts.  That perspective may not matter so much here, however, if the German court itself would prefer not to have to decide some of the questions above, or if it would be inclined in any event to stay the adjudication of the U.S. patents pending proceedings in the U.S. (something the CJEU expressly suggested as a possibility in a case in which an E.U. court is asked to adjudicate a claim arising under another E.U. member state’s law).  But let’s imagine, just for the sake of argument, a case in which an E.U. court was asked to adjudicate a claim for the infringement of a U.S. patent and was not willing to cede jurisdiction to the U.S. court that enjoins the E.U. plaintiff from proceeding in the E.U.; maybe the E.U. court issues an AASI in response.  Which country is violating the comity norm:  the country issuing the ASI (which, one could agree, indirectly interferes with the operation of a foreign court), or the court that claims the right to adjudicate foreign patent claims (which, one could argue, indirectly interferes with the operation of its counterpart)?  Note that the WTO arbitration award last summer in the dispute between the EU and China can be read as disapproving both of ASIs (that is, disapproving of them beyond the context of the Chinese ASI policy at issue) and of the adjudication of foreign IP rights.  See my post on the WTO decision here, points 6b and 6c.  Then again, what precedential value, if any, does a WTO arbitration award have?

4.  There is some non-binding authority under U.S. law that might disagree with the position staked out by Judge Albright in BMW.  For example, section 211 of the American Law Institute’s 2007 Principles of the Law—Intellectual Property, titled “Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Claims,” recommends that, in general, “a court is competent to adjudicate claims arising under foreign laws pertaining to the subject matter of these Principles,” as long as it has subject matter and personal matter jurisdiction under local law, and as long as “[a] judgment holding registered rights granted under the laws of another State invalid is effective only to resolve the dispute between or among the parties to the action.”  Similarly, in her dissent in Voda v. Cordis, 476 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Judge Pauline Newman disputed, among other things, the characterization of patent grants as “acts of state” (as opposed to ministerial acts) for purposes of the act of state doctrine, and also did not believe that the Paris Convention or TRIPS Agreement “prohibits resolution by a national court of private disputes that include foreign patent rights.  She wrote:

The panel majority raises the specter that foreign courts might adjudicate United States patent rights, proposing that if our courts are permitted to decide questions under foreign patent law, other countries will feel free to decide questions of United States patent law. Cordis too sounds the alarm, stating that creative litigants will choose exotic foreign forums to resolve complex patent issues, and that the district court's decision will open the door to international chaos. I doubt that a United States district court is an exotic foreign forum; and it is not new for courts in other countries to apply the law of other nations when warranted. . . . All nations have recognized their obligation to provide a judicial forum to address disputes involving their citizens; no warrant has been shown to remove foreign patents from this purview.

Judge Newman’s dissent did not expressly grapple with Paris Convention articles 2(3) and 4bis, however, though perhaps an argument could be made that neither provision necessarily or inherently entails exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction.  Whether that is the correct reading of the Convention, I’m not sure.  

Theme

This event brings together leading and upcoming scholars to explore how digital transformation – from AI in adjudication to fully online proceedings – is reshaping our legal systems, while raising important questions about access to justice, procedural fairness, and the rule of law.

Programme

• A keynote by Dr. Benjamin Grimm, Minister of Justice and for Digitalisation (Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany)
• Expert panels on:
  • Private International Law (Prof. Dr. Susanne Lilian Gössl, LL.M. (Tulane); Prof. Dr. Frederick Rieländer, LL.M. (Cambridge); Asst.-Prof. Dr. Kirsten Henckel; Asst.-Prof. Dr. Benedikt Schmitz)
  • Civil Procedure (Prof. Dr. Gralf-Peter Calliess; Prof. Dr. Pauline Ernste; Patrick Koerts)
  • Criminal Procedure (Prof. Dr. Hannah Ofterdinger; Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Dorris de Vocht; Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Laura Peters; Asst.-Prof. Dr. Glenn Thodé)
  • Administrative Law (Prof. Dr. Sarah Rachut; Prof. Dr. Sofia Ranchordas; Asst.-Prof. Dr. Ida Varošanec)
• Elevator pitches by emerging scholars presenting cutting-edge research (Serap Bilgin, Noelle Funk, Sabrina Pölle, Constanze Rothermel, Anne Spijkstra)
• Plenty of time for discussion and networking, including coffee breaks, lunch, poster sessions, and an optional conference dinner

The full programme can be found on the conference website: https://weakerparties.eu/events/digitalisation-of-justice/

Time and Venue

• 29 May 2026, 8.30-17.10 CET
• Venue: House of Connections, Grote Markt 21, Groningen, the Netherlands

Registration

• This event is strictly in-person only.
• Attendance is free of charge.
• Register here: https://weakerparties.eu/events/digitalisation-of-justice/

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

Ignacio Tirado: UNIDROIT on the Occasion of Its (first) 100 Years

In the editorial, UNIDROIT on the Occasion of Its (First) 100 Years, Ignacio Tirado, Secretary General of UNIDROIT, traces the organisation’s origins and evolution, reflects on how it has navigated a turbulent century, and offers thoughts on how its centenary should be celebrated and what lies ahead for the Institute.

Wolfgang Wurmnest und Marie-Sophie Pillin: Der Data Act: Ein punktuelles europäisches Vertragsrecht für den Zugang und die Nutzung von Daten

Wolfgang Wurmnest and Marie-Sophie Pillin on Der Data Act: Ein punktuelles europäisches Vertragsrecht für den Zugang und die Nutzung von Daten highlights key private law provisions of the European Data Act. It analyzes the relationship between data controllers, users, and recipients, which in future will primarily be governed by contracts. In addition, the paper examines the new European rules on unfair contract terms.

Christian Kohler, Marlene Brosch, Jean-Christophe Puffer-Mariette: Unionsrecht und Privatrecht: Zur Rechtsprechung des EuGH im Jahre 2024

In Unionsrecht und Privatrecht: Zur Rechtsprechung des EuGH im Jahre 2024, Christian Kohler, Marlene Brosch and Jean-Christophe Puffer-Mariette offer an overview of numerous judgments of the ECJ in 2024 that are relevant to private law. Particularly noteworthy are decisions on the effects of Union citizenship and the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation as well as numerous judgments on consumer protection directives. A number of issues relating to the prohibition of discrimination and market freedoms have also been decided; judgments on copyright are equally worth mentioning.

Susanne Gössl: Das „Anerkennungsprinzip“ und das Internationale Recht der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit nach „Mirin“

Susanne Gössl on Das „Anerkennungsprinzip“ und das Internationale Recht der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit nach „Mirin“ comments on the recent ECJ decision of 4 October 2024, C-4/23 – Mirin regarding gender identity. The note explores how the Court strengthens the portability of a lawfully acquired gender identity within the EU, the limits of public policy objection, the treatment of non-binary gender entries, and the broader consequences of Mirin for the acceptance of a personal status in EU private international law. Finally, it assesses the repercussions of the judgment for German law.

For those interested in the EU’s sustainability framework, the article by Moritz Böbel, Ronjini Ray, and Marc-Philippe Weller on Die EU-Entwaldungsverordnung und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Globalen Süden am Beispiel von Indien provides an analysis of the EU’s deforestation regulation and its impacts on the Global South, focusing on India.

The cases discussed in this year’s survey address (among other things) the situs of cryptocurrency, exploding batteries in e-cigarettes, the sale of an antique military tank, the validity of an Urfi marriage ceremony, whether the Hague Service Convention prohibits email service on defendants in China, the enforcement of a Philippine forfeiture judgment, and claims of expropriation by German authorities during the Soviet occupation after World War II.

This annual survey was admirably maintained by Symeon Symeonides for three decades. The present authors are pleased to have extended this tradition.

It contains constructive amendments to the original Commission’s Parenthood Proposal and intends to bring it more in line with the acquis and general considerations of EU PIL. Furthermore, it puts the best interest of the child in the focus of the analysis.

By Ross Pey, Western University, Canada

1. Introduction

In Case C-86/23 E.N.I. and Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG II (‘HUK-COBURG II’), the principal issue that arose was whether a Bulgarian compensation provision may be interpreted as having mandatory effect. In suggesting that it does not, the Court required the facts to have sufficiently close links with the forum. (Hereinafter the ‘sufficient connexion test’) Ostensibly, a freestanding sufficient connexion test could be viewed as a disguised jurisdictional control of the forum rather than part of a mandatory law analysis. In doing so, parallels to renvoi and forum non conveniens are drawn.

2. Facts

The daughter of the Bulgarian claimants died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The person responsible was insured by the defendant. The claimants commenced a claim in Bulgaria against the defendant for non-material damages suffered for the loss of their daughter. (HUK-COBURG II at [16]–[17])

The case was dismissed on appeal. As German law governed the claim under the Rome II Regulation, the claimants ‘had not established that the mental pain and suffering sustained had caused pathological harm’ required under German law. (HUK-COBURG II at [20], [24], [51])

Crucially, the Court also said that Bulgarian law, in particular Article 52 Zakon za zadalzheniyata i dogovorite (‘ZZD’), did not apply to the case as a mandatory overriding rule under Article 16 Rome II Regulation. This issue as to whether the ZZD applied as a mandatory overriding rule was appealed to the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation), which then referred the question to the ECJ.

3. The CJEU’s Reasoning

In essence, the ECJ said that although it is for the member state court to assess whether Article 52 ZZD was a mandatory overriding rule, it strongly suggested that it did not. (HUK-COBURG II at [47]-[54]). In the operative part, the Court said that that the Rome II Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a forum law ‘cannot be regarded as an ‘overriding mandatory provision’, within the meaning of that article, unless, where the legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum, the court before which the case has been brought finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that national provision was adopted [.]’ (Emphasis mine)

4. Issues with Linking Sufficient Connexion and Mandatory Law

When faced with an allegedly mandatory provision, HUK-COBURG II requires a three-step analysis: (1) identify whether the law has a mandatory effect, (2) identify whether the facts have a sufficiently close connexion with the forum, and (3) determine whether the facts fall under the statute. One reading of the sufficient connexion test in this context is that it is intrinsic to the concept of mandatory law and is read in by the ECJ into the requirements of Article 16 Rome II Regulation. [1] However, there are two issues with this view.

Firstly, it may be that a sufficient territorial connexion forms part of the reason why a forum statute is a mandatory statute and is relevant to determining whether a mandatory rule applies to the facts.[2] But linking territorial connexion and mandatory effect is problematic as they are analytically distinct. In Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29, Lord Llyod-Jones warned that there is a risk of ‘confusion’ if both territoriality and mandatory effect are conflated. The former relates to the intrusion into the territorial affairs of another state, while the latter relates to ‘whether the public policy of the forum displaces the more modest presumption that statutes only apply if they form part of the applicable law.’[3]

Secondly, one might argue that sufficient territorial connexion is required for a forum rule to be deemed a mandatory rule. But the difficulty here is why a territorial connexion with the forum matters at all. The point of mandatory overriding rules is that such rules are so important to the forum that they justify the departure from the law chosen by default choice of law rules. Viewed this way, it is difficult to see why the facts must be sufficiently connected with the forum for a mandatory law to apply. Forum mandatory overriding rules operate precisely because they are reflections of fundamental values of the forum. Requiring a territorial connexion could dilute this.

This is not to say that the Bulgarian law ought to be viewed as mandatory law. Rather, from an interpretative standpoint, grounding a rejection simply because the Bulgarian law fails to satisfy a sufficient connexion test is at least open to question.

5. A Disguised Jurisdiction Analysis?

From the above discussion, there exist questions regarding the role of a freestanding connexion test with the concept of overriding mandatory law. It is, however, plausible to read the judgment differently, where the sufficient connexion test is a jurisdictional analysis of forum choice disguised as a choice of law analysis.

Firstly, this interpretation is not precluded by the judgment itself. In the operative part, the ECJ stated that the ‘legal situation in question has sufficiently close links with the Member State of the forum’ before the forum court seised conducts a mandatory law analysis. Further, in the Court’s own analysis of what constitutes mandatory law from paragraphs 37 to 54, the Court did not place reliance on the lack of a sufficient territorial connexion. It was a factor in its own right (paragraphs 32 to 36) but does not seem necessary to the mandatory law analysis and the suggestion that Art 52 ZZD does not have a mandatory effect.

Secondly, both the ECJ judgment and the Advocate General’s opinion suggest this. The Court observed at paragraph 36 that although the claim was brought by the parents, who are domiciled in Bulgaria, the accident took place in Germany and was insured by a German insurer. The daughter who died and the person who caused the accident were Bulgarians, but are now residents in Germany. To a common lawyer, this discussion bears a striking resemblance to Step 1 of the forum non conveniens analysis in Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC 460, where the court asks which jurisdiction has the most real and substantial connexion with the dispute (ie. the ‘natural forum’). The jurisdictional impetus is fortified by the Advocate General’s opinion, which at paragraph 53 explicitly states that ‘the requirement of a close link helps to prevent forum shopping.’

