Droit international général

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”

The webinar description reads:

“On 12 January 2026, ELI Fellows formally approved its Enhancing Child Protection: Private International Law on Filiation and the European Commission’s Proposal COM/2022/695 final.

This Report, developed under the leadership of Dr Ilaria Pretelli and Prof Dr Susanne Gössl, examines the above proposal and its critical role in advancing fundamental rights within the EU. While preserving the Commission’s Proposal’s core vision and framework, this analysis recommends strategic refinements that strengthen alignment with the existing EU acquis, foster deeper European integration, and enhance the protection of children’s fundamental rights. In addition, it expands upon the Proposal’s initial emphasis on the EU Strategies for children’s rights and LGBTIQ+ equality by incorporating a comprehensive women’s rights perspective.

ELI is hosting a webinar introducing and exploring key aspects of the Report on 12 March 2026 from 12:30–14:00 CET.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Pietro Sirena (ELI Treasurer; Dean and Professor at Università Bocconi)
• Ilaria Pretelli (Co-Reporter; Senior Fellow, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law)
• Susanne Gössl (Co-Reporter; Professor, University of Bonn)
• Elina Pekkarinen (Ombudsperson for Children in Finland, Past Chair of European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC))
• Alina Tryfonidou (Assistant Professor of EU Law and Family Law, University of Cyprus)”

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

The second issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) for 2026 was published on 1 March. The following abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. 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 […]

The following Call for Papers has been kindly shared with us by Christiane von Bary (University of Zurich):

Following the 20th Anniversary Conference in London (2025), we are pleased to announce that the Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 11th 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!

The following conference announcement was kindly shared with us by Johannes Ungerer (University of Oxford).

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 11th Journal of Private International Law Conference will take place in Zurich from 1-3 April 2027. The conference organizers, Tanja Domej and Christiane von Bary, as well as the editors of the Journal, Jonathan Harris and Paul Beaumont, have provided the following call for papers inviting submissions of proposals for the conference. Following the […]

Johannes Kepler University Linz is currently advertising a tenure-track professorship in “European and International Civil Procedure Law”.

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.

A collection of essays under the titled Who’s Afraid of Punitive Damages? has recently been published by Mohr Siebeck, edited by Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg). The book can be freely accessed here. It is the first of two volumes resulting from the Project Zeitenwende beim Strafschadensersatz? / A Turning Point for Punitive Damages?, aimed […]

The Law Quarterly Review has published an interesting article by Ardavan Arzandeh (Associate Professor, National University of Singapore) on Validation Principle and the Choice-of-Law Question. The article discusses the elements of the validation principle, its application in cases such as Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 to choice-of-law […]

The third bi-annual conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 18-20 June 2026. The conference will present current developments in Private International Law. The program is available on the conference’s website (see here). Early bird registration closes in two weeks, on 15 March 2026. You […]

Miguel Checa Martínez (Kinship Law) has kindly shared the following summary of his latest publication on ‘Instituciones de estate planning y Derecho internacional privado patrimonial’ with us.

 

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.

The first issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2026 was recently published last month. It contains the following works on private international law:

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”

 

 

 

Written by Prof Dr João Costa-Neto, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Brasília
and Dr Pedro Pagano Payne, Academic Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Brasília

 

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.

 

This month starts with the publication, on Thursday 5 March, of Advocate General R. Norkus’s opinion in case C-716/24, Ponner, on the interpretation of the EAPO Regulation (Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure), upon request fom the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany). A hearing took place last December – see here. N. Jääskinen is […]

The Área de Derecho Internacional Privado of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) announces two initiatives of particular interest for scholars and practitioners of private international law.

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.

This post is posted on behalf of Arnav Sharma, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, India

 

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, 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 earlier projects with the same name, namely FAMIMOVE 2.0 and FAMIMOVE. 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 resulted in 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.

The EAPIL Winter School was established in 2024. The three editions organised so far attracted, globally, more than 80 participants, mostly PhD students, young academics and professionals, coming from 16 countries. The courses, held at the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures at the University of Insubria, in Como, have resulted in collective volumes that […]

The following call was kindly shared with us by Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen).

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

Philippine Blajan, who is a professor at the University of Versailles Saint Quentin, has published La combinaison des autonomies en droit international privé des contrats. Étude des interactions entre le choix de juridiction et le choix de loi (The Combination of Party Autonomies in the Private International Law of Contracts. A study of the interactions between […]

On 18 February 2026, a Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Corrigendum […]