This jurisprudential instinct to discuss the sufficiency of connexion is not unwarranted. Under the Brussels I bis Regulation, jurisdiction is allocated by a series of brightline rules, normally based on the domicile of the defendant (Article 4), and at times the claimant (for instance, under Article 11). Crucially, in Case C-281/02 Andrew Owusu v N. B. Jackson, the ECJ erred on the side of certainty in rejecting the doctrine of forum non conveniens. But in doing so, it deprived the courts of a flexible tool to control jurisdiction, making an indirect control via choice of law rules understandable.[4]

In fact, controlling jurisdiction via choice of law is not new. Briggs observes in 1998 that the doctrine of renvoi has, in part, served such a function in English law historically.[5] In this vein, the doctrine of forum non conveniens was part of the ‘tailor-made rules against forum shopping which went straight to the heart of the problem, and did not seek to operate by remote control.’[6]

If so, HUK-COBURG II is another example of the interrelatedness of the conflict of laws. When jurisdictional rules are understood rigidly, the pressure points move to other areas, including the choice of law.

The general course in private international law delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law by Louis d’Avout during the 2022 Summer Session was 

Two caveats. First, translations, and inevitable related inaccuracies, are mine. Second, it should be stated at the outset that a work of such scope is not easily summarized: the demonstration, subtle and original, is based on detailed and nuanced analyses and is supported by an impressive bibliographical apparatus, of remarkable diversity. One may note in that respect the author’s relentless effort to draw on a very large number of courses delivered at the Academy of International Law, both in private and in public international law. It is unfortunately impossible to reflect such wealth in the present review other than in a very selective manner.

The course’s program 

The program of the course as encapsulated in the title is ambitious. The idea of “coherence” in law, and especially in private international law (PIL), is particularly evocative. On the one hand, it evokes the often recalled need to preserve the coherence of the forum’s legal order in the face of the disturbance that foreign norms may generate. On the other hand, it also conveys the traditional objective pursued by conflict of laws: the international harmony of solutions. The use of the term “global” (mondiale) gives this search for coherence a particular breadth: it does not concern merely the legal treatment of international or transnational private relationships—the traditional object of private international law—but rather the articulation of legal regimes (State and non-State, domestic and international, public and private) whose still largely disordered coexistence is one of the defining features of our time. As will be seen, the perspective adopted in the course is normative, oriented toward the pursuit of global legal coherence. This search must be understood in a double sense: to uncover coherence where it exists, and to restore it where it does not. At a first level, coherence refers to the rationality and predictability of legal regimes, as well as to their effectiveness. Such coherence (or at least the aspiration to it) is regarded by the author as consubstantial with law itself.

The context in which this search for coherence unfolds is marked by a triple dynamic. On the one hand, increased individual mobility and technological change have diminished the relevance of geographical distance, and even of the crossing of borders. On the other hand, and correlatively, new forms of inter-State cooperation or coordination have emerged. Added to this is the development of non-State and/or transnational legal regimes. These factors give rise to collisions between legal regimes, confronting individuals and enterprises alike. The author proposes to draw on the technical and conceptual wealth of private international law in order to bring coherence to this normative disorder. After all, PIL has a (multi-)millennial experience in resolving conflicts of norms.

Two points are central to the author’s approach. First, the search for coherence must be conducted at the supra-State level. The State level is still relevant for reasoning about conflicts of norms and their resolution, but with a view to a “framework extended to global society” (p. 29). Second, although the search for coherence benefits individuals, it does not necessarily entail a subjective right of individuals to the transnational coherence of law, that is, a right to enjoy a single legal status notwithstanding the crossing of borders and the diversity of legal systems (p. 41). 

Starting point and definitions

An introductory chapter, strikingly entitled “Confronting Global Legal Anarchy” (“Face à l’anarchie juridique mondiale”), provides the starting point of the demonstration and key definitional elements. Legal coherence does not mean “the uniformity of applicable rules and the absolute centralization of dispute resolution mechanisms, supplemented by a transnational enforcement police force,” but rather “the state of a system in which coordination between partial legal systems is generalized and whose effects are guaranteed, for the benefit of the predictability and legal certainty expected by each subject or user of the law” (p. 54). The expression “partial legal systems” refers, it seems, to the incompleteness of any legal system in the perspective of a transnational relation (here at least, comp. p. 117). The definition of coherence introduces the idea of a spontaneous coordination, which plays an important role in the demonstration, as will become clear. The author also revisits the traditional definitions of private international law. Rather than a conceptual definition centered on the notion of internationality (internationality of sources or subject-matter internationality), he prefers a functional definition (p. 75), structured around two objectives: respect for the legitimate expectations of the parties despite their exposure to diverse legal regimes, and the international harmony of solutions, which implies an “aptitude for universality” (p. 75) and the exportability of the solution adopted. Again this definition will prove instrumental in the demonstration (particularly to show that the singularity of PIL rules should not be overstated, compared to other norms).

After a brief historical overview presented in six evocative tableaux, the author examines the merits of three intellectual representations of the discipline, all of which share a connection with general international law: State-centrism, inter-Statism, and the allocation of jurisdiction. The author’s approach is structured by this concern with the relationship between private and public international law. In so doing, he deliberately continues a doctrinal current that has become rather minority in contemporary PIL scholarship (at least in France). In any event, private international law brings together mechanisms for opening State legal orders and articulating them with one another (p. 111).

The author then turns to defining “inter-State and transnational coherence of law” (p. 112). He devotes particularly dense pages to this issue, pages which are difficult to summarize but are decisive for the originality of his perspective. He emphasizes institutional and procedural coherence—that is, the institutions, procedures, mechanisms and actors whose work produces coherence. This procedural coherence is fundamental and constitutes a sine qua non condition of a legal system, whereas normative coherence (the consistency and logical character of the solutions produced) is both secondary—since it flows from institutional and procedural work—and closer to an ideal, often imperfectly achieved. 

Equally decisive is the author’s conviction as to the necessity of coherence. The “praise of incoherence” (p. 127) is dismissed as stemming from a confusion between normative coherence and institutional coherence: the former, being ideal, may fail to convince, whereas the latter is genuinely necessary for the jurist. In short, coherence and incoherence are opposing poles of a complex reality; the existence of incoherences is not sufficient to discredit the need for coherence. As a result, coherence is both necessary and achievable.

Basically, incoherence arises from the tendency of legal systems—particularly the most sophisticated and robust among them, namely States—to reason in autarchy and to impose their own viewpoint (often in the name of their internal coherence) at the expense of the “global rationality of the law applied”. What makes coherence possible is the openness of legal systems to one another (and thus openness to otherness) and their willingness to cooperate. The international (public) legal order itself is marked by a corresponding tension between unilateralism (each sovereign acting alone) and concertation (sovereigns acting together). Coherence in the international order may follow a horizontal (inter-State) or a vertical (supra-State) model. The vertical, supra-State and overarching (tending toward monism) model allows for a form of universality (a jus commune). By contrast, the horizontal model is characterized by pluralism. The author associates each model with a method of private international law: verticality and monism allow for bilateralism, whereas horizontality (and pluralism) implies unilateralism (p. 169). 

The book’s outline and summary

The horizontal/vertical distinction structures the book. The first part is devoted to the study of horizontal interactions: independent “legal spheres” interact with one another, coherence is not guaranteed but may be produced through mutual consideration and interaction. The second part focuses on institutional verticalization, a partial and complementary dynamic (limited to certain sectors or regions of the world), based on the creation and intervention of supra-State bodies capable of producing coherence for the benefit of individuals.

Horizontal interactions between legal systems

The first part of the course is therefore devoted to what the author terms “horizontal” interactions between “independent legal spheres”. In this context, he examines the mechanisms of classical private international law: conflicts of laws and conflicts of jurisdictions or authorities. Here, the “conjunction” of viewpoints (that is, of legal orders) with respect to an international private relationship is, in a sense, voluntary rather than mandatory. It operates through two main sets of mechanisms: first, the attachment of situations to a particular law, court, or authority; and second, cross-border cooperation between authorities (for example, the taking of evidence, the delegation of formalities, or the enforcement of judgments).

The spirit of Relativism

In the first chapter, the author sets out the rudimentary elements of the discipline. These rudiments appear clearly in historical perspective. He explores the tools spontaneously used by courts in order to take account of the foreignness of a person or a situation vis-à-vis the forum. This perspective is original, in particular because it does not merely recount a historical evolution but demonstrates the persistence of these instruments in contemporary PIL. The earliest manifestations of the openness of State legal orders were guided by a concern to achieve equity “formulated from the standpoint of the lex fori”, through recognition of the foreign elements of the situation to be regulated, combined with interpretative techniques applied to the law of the forum to reach a fair outcome. The author emphasizes that these instruments, rudimentary though they may be, are not devoid of subtlety. At their root lies a form of judicial spontaneity oriented toward the pursuit of equity in cross-border relationships. 

This pursuit is guided by a spirit of legal relativity: the transnational private relationship is exposed to a diversity “of laws, customs or values” (p. 187), and this diversity must be considered. The author thus shows how foreignness and relativity constitute the foundational elements of what he terms “international civil law”. The foreigner receives particular treatment when the lex fori is applied, and the international or foreign situation calls either for a reception mechanism (and, correlatively, for limits to relativism, notably an international public policy exception subject to modulation), or for a form of spatial limitation of the lex fori (as exemplified by the presumption against extraterritoriality in U.S. law). The author further demonstrates how these instruments continue to be used in contemporary law to manage situations of legal otherness within the domestic legal order itself. States are prompted to limit the undifferentiated and uniform application of their own laws through compromise solutions, often entrusted to the judiciary (see, from this perspective, the discussion of the Molla Sali judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, p. 218). The identity of individuals may likewise warrant specific accommodations from the inward pull of communities. The author reflects on the relationship between this spirit of relativism (both international and internal) and a form of liberal individualism, particularly as expressed through the growing judicial consideration of fundamental rights. From this perspective, the application of the principle of proportionality in private law may be seen as a manifestation of this spirit of relativity.

The author then explores the tactics developed by judges—and still employed today—to loosen, where necessary, the constraints of the lex fori, which remains the unavoidable starting point for the forum judge when confronted with an international situation. These tactics include the self-limitation of the law of the forum (see, for example, the analysis of the Gonzalez-Gomez decision of the French Conseil d’État, p. 266), creative interpretation of the lex fori, prise en consideration of foreign law, and judge-made international substantive rules. Judicial creativity, however, has its limits: true conflicts are difficult to overcome (see the analysis of unilateral techniques, p. 290 et seq.). The spontaneous modulation of the lex fori, while significant, reveals certain weaknesses and highlights the need for a selective method that appears to “allocate competences among the various legal spheres or among the different poles of law production” (p. 217).

Connecting factors and conflicts rules

The following chapter is devoted to connecting factors, whether from the standpoint of jurisdictional competence or of the applicability of laws. One of the drawbacks of the spontaneous judicial method of adapting the lex fori described in the preceding chapter lies in its casuistic nature, which proves ill-suited to the massification of international private relationships. The author defines the technique of connecting factors in general terms as establishing a rational link between a transnational situation and either a specific legal regime, whether domestic or conventional, or a collective entity (a State or an international organization) (p. 319). He devotes particularly thorough and insightful developments to connecting factors, highlighting their richness, diversity and complexity (see the synthesis at p. 344 et seq.).

Among other points, the author rejects an overly rigid opposition between unilateralism and bilateralism, noting that “the connecting operation may function in both directions” (p. 323): the connecting factor may operate either on the side of the legal consequence or on that of the presupposition of the rule. He usefully distinguishes between the policy of the connecting factor—that is, the intention guiding its author—and the justice of the connecting factor, which results from it and may be assessed independently. The respective connecting roles of bilateral conflict-of-laws rules, unilateral applicability rules, and jurisdictional rules are thus clarified. In another original move, the author also draws a link between the recognition of a foreign judgment and the operation of connecting factors, particularly from the perspective of reviewing the origin of the judgment (indirect jurisdiction).

Following these general observations, the author successively examines jurisdictional connecting factors (judicial or administrative) and substantive connecting factors. With regard to the former, one may summarize (see p. 398) the rich analyses developed as follows. Jurisdictional (or administrative) connecting factors are distinct from substantive connecting factors. They are unilateral (save under conventional regimes) and generally plural and alternative (with some exceptions), giving rise to a situation of “concurrent international availability” of authorities belonging to several legal orders. These connecting factors are not purely localizing: they always have a purpose grounded in considerations of appropriateness, sometimes linked to substantive aspects of the dispute. In any event, the connecting factor is not purely procedural. It affects the substance of the dispute (the forum applies its own procedural law and its own private international law), and it expresses a (legal) policy, understood as a balancing of the interests at stake. As regards administrative authorities, the connecting factors adopted are generally dictated by the applicability of the administrative law concerned, which the authority is tasked with enforcing (according to the model of the lex auctoris). The unilateral and diverse nature of jurisdictional rules creates risks for the coherence of the legal treatment of situations, thus calling for conciliatory mechanisms, namely the forum’s consideration of foreign judicial activity.

With respect to “substantive connecting factors” (conflict of laws rules, then), L. d’Avout claims from the outset a “substantive impregnation of the rules, imbued with objectives and revealing legal policies forged by their authors” (p. 402). These considerations are sometimes specific to the international context and sometimes derive from the orientations of domestic substantive law (often a combination of both). Faithful to his commitment to methodological flexibility, the author develops the idea of a progressive crystallization of synthetic bilateral rules, starting from an intuitive unilateralism (see pp. 412–416). Here he draws on the German doctrine of Bündelung (with reference to Schurig). This approach is convincing with regard to the formation of connecting categories. It is complemented by a sophisticated functional approach (with reference to the work of Professor Brilmayer in the United States). The choice of a connecting factor is above all a matter of appropriateness, taking into account both the divergent interests of the individuals directly concerned and, through consideration of externalities, the collective interests affected by the situation (p. 435).

These balances are struck by the author of the rule and are therefore liable to vary from one State to another, or where the rule has been adopted at a supranational level (for example, at the European level). The author thus distances himself from an apolitical, universalist, but also singularist vision of the discipline: the conflict-of-laws rule is a rule like any other, a deliberate rule. On this basis, the author addresses the classical difficulties of the conflict-of-laws method: characterization and dépeçage (pp. 439 et seq.), conflicts of systems (p. 443), and the authority of the conflict-of-laws rule (p. 447). In each case, the analyses are guided by the previously articulated teleological precepts, without any particular search for originality for its own sake (as the author himself acknowledges), but rather by a concern for… coherence.

The pragmatism advocated by the author is not exclusive of visceral attachment to the conflict-of-laws rule as a rule. Targeted adjustments that depart from this abstract mode of regulation (such as the escape clause or the recognition method) have their place, but they must remain subsidiary and be used with caution. Concluding on this point, the author offers a nuanced diagnosis of the connecting rule. As an international extension of domestic legislation, it is indeed an instrument of coherence (or at least of cohesion). Being anchored in the legal order that adopts it, it is however not capable—at least not systematically—of ensuring “the harmonious junction of legal spheres” (p. 473). Mechanical application must therefore be avoided, and the rule must be accompanied by a cooperative attitude, thus offering a transition to the following chapter.

Transnational cooperation

The final chapter of the first part is accordingly devoted to “transnational cooperation” and “communications between authorities”. The author adopts a broad conception of transnational judicial cooperation, ranging from ancillary technical cooperation (such as the taking of evidence or service of documents) to what he terms cooperation-communication, and even co-determination of solutions (p. 477). These mechanisms are important because they offer some remedy to the shortcomings identified earlier (competing jurisdictions and divergence in substantive connecting rules).

The prominence given to these instruments and the analyses developed in this chapter constitute arguably one of the course’s most strikingly original contributions. To be sure, significant scholarly work has already been devoted to international judicial cooperation (see the references cited in the chapter’s introduction). The analyses presented here stand out nonetheless both for their ambition to offer a comprehensive reflection on mechanisms that had previously often been addressed piecemeal, and, above all, for their full integration into a private international law framework, on an equal footing, so to speak, with the conflict-of-laws rule. This innovation is made possible by the course’s overarching perspective, since transnational judicial cooperation is fully part of the search for the global coherence of law.

L. d’Avout proposes a useful typology: administrative or judicial assistance or mutual legal assistance (acts auxiliary to the main proceedings); cooperation at the periphery of the main proceedings (a category that includes the recognition of judgments and public acts—see the justification at p. 499 et seq.); and more innovative hypotheses of co-determination of legal solutions, whether within a conventional framework (the example given is the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children, p. 507) or through spontaneous coordination. It is in respect of this last category that the developments are the most interesting and innovative (see the examples given at p. 519 et seq.).

On this basis, the author constructs a genuine theory of the concerted resolution of international disputes (illustrated by a traffic-light metaphor, p. 530). Without being able to go into the details of this theory here, its starting point lies in the ideal unity of the proceedings on the merits, possibly supplemented abroad by collaborative ancillary measures and by a subsequent review of acceptability (namely, recognition of the judgment on the merits). Because this ideal is not always achievable—nor even always desirable—additional instruments exist to ensure reciprocal consideration of judicial activity: stays of proceedings (potentially conditional upon a prognosis as to the regularity of the forthcoming judgment), or even the forum’s consideration of the likely outcome of the foreign proceedings. Instruments for managing procedural conflicts also occupy a prominent place (p. 536 et seq.).

The search for coherence does not, however, imply an idealized view of international litigation: frictions do exist, and they cannot always be avoided. What matters is to identify their causes and consequences clearly, rather than proceeding in isolation and disregarding their effects (whether for the parties, or one of them, or for the objectives pursued within a given branch of law). After examining several areas particularly conducive to transnational judicial concertation (family litigation, insolvency, and collective proceedings), the author proposes both existing and potential tools, advancing several stimulating proposals: the transnational procedural agreement and the transnational preliminary reference (question préjudicielle transnationale), to name a few. Should one then recognize an autonomous duty of cooperation incumbent upon judges or authorities in international cases? Characteristically, the author’s answer is cautious: cooperation is not the primary mission of the judge or of an administrative authority; it remains secondary (p. 575). 

Having thus explored the avenues of horizontal cooperation between legal systems—demonstrating both their potential and their limits—and following a rich intermediate conclusion, the author turns to the phenomenon of partial verticalization, which represents their transcendence.

Verticalization

The second part, entitled “Verticalization – Institutional Responses to the Interpenetration of Legal Spheres”, may come as something of a surprise to readers. Indeed, as it goes beyond the horizontality examined thus far, it tends to move away from the classical perspective of private international law. For the author, however, this movement is a natural one, as only a supranational construction is capable of overcoming the residual oppositions between States’ viewpoints. The approach unfolds in two successive stages. The first form of verticality examined is that of federative organizations, such as the European Union, whose role in coordinating legal regimes is undeniable. The second (and more exploratory) form of verticality concerns international law itself: are there international institutions that can be leveraged in the service of the global coherence of law?

The role of federative organizations  

The first chapter of this second part examines “the coherence of law through federative organizations”, that is to say, new modes of articulating legal regimes and of reducing the accumulation and conflict of international rules. The demonstration begins with European regimes of coordination in public law insofar as they affect individuals and companies. European measures facilitating administrative procedures have made it possible to remedy the overlap of national legislation or administrative procedures that necessarily results from individual mobility. European integration has also established articulations of State competences to the same end. Likewise, European Union law has fostered the polymorphous mobility of companies by organizing the normative and administrative interventions of the Member States. The chapter offers further, equally convincing examples: federative organizations effectively articulate sovereignties. The author further proposes a distinction between two aspects : the intensification of horizontal cooperation and institutional federalism. 

The first aspect provides an opportunity to examine mutual recognition as a form of articulation of competences, as well as its limits (p. 664 et seq.). While acknowledging the major achievements of European integration, the author rightly insists on the need to avoid imposing automatic recognition where the underlying control whose outcome is being recognized has not been fully harmonized. The second aspect developed concerns the action of supranational administrative bodies.

The author then turns to the “vertical discipline of conflicts of laws in the interest of private persons”. The issue here is to assess the impact of federative organization on the configuration and resolution of conflicts of laws. Following a preliminary discussion addressing the matter from an institutional perspective (in the form of an illuminating EU–US comparison), the author devotes profound developments to the renewal of conflict-of-laws reasoning brought about by institutional verticality. At the heart of this reflection lies the figure of the supranational judge, an external third party to conflicts of laws between Member States, and a point of “triangulation” of these opposing viewpoints.

Without being able to reproduce the entirety of the argument here, it may be noted that it leads the author to issue the following warning: “an analysis of current law does not support the emergence, within regional spaces, of an unconditional right of individuals to the transnational coherence of law and to a resolution of conflicts of laws favorable to them” (p. 725). Supranational courts that were to lose sight of this would expose themselves to the risk of “judge-made legislation”. The author nevertheless identifies “an intensified duty to take account of discordant viewpoints and, at times, to articulate them in novel ways, in application of the organization’s law and in the absence of harmonization by it of the applicable law”. Particular attention should be drawn to the author’s precise reassessment of the figure of so-called “diagonal conflicts”, based on a fruitful distinction between horizontal conflicts resolved along the vertical axis through fundamental rights, and frictions between a supranational regime and a State regime (see pp. 761 et seq.).

Verticality in public international law

The final chapter is both the natural culmination of the overall demonstration and one that will likely most surprise PIL scholars. Having examined the effects of the verticality of federative organizations of States on conflicts between legal regimes, the author considers it natural to search directly within international law for instruments capable of coordinating legal regimes applicable to private persons. The surprise may stem from the fact that contemporary private international law doctrine—at least in France—has largely ceased to look to general international law as a remedy for deficits in legal coordination.

The author’s perspective here is once again innovative. While there is no substantive subjective right of individuals or companies exposed to discordant legal treatment, the possibility of a procedural subjective right may be envisaged “insofar as such a faculty allows, either immediately or following unsuccessful recourse before State bodies, access to an impartial judge capable of stating the law or of reviewing the manner in which it has previously been applied” (p. 795). The author thus embarks on a quest for this emerging procedural right in its various modalities (individual claims against the State; claims mediated through another State or an international organization). This leads him to explore avenues as diverse as investment arbitration, the fascinating experience of binational courts (and their spontaneous production of private international law solutions, p. 819 et seq.), as well as the International Court of Justice, whose case law is scrutinized to detect the tentative emergence of substantive rights of individuals. The author perceives here a potential for a de-specialization of the Law of Nations through the expansion of its addressees (p. 874).

The author then turns to international institutional fragmentation, that is, the fragmentation of the various regimes (territorial State regimes, special international regimes). He concludes that techniques of horizontal interaction between these legal spheres should be developed, and possibly even hierarchical principles (p. 901). A solution might lie in seizing an authority capable of arbitrating conflicts of competences exercised by independent international bodies, by expanding the advisory procedure before the International Court of Justice, or even by entrusting it with a mission of resolving these conflicts of competence.

Finally, the author seeks to determine whether, in order to transcend the multiplicity of clashing legal regimes, it might be possible to invent and construct a new “jus commune” (droit commun). He advances three series of proposals or concluding observations in this regard. The first concerns the contemporary role of States and State sovereignty: the author calls for the consolidation of an “interface State between local communities and distant communities” (p. 920). In his view, “the durable persistence of State organization requires a minimum level of inter-State cooperation”. The second series of observations concern the possibility of the emergence of this universal jus commune and its defining qualities. The author focuses on points of convergence (principles, values, standards) that make it possible to discern a phenomenon of conjunction between norms of diverse origins. Finally, the author returns once more to the legal discordances affecting international relations to emphasize that, beyond disciplinary, conceptual, and terminological distinctions, a single problem emerges: the lack of coordination between autonomous legal spheres. Given contemporary developments in human societies, spatial mechanisms for resolving certain of these discordances may appear less relevant. What is therefore required is a genuinely substantive coordination, resting on the production of concerted solutions (in the various forms discussed above). For the most difficult cases, the subsidiary intervention of a supranational court could be envisaged.

Highlights

Within the limited space of this review, it is unfortunately not possible to engage in a detailed discussion of the analyses developed, other than by pointing to them in the summary above and advancing the following few remarks, necessarily too general.

The summary above perhaps gives a sense of the scope of the demonstration undertaken. It is particularly impressive and compelling in that it escapes the traditional boundaries of the discipline to embrace the globality of the phenomenon of normative fragmentation. Such an undertaking is remarkable. Global legal incoherences are numerous and addressing them solely through the lens of conflicts of laws or conflicts of jurisdiction would inevitably have been reductive. Moreover, as befits the ambition of a general course, the book offers a comprehensive and original framework for understanding the discipline. It is in a sense conceptualized anew (in object and methods) and endowed with a new vocabulary. This reconceptualization does not however entail revolutionary breaks with existing solutions. Nor is that its ambition: the author warns repeatedly against such ventures. Rather it provides a new perspective that enables regenerating analyses. The author never yields to the temptation of a purely hierarchical response to legal discordances, nor does he idealize horizontality as a sufficient answer to the conflicts generated by the interpenetration of legal spheres. Instead, he patiently reconstructs the diversity of techniques available—horizontal, vertical, institutional, procedural—and evaluates their respective capacities to achieve coherence without sacrificing pluralism. Also worthy of note is the deliberate choice to avoid doctrinal factionalism (unilateralism vs. bilateralism; localizing vs. substantive approaches; monism vs. pluralism) by adopting a generally pragmatic stance. The demonstration is constantly guided by a concern for individuals and economic actors confronted with the accumulation of fragmented regimes. Without positing the existence of a general subjective right to legal coherence, the author identifies concrete expectations, procedural guarantees, and institutional mechanisms capable of mitigating the most difficult effects of normative fragmentation. 

The author concludes with a quote from Savigny, inviting contemporaries to make full use of the doctrinal heritage accumulated in order to contribute to the advancement of scientific progress in the field. This quotation is doubly revealing of the author’s approach. First, the call to exploit accumulated doctrinal wealth is followed here with impressive determination. On every page, the author is keen to draw from both older and more recent sources, and to give resonance to the diversity of viewpoints. Second, the demonstration appears to be guided by an idea of progress: not in the sense that contemporary doctrine or case law would be superior to that of the past, but, as Savigny suggests, in the sense that the conflict-of-laws discipline itself progresses—and thus the coherence of law progresses—through “the combined forces of past centuries.” Without lapsing into naïveté, the argument reflects a form of optimism on the part of the author regarding the march toward global legal coherence. Such optimism is commendable. It may nevertheless be argued that belief in coherence as a cardinal value is not today universal, within and without the law. Thus, for example, the idea that irrational (incoherent) behavior by a State exposes it to sanctions (from within!, p. 920) unfortunately suffers daily contradiction. Moreover, multilateralism is undergoing a crisis so profound (for instance explored here by P. Franzina, from a private international law perspective) that some argue, not without reason, that it has never existed other than as a façade (as contended by the Prime Minister of Canada in a recent speech in Davos). Just over three years after this course was delivered at The Hague Academy, reasons for optimism are scarce. This does not imply that optimism is impossible, perhaps quite the opposite. The 2026 reader may wonder however what influence (if any) the recent aggravation of the crisis of multilateralism (as well as the simultaneous rise of adversarial and transactional sovereignism) would have on the demonstration of the author.

As noted above, the perspective of the course is normative in the sense that the search for coherence is presented as both desirable and possible. The temptation of normative disorder is only briefly considered, and then rejected, essentially on the ground that law and normative disorder are incompatible. Some might find this position not entirely convincing. There are several ways of approaching this issue, but one of them is to try to see what risks being lost in the pursuit of coherence (and thus of order). Alternative, non-modern forms of legality may come to mind. There are alternative presentations of the discipline that assign a predominant role to a radical acceptance of otherness (see, for example, the recent book by H. Muir Watt, reviewed here), from a pluralistic perspective. One of the criticisms then directed at contemporary private international law (at least at bilateralism) is its tendency to make room for alternative normativity only at the cost of its intense reconfiguration through the legality of the forum (through the lens or the rationality of the forum). From this perspective, the search for coherence (the process of rendering coherent) risks appearing as an extension of this rationalizing program. In reality, the opposition should perhaps not be overstated. As noted, L. d’Avout demonstrates methodological flexibility, without a priori privileging either bilateralism or unilateralism (or monism over pluralism, for that matter). Moreover, the coherence at play here is decentered from the forum, rather than imposed from an overhanging forum. In a sense, it is procedural and dialogical between States (as well as other “legal spheres”, i.e. alternative sources of normativity), rather than directly normative. Nevertheless, the demonstration rests on the idea that rationality is the inescapable horizon of law—an idea that maybe will face some pushback. Certain contemporary critiques of the international (legal) order (for instance, the decolonial scholarship, see this paper by S. Brachotte in a PIL perspective) tend instead to deeply deconstruct the very idea of legal coherence. These contemporary dynamics (the deep crisis of multilateralism and the teachings of the critical legal studies) obviously come from very different places and exist on different levels but they have in common a form of skepticism towards the concept of legal coherence. The reader may wonder to what extent they contradict the main thrust of the book, or if they can be reconciled with it, for instance through a reliance on, and reconfiguration of, horizontal (and intrinsically pluralist) modes of coordination. 

This volume follows the convention reported at this blog here and likewise presents the results of the UniPAR – Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe project, an EU-co-funded research initiative that addresses some of the most complex legal challenges in cross-border parenthood. Bringing together expert authors from different universities across European Union, the book combines theoretical frameworks with practical insights into how parenthood is recognised and regulated across different Member States. Covering six EU jurisdictions (Spain, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland) the book provides comprehensive national reports and comparative analyses on key issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, adoption, recognition of decisions and birth certificates and judicial cooperation in parenthood matters. The contents are available here.

This scholarly work advances the debate on the need for coherence in legal frameworks governing parentage and family relationships in European Union, especially in contexts involving cross-border mobility, assisted reproductive technologies and the recognition of family statuses across Member States. The final conclusions and recommendations serve both academic and policy audiences, offering structured reflections on legislative gaps and potential paths towards harmonised rules in EU private international law.This is an essential resource that deepens understanding of the legal implications of cross-border parenthood and strengthens the foundation for future legislative reform in European Union.

Programme and Audience

Under the title “Shaping the Future of Private International Law in Europe – Putting Together the Pieces & Filling Gaps”, the conference will address structural developments, unresolved issues, and emerging challenges in European private international law. Special emphasis will be placed on 1) the consolidation of European private international law in a single instrument (EuPIL Act), 2) the unification of international property law (including the protection of cultural objects), and 3) the relationship of European Private International Law with third States.

All topics will be addressed from an analytical and a forward-looking perspective, combining doctrinal reflection with policy-oriented debate. Contributions will come from an internationally diverse group of speakers, reflecting EAPIL’s commitment to comparative and transnational perspectives.

The conference is open to academics, judges, practitioners, policymakers, and early-career researchers with an interest in (European) private international law.

Venue and Organisation

Hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, the conference will take place exclusively in person in Geneva. The choice of venue underscores the international outlook of the event and provides an ideal setting for scholarly exchange and networking.

Registration

Registration is available here. An early-bird rate applies until 15 March 2026, with standard registration available until 17 May 2026. Participation fees vary depending on registration date and include the option to attend the conference dinner. Further details on fees and registration can be found on the conference website.

Why Attend?

The EAPIL Conference 2026 offers a unique opportunity to:

• engage with cutting-edge research in private international law,
• discuss current reform projects and unresolved doctrinal questions,
• connect with leading scholars and practitioners from across jurisdictions, and
• contribute to shaping the future development of the field.

Further Information

More information on the programme, registration, and practical details is available on the conference website.

About EAPIL

The European Association of Private International Law was founded in 2019 to promote the study and development of Private International Law. It has today more than 600 members from more than 70 countries. For more information visit the EAPIL website and follow the EAPIL blog.

For more than 20 years after the handover, Hong Kong courts had regularly noted difficulties with the ‘trial supervision system’ (also known as ‘retrial procedure’ ) in the Chinese Mainland when attempting to recognise and enforce Mainland judgments under the common law, as the trial supervision system was thought to mean that these judgments fail to meet the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement. Such thinking was criticised by scholars as problematic.[1] To address the issue, statutory regimes on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong have been implemented. More recent studies documented changes in the judicial attitude of Hong Kong courts,[2] but there was a lack of definitive rulings to clarify the legal position. This article focuses on the most recent Hong Kong cases which confirmed that the trial supervision system in the Chinese Mainland has no automatic impact on the recognition and enforcement of Mainland judgments in Hong Kong. A party alleging that the trial supervision system has affected the finality and conclusiveness of a Mainland judgment must prove the likelihood of a retrial being ordered through factual and/or expert evidence.

2. Early Cases

This vexed issue was first considered in Chiyu Banking Corp Ltd v Chan Tin Kwun, where Cheung J held that a Mainland judgment was not final and conclusive as it was not ‘unalterable in the court which pronounced it’ due to the trial supervision system.[3] This approach was seemingly affirmed in Lam Chit Man v Lam Chi To, but the Court of Appeal did not conclusively decide on the matter, as both parties did not adduce expert evidence on PRC law regarding the effect of the trial supervision system.[4]

Subsequently, in Lee Yau Wing v Lee Shui Kwan, the Court of Appeal was faced with a challenge against a Hong Kong summary judgment predicated on a Mainland judgment. The majority of the Court did not rule directly on the effect of the trial supervision system.[5] However, Chung J’s dissenting judgment raised the point that the trial supervision system was similar to the grounds of appeal in Hong Kong, and hence should not bar the finding that a Mainland judgment was final and conclusive.[6] This view, although not binding at that time, paved the way for later attempts in distinguishing Chiyu Banking.[7]

With no further cases directly addressing the issue or overruling the Chiyu Banking approach, the trial supervision system proved to be an obstacle for enforcing Mainland judgments under the common law for nearly two decades. The change in judicial attitude was hinted in the 2016 Court of First Instance decision of Bank of China Ltd v Yang Fan.[8] In that case, To J found himself bound by the earlier Court of Appeal decisions, but expressed in obiter that the trial supervision system in the Chinese Mainland had undergone significant changes since 2013 and it was ‘more like an appellate regime’; as such, the mere possibility of the trial supervision system being applicable did not preclude a Mainland judgment from being final and conclusive.[9] Further cases also expressed similar views in obiter.[10] Despite this change in attitude, the law at that time was still ambiguous, and clarifications did not come until much more recently.

3. Recent Cases

Several recent cases in late 2025 and 2026 have substantially clarified the law. It is now evident that under both the common law and statutory regimes in Hong Kong, the existence of the trial supervision system is no longer accepted as a ground to challenge a Mainland judgment as not ‘final and conclusive’ if there is no relevant supporting evidence.

3.1 Common Law Regime

In Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong,[11] one of the disputed issues was whether the trial supervision system would render a Mainland judgment unenforceable for not being final and conclusive under the common law regime. After reviewing the relevant authorities (at [11.1]–[11.25]), DHCJ Jonathan Wong made the following clarifications (at [12.1]–[12.6] and [13.1]–[13.2]):

1. Chiyu Banking cannot be read as authority for the proposition that the trial supervision system per se renders a Mainland judgment not final and conclusive. With reference to Lee Yau Wing (which Cheung J decided the case as Cheung JA), it was emphasised that the line of cases stemming from Chiyu Banking had not authoritatively determined the issue.[12]
2. The correct proposition is this: it is only when a retrial has been ordered that any order made in the original trial ceases to be res judicata between the parties. The possibility of a retrial would not by itself render an original judgment as not res judicata.[13]
3. The trial supervision system per se does not render a Mainland judgment not final or not conclusive. A Mainland judgment will likely satisfy the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement as set out in Nouvion v Freeman:[14]
   1. In the Mainland proceedings, there is no limit as to what arguments can be raised and advanced;
   2. The trial supervision system is considered to be akin to an appeal, especially considering the fact that the judgments are enforceable in the Mainland unless and until a retrial is ordered;
   3. A litigant has no right to re-litigate a matter which has been determined by a Mainland judgment, and their avenues to challenge a first instance ruling is by way of appeal or an application for a retrial;
   4. Parties to a Mainland judgment do not have a unilateral right for retrial, and the potential retrial is conditioned upon the exercise of discretion by an external organ, premised on some error or violation by a judicial officer;
   5. An analogy can be drawn with foreign default judgments, which, despite being liable to be varied or set aside by the court granting it, may nevertheless be final and conclusive for the purpose of common law enforcement unless and until it is set aside; and
   6. The absence of any time limit on the Mainland court and the procuratorate to invoke the trial supervision system does not affect the foregoing analysis, as the mere possibility of an appeal does not preclude a judgment from being final and conclusive under common law.
4. The paramount consideration when considering whether a Mainland judgment is final and conclusive, is the likelihood of a retrial being ordered under the trial supervision system. This is a matter to be demonstrated by factual evidence or expert evidence, or a combination of both. Some relevant considerations include:
   1. The cogency of the Mainland judgment being challenged;
   2. Whether the conditions leading to the invocation of the trial supervision system are satisfied;
   3. Whether the party has made an application under the trial supervision system; and if so, whether the application has been decided and the outcome of the application, or if not, the reasons for not applying; and
   4. If the party has not made or is no longer able to make an application under the trial supervision system, what is the likelihood of the Mainland court or the procuratorate initiating the Retrial Procedure on their own motion.

Sunsco International Holdings Ltd clarified the applicability of previous authorities and definitively affirmed that the trial supervision system is in no way per se an impediment in finding Mainland judgments as final and conclusive under the common law. The mere theoretical possibility of the trial supervision system being invoked should not strip the judgment of finality; such possibility should instead be supported by evidence. In Tsoi Chung Tat Prince v Wei Zhongxia, DHCJ Gary CC Lam further suggested that the question should be determined by expert evidence (but not necessarily oral expert evidence), and the burden of proof is on the party relying on the Mainland judgment to prove that it is final and conclusive by adducing expert evidence on Mainland law.[15]

The principles in Sunsco International Holdings Ltd received support in Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min.[16] The plaintiff in that case sought to enforce a judgment made by the Beijing Higher People’s Court under the common law regime. The decision of DHCJ MK Liu (at [43]–[52]) provided a useful illustration of the application of the clarified common law position. The defendants contended that there were substantive grounds for a retrial as the original judgment lacked evidentiary support and that there might be new evidence not previously considered in the Mainland judgment. These contentions were rejected as flawed or fanciful, and the defendants failed to show an arguable case that there is a likelihood that a retrial would be ordered under the trial supervision system. The Mainland judgment was therefore held to be final and conclusive.

3.2 Statutory Regimes

The clarifications under the statutory regimes were provided in Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Co Ltd.[17] In that case, the plaintiff was seeking to enforce a Mainland judgment handed down by the Huzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The issue was whether the judgment was final and conclusive under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 597) (‘MJREO’), which took effect in 2008.

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, G Lam JA held that subsections (a) to (d) of section 6(1) of the MJREO were meant to be disjunctive and exhaustive regarding the categories of judgments that fall under the MJREO. Specifically, G Lam JA explicitly mapped out the relationship between the relevant provisions of the MJREO and the trial supervision system (at [63]–[66]):

1. Prior to the ‘Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned’ signed in 2006 (‘the 2006 Arrangement’), it had already been noted that the trial supervision system had given rise to issues as to whether Mainland judgments are final and conclusive.[18] Accordingly, draft provisions were designed to address the common law requirements of finality. These provisions eventually made their way into Article 2 of the 2006 Arrangement.
2. Further, in the Report of the Bills Committee on the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, it was noted that the trial supervision system may give rise to finality issues, and ‘special procedures would be adopted in order to address the common law requirements of finality’.[19] As such, section 6(1) of the MJREO was specifically enacted to address the common law requirement that the judgment is final and conclusive.

Hence, it was held that under the statutory regime, potential issues on the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement relating to the trial supervision system were pre-emptively addressed by the enactment of section 6(1) of the MJREO. As long as the judgment falls under the categories listed under section 6(1), the judgment is deemed to be final and conclusive irrespective of the operation of the trial supervision system, and one should not be required to fall back on the common law. The same reasoning was explained by DHCJ KC Chan earlier in Re Shenzhen Qianhai Orient Ruichen Fund Management Co Ltd in early 2025.[20]

It is submitted that the foregoing principles are also very likely be applicable to the expanded statutory regime of the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 645) (‘MJCCMREO’), which came into effect in 2024:

1. The MJCCMREO sought to give effect to the ‘Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’ signed in 2019 (‘the 2019 Arrangement’). Similar to Article 2 of the 2006 Arrangement, Article 4 of the 2019 Arrangement includes provisions relating to the trial supervision system.
2. Section 8 of the MJCCMREO stipulates a list of ‘effective’ Mainland judgments akin to section 6(1) of the MJREO. Thus, the foregoing reasoning by G Lam JA can be applied to section 8 of the MJCCMREO: the list should be treated as exhaustive, and as long as the Mainland judgment falls under any category explicitly stated under section 8, it is capable of being enforced regardless of the effect of the trial supervision system.[21]
3. The MJCCMREO intends to provide a mechanism which is similar to the MJREO for a wider range of judgments in civil and commercial matters, not limited to judgments arising out of an exclusive choice of court agreement.[22] The two ordinances serve similar purposes; for consistency reasons, they should adhere to the same principles regarding the effect of the trial supervision system.[23]

4. Conclusion

These recent clarifications from the Hong Kong courts are much welcomed in resolving the effect of the trial supervision system that had befuddled the courts for almost 30 years. From the author’s perspective, this clarified view must also be correct. Under the common law regime, it is consistent with the modern viewpoint that a possible appeal avenue is not by itself an impediment to the recognition and enforcement of the trial judgment.[24] As for the statutory regimes, it is consistent with the provisions of the 2006 and 2019 Arrangements and the subsequent statutes enacted respectively, the MJREO and the MJCCMREO.

This article is written by Wilson Lui (Centre for Private Law, The University of Hong Kong; Melbourne Law School), with research assistance by Avery Cheung (The University of Hong Kong).

[1] See eg Philip St John Smart, ‘Finality and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments under the Common Law in Hong Kong’ (2005) 5 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 301; Weixia Gu, ‘A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong–China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and Renewed Momentum’ (2020) 52 Cornell International Law Journal 592. See also Section II below.

[2] See eg Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes, Hong Kong Private International Law (Hart Publishing 2025) 279–80.

[3] Chiyu Banking Corp Ltd v Chan Tin Kwun [1996] 2 HKLR 395 (CFI) 399.

[4] Lam Chit Man v Lam Chi To [2001–2003] HKCLRT 141 (CA) [18]–[21].

[5] Lee Yau Wing v Lee Shui Kwan [2007] 2 HKLRD 749 (CA) [15]–[29], [34]–[38]. See also Wu Wei v Liu Yi Ping (unreported, CACV 32/2009, 27 March 2009).

[6] Lee Yau Wing (n 5) [55]. In coming to this conclusion, Chung J admitted that his views had changed from his earlier decision in Lam Chit Man v Cheung Shun Lin [2001–2003] HKCLRT 243 (CA).

[7] Gu (n 1) 611.

[8] Bank of China Ltd v Yang Fan [2016] 3 HKLRD 7 (CFI).

[9] Bank of China Ltd (n 8) [51]–[54].

[10] Jiang Xi An Fa Da Wine Co Ltd v Zhan King [2019] HKCFI 2411 [85]–[90]; Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min [2022] 4 HKC 116, [2022] HKCFI 1027 [65]–[66]; Poon Sing Wah v Poon Sing Nam [2025] HKCFI 720 [117(a)].

[11] Sunsco International Holdings Ltd v Lin Chunrong [2025] HKCFI 5238.

[12] Lee Yau Wing (n 5) [15]; Sunsco International Holdings Ltd (n 11) [12.2].

[13] Bobolas v Economist Newspaper Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1101 (CA).

[14] Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1.

[15] Tsoi Chung Tat Prince v Wei Zhongxia [2026] HKCFI 716 [47].

[16] Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co Ltd v Zhu Min [2026] HKCFI 197.

[17] Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd v Hang Pin Living Technology Company Ltd [2025] 3 HKLRD 447, [2025] HKCA 434.

[18] See also Huarong Overseas Chinese Asset Management Co Ltd v Li Xiaopeng (transliteration) [2025] HKCFI 6402 [54].

[19] Legislative Council of Hong Kong, ‘Report of the Bills Committee on the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill’ LC Paper No CB(2)1521/07-08 (10 April 2008) para 73.

[20] Re Shenzhen Qianhai Orient Ruichen Fund Management Co Ltd [2025] HKCFI 707 [24]–[30], cited in Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd (n 17) [67]–[69].

[21] The Court of Appeal observed the striking similarity between the two sections as well: Huzhou Shenghua Financial Services Co Ltd (n 17) [15].

[22] Legislative Council of Hong Kong, ‘Report of the Bills Committee on Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill’ LC Paper No CB(4)871/2022 (12 October 2022).

[23] See eg Sunsco International Holdings Ltd (n 11) [11.25].

[24] Nouvion (n 14) 13; China NPL Holdings Pte Ltd v Mo Haidan [2021] 1 HKLRD 344, [2020] HKCA 1014 [54]–[57].

Nadia Soboleva and John Hayes have published an article titled Aggregate Royalty for Cellular SEPs in Recent Court Decisions, 11/2025 GRUR Patent 546.  Here is the abstract:

Standards organizations developing cellular communication standards typically require participants to disclose standard essential patents (SEPs) and agree to license such patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. When courts are asked to adjudicate license disputes involving SEPs, they often calculate the implied aggregate royalty for all SEPs in the relevant standard associated with a potential license.  We review five recently litigated FRAND cases and report the aggregate royalty per mobile device in most of these decisions falls in a range from $3 to $16, with an average of $9.25.  The aggregate royalty by the UK Court of Appeal in Optis/Apple is an outlier of $39.47.

The five cases are the U.S. TCL v. Ericsson decision, Unwired Planet, InterDigital v. Lenovo, Optis v. Apple, and the Chinese Oppo v. Nokia decision.  The authors write that these cases “encompass the only publicly available decisions that set a worldwide FRAND royalty for the 4G or 5G cellular standards.”

A few quick things to note.  First, the authors are both from Charles River Associates, and they note that they “have worked on multiple projects involving SEPs, including some of the matters discussed in” their article.  Second, I haven’t endeavored to check the authors’ analysis against the decisions they discuss.  I have no reason too question their analysis, but for now I am just reporting what they state.  Third, a range of $3 to $16 seems pretty broad to me, even without Optis/Apple (the appeal from which is pending before the U.K. Supreme Court).  Fourth, as noted previously on ip fray, the Munich Regional Court recently suggested in its decision involving Wilus and Asus that a rate of 10-18% for all SEPs reasonably necessary for operation of a mobile device would be within the FRAND range (see decision here, para. 294:  “Ausgehend von diesem Wert für den wichtigsten Standard (Mobilfunk) liegt die Gesamtbelastung für ein Mobiltelefon für alle für einen sinnvollen Betrieb erforderlichen Standards (Mobilfunk, Wi-Fi, Streaming, etc.) bei ca. 10% bis 18%.”).  For a mid-priced phone, that would be substantially higher than the aggregate royalty the above authors report, assuming that they and the Munich court are talking about the aggregate royalty burden for the same combinations of technologies.  Fifth, even if these are the only decisions available for the purpose of the study, five cases are a small sample, and whether the derived amounts accurately reflect FRAND rates depends on whether the courts in these cases got their numbers right; and some commentators have critiqued the methodology employed in, e.g., Unwired Planet.   Even so, one might be inclined to think that the Munich court’s range seems rather high, all things considered.

Richard Fentiman is Professor Emeritus of Private International Law at the University of Cambridge. His research is especially concerned with the law and practice of international commercial litigation and in particular with issues concerning jurisdiction and interim remedies. He will be speaking about the practice of the English courts which regularly grant extraterritorial injunctions to freeze foreign assets or prevent foreign proceedings. In a departure from past practice they will now do so even in the absence of any material link with England. This reveals much about English law’s distinctive approach to injunctions and begs deeper questions about the appropriate grounds for exercising jurisdiction in private international law.

The virtual lecture will be held as a video conference via Zoom. Prior registions is necesarry by Monday, 2 March 2026, using this link.

Since not all readers of the blog can be presumed to be avid consumers of the Journal of Legal History, it may be worth pointing out that issue 46/1 (2025) (table of contents  here) was dedicated to jurisdiction in the European Central Middle Ages. In their (open access) introduction, historians Danica Summerlin and Alice Taylor suggest explaining medieval law neither through the (rediscovered) Codex Justinianus as the basis of a ius commune, nor through the concept of legal pluralism, but instead through the emerging law of jurisdiction. Indeed, their approach deviates from earlier state-focused analyses on struggles between state and church and instead “foregrounds actors and performances as the means by which jurisdictions were asserted, defined and formalized – or, to put it another way, as the means by which jurisdiction came into being.”  The issue emerges from a British Academy funded multi-year research project on Jurisdictions, political discourse, and legal community, 1050–1250 that brought together (legal) historians from Europe and North America – but not, it seems, conflict of laws scholars. The contributions are fascinating and relevant for those of us who want to understand conflict of laws through its history – and may perhaps even provide a basis for future collaborations across disciplines?

This is not just another doctrinal text, but the first comprehensive comparative deep dive into how EU Member States handle judgments from outside the EU, an area of law that has been notoriously fragmented and under-theorized.

The book contains country reports from 21 EU Member States on their national rules on recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in a unified framework, giving the reader both breadth and comparative depth. The editors pull these strands together in a detailed comparative report that highlights patterns of convergence and divergence across EU jurisdictions. Additionally, the book situates the Member State approaches in relation to the Brussels I regime and the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, which is itself reshaping global judicial cooperation. It had practical and scholarly appeal

The release date is 19 February 2026 and it is available for pre-order already at here.

This is the second symposium relating to private international law in Africa to be hosted on this blog, following a series that has run consistently since 2 February 2026. The first symposium, which focused on private international law in Nigeria, took place on 14 December 2020 and was jointly hosted on Afronomics and this blog. It was organised by Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong and me.

Professor Beligh Elbalti and I are deeply grateful to the scholars who agreed to participate in this symposium at short notice, including Dr Solomon Okorley, Dr Theophilus Edwin Coleman, Dr Elisa Rinaldi, Miss Anam Abdul-Majid, Mr Kitonga Mulandi,  Dr Boris Awa, and Dr Abubakri Yekini.

The idea for this second symposium originated with my dear colleague, Professor Beligh Elbalti, and I am thankful to him for involving me in the leadership and organisation of this project. The symposium finds its true genesis in a larger edited volume we are currently preparing on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Africa, which examines developments across no fewer than twenty-six African jurisdictions.

In the course of organising the project, we were struck by the depth and richness of engagement with private international law in African courts. This reality stands in sharp contrast to the popular but mistaken assumption that private international law in Africa is stagnant. On the contrary, the field is very much alive and kicking.

African courts are increasingly being called upon to engage with issues of private international law, and this is an empirical reality that our symposium seeks to demonstrate. At the same time, courts face significant and well-documented challenges, including inadequate legal frameworks, insufficient engagement with comparative law, and research approaches that prioritise the transplantation of foreign perspectives rather than the development of solutions grounded in local realities.

We therefore hope that courts, legislators, and researchers will actively engage with, develop, and refine the principles of private international law from an African perspective, in a manner that is context-sensitive, doctrinally sound, and responsive to the continent’s lived legal experience.

In this post, I briefly reflect on five overarching themes: situating African private international law within its broader context; the use of comparative law to promote independent and critical thinking; strengthening cooperation among African scholars; the importance of sustainable funding; and the need for stronger local institutional infrastructure.

II. RE-SITUATING AFRICAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WITHIN ITS PROPER CONTEXT

One of the central challenges confronting African private international law is its continuing reliance on inherited colonial traditions, particularly those of European powers such as England, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Across the continent, many legal systems still mirror the frameworks they received during the colonial period. Thus, common law African jurisdictions tend to follow the English approach; Francophone systems largely adopt French doctrine; Roman–Dutch jurisdictions reflect a mixture of Dutch and English influences; Lusophone countries retain Portuguese models; and there are also Spanish law influences on few African countries.

This inherited structure has not always served African private international law well. While many European states have modernised their rules to facilitate economic integration, cross-border commerce, and development, numerous African jurisdictions have yet to undertake comparable reform. The result is often a body of law that is historically derivative rather than functionally responsive to contemporary African realities.

These concerns have long been recognised in the scholarship. More than three decades ago, Professor Uche Uche, delivering lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law, called for “a genuinely African-based and African-influenced work on the conflict of laws.” Professor Christopher Forsyth similarly cautioned against the “unthinking” acceptance of foreign solutions, warning that African private international law should not behave like “the weathervane flipping one way or the other as the winds blow from abroad.” In the same spirit, Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong has argued that, while extra-African sources remain relevant, African scholarship should draw primarily on African case law, legislation, and academic commentary, and should situate its analysis within the continent’s present challenges, including regional economic integration, the promotion of trade and investment, migration, globalisation, and legal pluralism.

Encouragingly, contemporary African scholarship increasingly reflects this intellectual independence. The present symposium offers a clear illustration. Contributors rely principally on local African sources and contexts rather than treating European doctrine as the default template. My joint post with Yekini highlights the growing importance of recognition and enforcement of international court judgments in Anglophone Africa and shows that African jurisdictions are beginning to lead intellectually in an area that remains underdeveloped elsewhere. Awa’s blog demonstrates that Member States of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) have a significant number of situations in which they attempt recognising and enforcing each other’s judgments. Elbalti’s study of Mozambique illustrates the risks of scholars mechanically interpreting colonial transplanted rules without close attention to local jurisprudence. Abdul-Majid and Mulandi’s discussion of Kenya reveals judicial concern that exclusive jurisdiction clauses may export dispute resolution to foreign courts to the detriment of domestic adjudication. Rinaldi shows that South African courts are attentive to cross-border employment disputes involving restraints of trade, and that any critique of their rulings by practitioners or scholars should be carefully anchored in sound legal principle.  Coleman further demonstrates Ghana’s distinctive approach to proving foreign law in cross-border marriages, including potentially polygamous unions.  Finally, Okorley examines a decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal affirming that a child’s habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention is not determined by the marital status of the parents.

Externally, in another contribution, Coleman draws on the South African concept of ubuntu to interrogate the inequalities that may be embedded in party autonomy. Oppong and I also argue that African government contracts should not be subjected to foreign governing laws on public policy grounds.

None of this suggests that African private international law should become insular or excessively interest based. On the contrary, comparative engagement remains indispensable. The point is not to reject foreign influence, but to adapt it critically and constructively, ensuring that private international law develops in a manner that reflects African realities while participating confidently in global legal discourse.

III. UTILIITY OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN ENHANCING INDEPENDENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING

A further area in which private international law in Africa can be strengthened is through deeper and more systematic engagement with comparative law. In a recent study I co-authored with Yekini, we concluded that private international law in Nigeria—and, by extension, in several other African jurisdictions—remains underdeveloped in part because of limited comparative engagement. Indeed, it has been persuasively argued by Professor Diego Arroyo that private international law is scarcely conceivable without comparative law. As Professor Otto Kahn-Freund, famously remarks “comparative law is the mother of private international law.” I share these views as well.

Comparative analysis, however, should not be equated with continued dependence on the approaches of former colonial powers. Far from it. Properly understood, comparative law entails a broad and critical examination of diverse legal systems across the world in order to identify solutions best suited to local needs. Its purpose is intellectual openness, not slavish imitation. Currently, Asian private international law has evolved primarily through imitation before transitioning into a phase of innovation and eventual exportation (see here). This has primarily been done through extensive comparisons with legal systems around the world. I have also remarked that the Asian approach can “significantly benefit the ongoing development and reform of private international law in Africa” (see here).

This underscores the importance of legal education and professional training. Outside South Africa and a small number of other jurisdictions, legal education in many African countries remains heavily shaped by inherited colonial curricula, with limited exposure to comparative or regional perspectives. Moreover, meaningful dialogue across African legal systems is often lacking. Apart from parts of Southern Africa—and, to a lesser extent East Africa—many jurisdictions rarely engage systematically with developments elsewhere on the continent.

The practical consequences of this insularity are tangible. In a recent blog post, I discussed a Nigerian Court of Appeal decision that enforced a South African choice-of-court agreement in a dispute that was otherwise entirely domestic. Counsel for the claimant had undertaken no research into South African law. Had they done so, they would likely have discovered that South African courts themselves would decline jurisdiction on that case for want of a sufficient connection to South Africa, leaving the claimant without a forum to sue! A modest comparative inquiry might therefore have altered both the litigation strategy and the outcome.

South Africa has, in many respects, emerged as a leader in fostering comparative engagement. In this regard, particular credit is due to Professor Jan Neels for his work at the University of Johannesburg as Director of the Research Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries, which has trained and mentored a growing cohort of African scholars with strong comparative expertise. Elbalti and I have benefited greatly from collaboration with many of these scholars.

Importantly, the tools for comparative research are increasingly accessible. Open-access databases such as AfricanLII and SAFLII provide rich repositories of African jurisprudence that can and should be utilised more systematically by lawyers, judges, and scholars. Comparative engagement of this kind promotes intellectual independence rather than dependence. By examining a range of possible approaches before making doctrinal choices, African courts and legislatures can craft solutions that are both contextually appropriate and globally informed.

IV. COOPERATION AMONG AFRICAN SCHOLARS

A further area in which private international law in Africa can and should be strengthened is scholarly cooperation. The South African concept of Ubuntu aptly captures the spirit required: “I am because we are.” The development of African private international law cannot be the achievement of a single scholar or even a single jurisdiction. It must instead be the product of sustained collaboration across the continent. Collective intellectual effort, rather than isolated national initiatives, is essential to building a coherent and contextually responsive body of doctrine.

Encouragingly, some institutional foundations already exist. In addition to the important work facilitated by Neels at the University of Johannesburg, the Nigeria Group on Private International Law (NGPIL) has sought to promote dialogue and capacity building within Nigeria. The NGPIL, co-founded by Dr Onyoja Momoh, Dr Abubakri Yekini, Dr Chukwudi Ojiegbe, Dr Pontian Okoli and myself, brings together primarily UK-based scholars committed to strengthening Nigerian private international law through regular lectures, mentorship of early-career researchers, prize initiatives for students, and policy engagement aimed at encouraging the Nigerian government to recognise the strategic importance of private international law for economic development.

Nevertheless, more remains to be done. Efforts by Elbalti and me to establish a broader, continent-wide African private international law network have thus far proved difficult to sustain, particularly in terms of consistent participation. This highlights both the logistical challenges and the need for stronger institutional support structures.

Comparative experience demonstrates what is possible. Other regions have successfully institutionalised scholarly cooperation through bodies such as the Asian Private International Law Academy and the European Association of Private International Law, which provide regular forums for dialogue, research collaboration, and the exchange of ideas. A similar, genuinely pan-African platform would significantly advance the field. It is my hope that such an initiative will soon emerge and help consolidate the growing momentum behind African private international law.

VI. FUNDING AND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

For private international law in Africa to generate meaningful and lasting value, it requires sustained and significant funding. The blunt reality is that this responsibility must rest primarily with African stakeholders — including governments, businesses, professional bodies, and regional institutions.

By contrast, established dispute-resolution hubs such as England, New York, Singapore, and Switzerland derive substantial economic and reputational benefits from international commercial adjudication. With deliberate investment in modern, efficient, and credible private international law frameworks, African jurisdictions can retain similar revenue within the continent and reduce the persistent dominance of Global North fora in resolving African disputes.

Elbalti in his forthcoming paper on foreign law in Africa, has called for the establishment of a dedicated research centre for comparative law, akin to the Max Planck Institute or the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. He further suggests that Neel’s centre at the University of Johannesburg could play such a role by serving as a hub for sustained comparative research and doctrinal development.

If Africa is to compete effectively for international litigation and arbitration business, however, funding alone will not suffice. Serious institutional reform is indispensable. Infrastructure must be strengthened, judicial quality and consistency enhanced, delays reduced, training regularised, and corruption decisively addressed. Without these structural improvements, even the most sophisticated legal rules will struggle to attract confidence.

VI. CONCLUSION

Taken together, the reflections offered in this symposium challenge the persistent misconception that private international law in Africa is marginal or stagnant. The opposite is true. Across the continent, courts are engaging meaningfully with cross-border disputes, scholars are producing increasingly rich and context sensitive analyses, and new networks of cooperation are beginning to emerge. African private international law is no longer merely derivative of external models; rather, it is slowly but steadily becoming more self-aware, self-confident, and intellectually independent.

The path forward is clear. By grounding doctrine in African realities, embracing comparative learning without slipping into slavish imitation, strengthening scholarly collaboration, and investing seriously in funding and institutional capacity, African jurisdictions can build private international law systems that are both locally responsive and globally competitive. If these foundations continue to develop, Africa will not simply follow global trends but will increasingly help shape them.

Professor Ralf Michaels made a comment in the Asian context which I will quote and adapt to the African context by inserting “Africa” instead of the original use of “Asia”, “Africa is no longer object or subject but method, no longer one but many parts that are in dialogue with each other, no longer recipient or opponent of Western law and instead co-producer of modernity and of modern law. In this, the West has at least as much to learn from Africa as Africa did from the West. “

The energy, creativity, and commitment demonstrated by the contributors to this symposium — and by the wider community of African scholars and judges — give ample reason for optimism. The future of private international law in Africa is not only promising; it is bright.

As stated in the Executive Summary, the study focuses on “five priority research topics”:  proportionality; PAEs; dynamic blocking injunctions; information sharing and data protection; and costs for the destruction of infringing goods.  Of these, the first two are of greatest relevance to patent law (though all are important to IP law, and my new remedies book provides some measure of discussion of blocking injunctions, the right to information, and the destruction remedy).  One thing that caught my attention is that, according to the study, in patent cases courts in EU member states grant permanent injunctions in 94% of cases, and that “proportionality was explicitly assessed in only 0.6% of these cases.” This is not exactly surprising, but it is interesting to see the statistics.  The study suggests that it might be useful to have some sort of harmonized criteria for determining when proportionality should limit matters such as injunctive relief and destruction orders, and in this regard “concludes that the Commission could issue guidelines defining factors which courts should assess when applying the proportionality principle, such as i) the nature of the plaintiff, ii) the economic harm suffered by the parties, and iii) the public interest.”  The full discussion of proportionality, found in section 3.1 of the report (pp. 27-50), includes some comparative analysis from different member states; discussion of some leading cases; and possible avenues for reform.  As for PAEs, the study states that “their presence in the EU remains relatively limited” compared to the U.S., but also notes that “the data could be showing only the tip of the iceberg as parties may settle disputes outside the courts.”  It also “found that PAEs are highly concentrated in Germany,” and calls for greater transparency “particularly in jurisdictions such as Germany where court decisions are not systematically published.”  The full discussion of PAEs, found in section 3.2 (pp. 50-69), includes, among other things, discussion of why (according to Darts-IP) 90%+ of all PAE activity takes place in the U.S. (among them, no loser-pays rule except in exceptional cases, much higher damages awards, and lack of specialized trial courts), and also suggests that the development of proportionality guidelines could help to forestall (future?) abusive litigation by PAEs within the EU.

Protection of Forced Heirs and International Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Germany and Italy in Light of the Bundesgerichtshof Judgment of 29 June 2022

1. The German Approach

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), in its judgment of 29 June 2022, affirmed the following legal principle: the protection of mandatory heirs pertains to German public policy and, consequently, pursuant to Article 35 of EU Regulation No. 650/2012, it is possible to disregard the lex successionis designated under Article 22 of the same Regulation whenever its application does not concretely guarantee mandatory heirs a level of protection at least equivalent to that ensured by German inheritance law.

In the case at hand, the testator, originally from the United Kingdom, but habitually resident in Germany, by will dated 13 March 2015, designated English law as the law applicable to his succession and, as permitted under that law, disposed of his entire estate in favour of a third party, thereby excluding his adopted son. The latter lodged an application with the Regional Court of Cologne seeking information on the existence and scope of his father’s estate, asserting the rights granted to him under paragraphs 2303, 2314, 1754 and 1755 BGB. The court seized dismissed the application, but, on the claimant’s appeal, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, by judgment of 22 April 2021, setting aside the contested decision, ordered the appointed heir to draw up an inventory of the estate assets. The testamentary heir then appealed to the Federal Court of Justice, seeking the full dismissal of the claim.

The Federal Court of Justice, having preliminarily confirmed, on the basis of Articles 22 and 83 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, the validity of the professio iuris contained in the will, even though the will predated 17 August 2015, the date on which the Regulation became applicable, examined the compatibility of English succession law with German public policy. On the one hand, the 1975 Inheritance Act does not provide a forced share for descendants as such, regardless of their economic circumstances, but it merely allows the judge, at his discretion, to grant financially needy descendants a monetary provision against the testator’s will, provided that the latter was resident in England or Wales at the time of death. On the other hand, paragraph 2303 BGB guarantees to the descendant a forced share amounting to half the value of the share to which he would be entitled in intestate succession, regardless of any assessment of the heir’s financial situation; paragraph 2314 BGB grants an excluded mandatory heir the right to obtain information from the testamentary heir regarding the estate and to request the preparation of an inventory, the costs of which are borne by the estate. The Federal Court of Justice held that the provisions of the Inheritance Act contradict German inheritance law, which enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 6 and 14 of the Grundgesetz. These provisions reflect the principle that children’s participation in the estate of their parents is a necessary consequence of their familial bond and an expression of family solidarity, therefore, descendants must always be guaranteed a share of the deceased’s estate, regardless of their financial circumstances.

The Federal Court of Justice further referred to the reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 19 April 2005, which characterized the right of mandatory heirs to their forced share as an inalienable fundamental right, intended to ensure the continuation of the ideal and economic bond between the family’s assets and its members. Participation of the descendant in the ascendant’s estate is thus viewed as an expression of the reciprocal moral and material assistance obligations that underpin family life and which, pursuant to Articles 6 and 14 GG, constitute a constitutionally relevant limit to testamentary freedom. Having established that mandatory succession enjoys constitutional protection, the Court examined whether a violation of the rights granted to mandatory heirs under German law constitutes a breach of German public order and, to this end, it identified three different doctrinal approaches.

A first view holds that, even where the lex successionis does not provide forced shares, German law cannot apply, because the protection of mandatory heirs does not fall within the German notion of ordre public, and therefore Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 cannot be invoked to set aside the lex causae. An intermediate position states that, although the protection of mandatory heirs may in principle be linked to the fundamental principles forming part of the German ordre public, no concrete public order issue arises when, as in the present case, only economically self-sufficient mandatory heirs are left without protection. The prevailing view, followed by the judgment under comment, instead, holds that German public order is violated whenever the law applicable to the succession does not provide mandatory heirs with a level of protection at least equivalent to that offered by German law and, consequently, leads – on a case-by-case assessment – to an outcome incompatible with Articles 6 and 14 GG.

On the basis of these arguments, the Federal Court of Justice concluded that, in the present case, English succession law conflicts with German public policy, to the extent that the possibility of obtaining a monetary provision only where the mandatory heir is in situations of financial need – which, moreover, was inapplicable in the case at hand, given that the de cuius was resident and domiciled in Germany – is considered incompatible with the forced share guaranteed to descendants under German law. The Federal Court of Justice, therefore, applied Article 35 EuErbVO (Regulation EU No. 650/2012), which provides that “the application of a provision of the law of any State specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum.” The violation of public policy entails the non-application of the foreign rule. However, to ensure minimal interference between lex causae and lex fori, any resulting gap must, where possible, be filled by reference to the lex causae itself and, only where this is not possible, should be applied the lex fori instead. In this case, since English law does not guarantee the mandatory heir a forced share meeting the requirements of Articles 6 and 14 GG, the Federal Court of Justice deemed it necessary to apply German succession law.

Finally, the Federal Court of Justice supports its conclusion by stating that is precisely from Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 that it can be inferred that provisions on forced heirship pertain to public policy. Indeed, according to the German judges, given that Article 22 allows parties to choose the law of the State of their nationality as the law governing their succession, one of the functions of Article 35 is precisely to protect mandatory heirs who may be disadvantaged by the chosen law, thereby preventing the professio iuris from being used to frustrate the expectations of those entitled to a forced share.

2. The Italian Approach

The decision under examination makes it possible to compare the approach followed by the German Federal Court of Justice with the approach followed by the Italian Supreme Court and to highlight the relative nature of the notion of international public policy.

The possibility of tracing the protection of forced heirs back to the notion of international public policy has assumed particular relevance with the adoption of EU Regulation No. 650/2012 (I. Riva, Certificato successorio europeo. Tutele e vicende acquisitive, Napoli, 2017, 51 ss). Indeed, unlike Article 46 (2) of Law No. 218/1995, which excluded that a professio iuris made by an Italian testator in favour of the State of residence could prejudice the rights of forced heirs residing in Italy, Regulation No. 650/2012 does not provide that the rules on forced heirship constitute a limit to the applicability in Italy of a foreign law that does not provide for any protection of forced heirs or provides for a less favourable protection than the one offered under Italian law.

Consequently, only if Articles 536 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code are regarded as a fundamental and non-waivable principle of the Italian legal order (G. Perlingieri, G. Zarra, Ordine pubblico interno e internazionale tra caso concreto e sistema ordinamentale, Napoli, 2019; V. Barba, L’ordine pubblico internazionale, in Rass. dir. civ., 2018, 403 ss) and, therefore, are brought within the notion of international public policy, will it be possible to exclude, pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, the application in Italy of a foreign law that violates the rights that Italian law reserves to forced heirs. Since in Italy forced heirship does not enjoy constitutional protection, the resolution of the issue at hand requires, preliminarily, clarification as to whether the principles referable to international public policy may also be derived from provisions of ordinary legislation.

The notion of international public policy, in the Italian legal order, has undergone significant evolution: originally it was held that this limit was respected and, consequently, that the foreign law was applicable in Italy, only where, in relation to the same institution, it was compatible with Italian ordinary legislation (Cass., 5 dicembre 1969, n. 3881; Cass., 14 aprile 1980, n. 2414; Cass., 13 marzo 1984, n. 1680). Subsequently, as a result of the influence of supranational law, it began to be affirmed that international public policy corresponded to the fundamental values expressed by the Constitution and by international and supranational sources (Cass., 15 giugno 2017, n. 14878.). The most recent approach of the Court of Cassation is placed in an intermediate position between the two theses just mentioned, affirming that the notion of international public policy is derived from the Constitution, from international and supranational sources, but also from provisions of ordinary legislation, provided that they express fundamental values of the legal order (Cass., sez. un., 8 maggio 2019, n. 12193).

Having clarified, therefore, that ordinary legislation may also contribute to shaping the notion of international public policy, the point is to understand, as already anticipated, whether the codified rules concerning forced heirship implement a non-waivable principle expressing a value that identifies the Italian legal order.

Italian case-law, in numerous decisions (Cass., 30 giugno 2014, n. 14811; Cass., 24 giugno 1996, n. 5832; App. Milano, 4 dicembre 1992; Trib. Termini Imerese, 15 luglio 1965), contrary to what was maintained by the Bundesgerichtshof in the previously examined judgment, has affirmed that the protection of forced heirs does not pertain to international public policy since, although the protection of forced heirs is safeguarded by mandatory internal rules, its limitation does not entail a restriction of an inviolable human right. This is also argued in light of the fact that forced heirship, as stated, does not enjoy constitutional protection, neither with reference to Article 42 (4) nor with reference to Article 29 of the Constitution, with the consequence that the ordinary legislator could even abolish it. Consequently, in the Italian legal order, foreign rules providing a level of protection of forced heirs lower than the one guaranteed by Italian law may be applied (M.C. Gruppuso, Ordine pubblico e diritto delle successioni. Spunti in tema di divieto di discriminazione basata sul sesso, in Fenomeni migratori, famiglie cross border e questioni di diritto successorio. Una prospettiva di genere., I. Riva (ed.), Napoli, 2024, 256).

This solution, unlike the German one, is consistent with the approach of the Strasbourg Court which, with reference to forced heirship, has affirmed that it does not find protection under Article 8 ECHR, given the absence of any general and unconditional right of children to inherit a share of their parents’ assets (ECtHR, 15 February 2024, Colombier v. France), nor under Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol, since where the law applicable to the succession does not provide any protection of the rights of forced heirs, they are neither holders of an “existing” property right nor of a “legitimate expectation” (ECtHR, 15 February 2024, Jarre v. France), and consequently do not fall within the scope of protection guaranteed by that provision.

Even if the inclusion of forced heirship within the concept of international public policy has been excluded, a conflict between the latter and the law applicable to the succession may nonetheless arise where the foreign succession law violates other fundamental principles of the Italian legal order. Thus, for example, pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, a foreign law that infringes the principle of non-discrimination – which, also in light of recital No. 58 of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012, is almost unanimously regarded as falling within the notion of international public policy – may in no case be applied in Italy (M.M. Francisetti Brolin, Divieto di discriminazione, autonomia testamentaria e vicende mortis causa. Riflessioni preliminari, in Fenomeni migratori, famiglie cross border e questioni di diritto successorio. Una prospettiva di genere., I. Riva (ed.), Napoli, 2024, 325 observes a potential paradox in this context).

As part of the second online symposium on recent developments in African private international law, we are pleased to present the seventh an final contribution, kindly prepared by Solomon Okorley (University of Johannesburg, South Africa), which examines a decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ordering the return of a child under the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal Orders the Return of a Child under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Marital Status of Parents not Important in Determining the Child’s Habitual Residence

1            Introduction

International child abduction[1] refers to the unilateral removal or retention of a child by a parent or guardian in a State other than that of the child’s habitual residence, without the consent of the other parent or in breach of existing custodial rights.[2] This phenomenon has increasingly been characterised as both global in reach and growing in prevalence,[3] reflecting the intensification of cross-border mobility, transnational families, and jurisdictional fragmentation in family law. In cases of international child abduction, the left-behind parent seeks judicial relief in the form of a return order, the purpose of which is to restore the status quo ante by returning the child to the State of habitual residence.

South Africa occupies a pivotal position in the adjudication of international child abduction matters,[4] with its judicial decisions exerting significant influence on the development of jurisprudence within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.[5] This paper will briefly analyse the recent case of The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another,[6] where the South African Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an appeal for the return of a child who was wrongly removed from Switzerland. The court held that “the minor child (L) be returned forthwith, subject to the terms of this order, to the jurisdiction of the Central Authority of Switzerland”.[7]

This case is significant because the case addresses an important factor in international child abduction cases: ascertaining the habitual residence of the child. Consequently, it is a case that other contracting states of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention would find useful when ascertaining the habitual residence of a child in an international child abduction dispute.

2            Facts of the case

The case concerns a minor child (L), born in Italy in May 2021 to unmarried parents. The mother (MV) is a dual South African–Italian citizen, while the father (VL) is an Italian national who later acquired Swiss citizenship. The parents were engaged and had lived together prior to and after the child’s birth. Before the child’s birth, the parties resided together in Switzerland, where the father was employed. Following the child’s birth in Italy, the parents returned with the child to Switzerland and continued to live together as a family. The father purchased an apartment in Geneva, financially supported the mother and child, and took steps consistent with establishing family life there, including enrolling the child in a crèche and applying for Swiss identification documentation for the child.

In May 2022, the parents and the child travelled together to South Africa to attend the wedding of the mother’s brother. Return flights to Switzerland were booked shortly after the wedding. On the scheduled return date, the mother tested positive for COVID-19. As a result, the father returned to Switzerland alone, with the understanding that the mother and child would return once she had recovered. After recovering, the mother did not return to Switzerland with the child. She delayed her return and ultimately decided to remain permanently in South Africa with the child, citing the breakdown of the relationship and the presence of her family support network in South Africa.

The father objected to the child remaining in South Africa without his consent and initiated steps through Italian and Swiss authorities, which culminated in an application by the South African Central Authority for the child’s return to Switzerland. While in South Africa, the mother obtained an ex parte order from the High Court granting her primary care and parental responsibilities over the child and directing that the child be registered as a South African citizen. The father opposed the order and continued to pursue the child’s return through the South African Central Authority by filing a return application at the High Court. As at the time court was adjudicating the case in 2025, the boy was four-year-old.

2.1         High Court Ruling  

According to the High court, it seemed that neither the minor child nor MV had settled in the Swiss community and that MV did not intend to remain in Switzerland permanently unless VL married her. The court further found that it is not certain that Mr VL regarded Geneva as the minor child’s habitual residence. The court did not believe that the parties had the settled purpose of residing in Switzerland. Consequently, it found that the minor child was not a habitually resident in Switzerland at the time of his removal to South Africa.[8] The court further held that removing the minor child from Ms MV’s care would cause the minor child, serious emotional harm.[9] In the exercise of its discretion, the High Court dismissed the return application. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Central Authority and MV appealed to the SCA with the leave of the High Court.

2.2         Summary of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)

According to the SCA, the core issue was the minor child’s habitual residence prior to his alleged unlawful retention in South Africa.[10] The resolution of the core issue will, of necessity entail determining  (i) whether the removal of the child was wrongful; (ii) whether the relevant rights of custody were actually being exercised at the time of the minor child L’s removal.

In its bid to resolve the issue, the SCA indicated that the applicable Legislative Framework included: the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention;[11] the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children;[12] Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA);[13] the Swiss Civil Code;[14] the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996;[15] and South Africa’s Children’s Act.[16]

As an important preliminary issue, the court set out to address the applicability of the Hague Convention.[17] The court noted that Switzerland is a signatory to the 1996 Hague Convention whereas South Africa is a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention. According to the SCA, “It is the 1996 Hague Convention that enables the determination of the issues that are extra-territorial such as these. Absent the 1996 and the 1980 Hague Conventions, our courts and so is our State would not be able to lean on the international agreements between states on matters involving, amongst others, the international abduction and retention of children.”[18] The SCA then made reference to the Constitutional Court case of Sonderup[19] where the apex court outlined the purpose of the 1980 Hague Convention, which inter alia ensures the prompt return of children to the state of their habitual residence. The SCA thus concluded that the 1980 Hague Convention applies to this case.

According to the court, since the child is Italian and had been registered as such at birth, his initial habitual residence was Italy. And per the combined effect of Articles 316 and 337 of the Italian Code, both parents had parental responsibility which included joint custody.[20] The court opined that the parental responsibility was not extinguished when they moved to Switzerland by virtue of the 1996 Hague Convention, which is applicable between Italy and Switzerland: “Parental responsibility which exists under the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence subsists after a change of that habitual residence to another state.”[21]

According to the SCA, the continuity of parental rights where there is a change of habitual residence accords with the best interests of the child principle that the Hague Convention seeks to protect. The court held that the father has custodial rights over the child. Since both parents had custodial rights towards the child in Switzerland, Mr VL’s consent to the retention of the child in South Africa was peremptory. The court therefore held that the failure to seek and obtain Mr VL’s consent before retaining the child in South Africa was wrongful.

The court had to address the core issue which was the habitual residence of the child. According to the SCA, the high court misdirected itself when it focused on the issue of marriage as an important issue when determining the issue of habitual residence.[22] According to the court, Italy was the child’s habitual residence and his birth residence until his parents moved to Switzerland. At that point, the minor child’s habitual residence and his parents became Switzerland.[23]

The mother contended that the child’s habitual residence was Italy and that she had no intention of residing in Switzerland permanently – a place she had lived for almost two years. The SCA rejected this arguments by relying on the Swiss law definition of habitual residence where it is stipulated that a natural person ‘has their habitual residence in the state where they live for a certain period of time, even if this period is of limited duration from the outset’.[24] The court in rejecting the argument by the mother also relied on the dependency model which espouses that the child acquires the habitual residence of his or her custodians. Thus, since the custodians were habitually resident in Switzerland, he acquires the habitual residence of Switzerland and not that of Italy.

An attempt by the mother to invoke an article 13(b) [of the 1980 Hague Convention] defence on the ground that  the mental and psychological state of Mr VL poses a grave risk of harm to the minor child also failed. According to the court, the body of evidence showed that both Ms MV and Mr VL do have some mental challenges and that those challenges will be better addressed by the Swiss Court.[25]

3            Analysis

3.1         Preliminary issue: The territorial scope of the 1980 Hague Convention

Although the SCA was correct in its conclusion that the 1980 Hage Convention was applicable, it is submitted that the approach adopted in the judgment was marked by an unnecessarily circuitous analysis, which generated avoidable doctrinal and interpretive difficulties. Although not mentioned by the SCA, Switzerland is a contracting state to the 1980 Hague Convention, likewise South Africa.[26] The convention is applicable if the abduction took place from one convention state (where the child had his or her habitual residence) to another convention state.[27] Thus, per the territorial scope of the 1980 Hague Convention, this makes the convention applicable to the case simpliciter.

3.2         Habitual residence of the child

A central concept underpinning the Hague Convention is that of the “habitual residence” of the child. However, the term is neither expressly defined in the Convention itself nor in South Africa’s Children’s Act. The question of whether a person is or is not habitually resident in a specified country is a fact-specific inquiry, where the essence of a ‘stable territorial link’ is established through length of stay or through evidence of a particularly close tie between the person and the place.[28]

Judicial efforts to give content to the notion of habitual residence have crystallised into three dominant models of analysis: the dependency model, the parental rights model, and the child-centred model.[29] In terms of the dependency model, a child acquires the habitual residence of his or her custodians. Applying the facts of this case to this model, the parents are habitually resident in Switzerland. Ipso facto, the child is also habitually resident in Switzerland.

The parental rights model proposes that habitual residence should be determined by the parent who has the right to determine where the child lives, irrespective of where the child actually lives; and where both parents have the right to determine where the child should live, neither may change the child’s habitual residence without the consent of the other. Per the facts of this case, both parents have the right to determine where the child lives, thus, only the mother cannot determine the habitual residence of the child.

In terms of the child-centred model, the habitual residence of a child depends on the child’s connections or intentions and the child’s habitual residence is defined as the place where the child has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient to form social, cultural, linguistic and other connections. From the facts of the case, the child has been present for a considerable amount of time in Switzerland before the mother wrongly removed him. The parents had agreed for him to be enrolled at a crèche in Switzerland and Mr VL had also applied for the minor child to be issued with an official Swiss identity document. All these also point to the fact that the child’s habitual resident in Switzerland.

The South African Courts have adopted a hybrid of the models in determining habitual residence of children which is based upon the life experiences of the child and the intentions of the parents of the dependent child.[30] The courts have further held that with very young children the habitual residence of the child is usually that of the custodian parent.[31] Also, following this hybrid approach of the South African courts, it leads to the same result that the child is habitually resident in Switzerland: the intention of the parents is for the child to be habitually resident in Switzerland. This is evinced in the enrolment of the child in crèche; the application for a Swiss identity document; and the return air ticket to Switzerland that was purchased.

From a comparative perspective, in Monasky v. Taglieri,[32] the US Supreme Court enunciated a stricter threshold in determining the habitual residence of the child. The court, in uniformity with the decisions of the courts of other contracting states of the 1980 Hague Convention held that “a child’s habitual residence depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case.” This threshold is higher than the one espoused by the South African court in the Houtman case where it stated that the habitual residence “must be determined by reference to the circumstances of each case”.[33] It is submitted that the South African court in determining the habitual residence of the child should apply the “totality of circumstances standard”. In this case, it is clear that the SCA took into consideration the entire circumstances of the case in arriving at its decision,

4            Marital status of parents and the habitual residence of the child

In all of the crystallised models analysed in the immediate preceding paragraph, it is clear that marital status is not a determinant of the habitual residence of the child. In a more recent case, Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v DM,[34] which also involved unmarried parents, in determining the habitual residence of the child, the court did not take into account the marital status of the parents.

Marital status (e.g., married, divorced, separated, or never married) does not appear in the text of the 1980 Hague Convention as a criterion for return decisions, exceptions (like grave risk under Article 13(b), child objection, consent, or non-exercise of rights), or any other core determination. The Convention is deliberately status-neutral to promote uniformity across signatory countries. However, marital status can have indirect relevance in limited ways, depending on the law of the child’s habitual residence. In some jurisdictions, married parents automatically share joint custody rights from birth, making it easier for either to establish a breach of those rights. For unmarried parents, the rights of custody are not always automatic. In some countries, an unmarried father may need to establish paternity legally, obtain a court order for custody/access, or meet other requirements to have enforceable “rights of custody”. If no such rights exist under the law of the habitual residence of the child, the removal might not qualify as “wrongful” under the Hague Convention. This is a question of domestic law in the country of the habitual residence of the child, not the Convention itself imposing a marital status test. In this instance case, although the parents were unmarried, based on Italian Family Law, the father had custody rights.

In any event, determining the child’s habitual residence is a necessary antecedent to any analysis of whether the applicable law confers custody rights on an unmarried father. It is submitted that reliance on the marital status of the parents in determining a child’s habitual residence is conceptually misplaced. The Hague Convention adopts a distinctly child-centred approach; accordingly, an examination of the parents’ marital status introduces adult-centred considerations that are extraneous to the Convention’s underlying objectives.

It is therefore submitted that marital status should not be a factor to consider in determining a child’s habitual residence in international child abduction cases. At most, it may serve as a contextual evidential factor in assessing shared parental intention and family stability, but the decisive inquiry must remain anchored in the child’s lived reality, social integration, and factual circumstances.

5            Conclusion

This decision reflects the South African Supreme Court of Appeal’s firm commitment to the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence, in line with the objectives of the 1980 Hague Convention. The High Court’s attempt to introduce marital status as a “novel” determinant of habitual residence was correctly rejected on appeal. The SCA’s refusal to endorse this approach is commendable, as elevating parental marital status to a determinative factor risks transforming child abduction proceedings into an adult-centred inquiry, thereby undermining the child-focused framework and core objectives of the Convention.

Previous contributions:

1. Online Symposium on Recent Developments in African Private International Law, by Béligh Elbalti & Chukwuma S.A. Okoli (Introductory post)
2. Recognition and Enforcement of International Judgments in Nigeria, by Abubakri Yekini & Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli
3. The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments within the CEMAC Zone, by Boris Awa
4. Foreign Judgments in Mozambique through the Lens of the Enforcement of a Chinese Judgment: Liberal Practice in the Shadow of Statutory Rigidity, by Béligh Elbalti
5. Party Autonomy, Genuine Connection, Convenience, Costs, Privity, and Public Policy: The Kenyan High Court on Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, by Anam Abdul – Majid and Kitonga Mulandi
6. Cross-border employment, competition and delictual liability merge in the South African High Court: Placement International Group Limited v Pretorius and Others, by Elisa Rinaldi
7. From Daddy to Zaddy or Both? Proof of Foreign Law and the Fragility of Foreign Marriages in Ghanaian Courts – Reflections on Akosua Serwaah Fosuh v. Abusua-Panin Kofi Owusu & 2 Others, Suit No. GJ12/20/2026, by Theophilus Edwin Coleman

————————————————————————

[1] Formerly known as ‘legal kidnapping’ or ‘childnapping’. See Dyer “The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Towards Global Cooperation: Its Successes and Failures” 1993 The International Journal of Children’s Rights 273 275.

[2] Baruffi and Holliday “Child Abduction” in Beaumont and Holliday (eds) A Guide to Global Private International Law (2022) 481.

[3] Freeman and Taylor “Domestic violence and child participation: Contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague child abduction convention” 2020 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 154.

[4] See INCADAT which currently contains 21 reported South African child abduction decisions in its database.

[5] https://www.sadc.int/member-states

[6] [2025] ZASCA 197.

[7] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 87.

[8] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 13.4

[9] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 13.5.

[10] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 29.

[11] Articles 3, 5, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 of the 1980 Hague Convention.

[12]  Articles 3 and 17 of the 1996 Hague Convention.

[13] Articles 14, 20 and 82 of PILA.

[14] Article 296 of the Swiss Civil Code

[15] Section 28 of the 1996 Constitution of South Africa.

[16] Chapter 17 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

[17] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 41.

[18] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 43.

[19] Sonderup v Tondelli and Another 2001 1 SA 1171 (CC).

[20] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) pars 48 and 51.

[21] Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention.

[22] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 67.

[23] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 62.

[24] Article 20(b) of the PILA.

[25] The Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v MV and Another (n 6) par 77.

[26] See the status table of the 1980 Hague Convention.

[27] Kruger International Child Abduction: The Inadequacies of the Law (2011) 112.

[28] Senior Family Advocate, Cape Town, and Another v Houtman 2004 (6) SA 274 (CPD) par 9.

[29] Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v C 2021 (2) SA 471 (GJ) par 63.

[30] Central Authority for the Central Republic of South Africa and Another v C 2021 (2) SA 471 (GJ) par 63.

[31] Central Authority for the Central Republic of South Africa and Another v C 2021 (2) SA 471 (GJ) par 63.

[32] 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020).

[33] Senior Family Advocate, Cape Town, and Another v Houtman 2004 (6) SA 274 (CPD) par 11.

[34] [2024] ZAWCHC 170.