Flux des sites DIP

In January 2025, AG J. Richard de la Tour delivered his opinion in case C-536/23, Mutua Madrileña Automovilista, upon a request from the Landgericht München I (Regional Court of Munich I, Germany) asking the Court of Justice : Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 [the Brussels I bis Regulation], read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) […]

The first issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2025 was published today. It contains the following articles:

Pietro Franzina, Cristina González Beilfuss, Jan von Hein, Katja Karjalainen & Thalia Kruger, “Cross-border protection of adults: what could the EU do better?†”

On 31 May 2023 the European Commission published two proposals on the protection of adults. The first proposal is for a Council Decision to authorise Member States to become or remain parties to the Hague Adults Convention “in the interest of the European Union.” The second is a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council which would supplement (and depart from, in some respects) the Convention’s rules. The aim of the proposals is to ensure that the protection of adults is maintained in cross-border cases, and that their right to individual autonomy, including the freedom to make their own choices as regards their person and property is respected when they move from one State to another or, more generally, when their interests are at stake in two or more jurisdictions. This paper analyses these EU proposals, in particular as regards the Regulation, and suggests potential improvements.

 

Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, “Adult habitual residence in EU private international law: an interpretative odyssey begins”

This article examines the first three CJEU cases on adult habitual residence in EU private international law, against the background of the pre-existing (and much more developed) CJEU jurisprudence on child habitual residence. While the new trilogy of judgments provides some important insights, many questions remain, in particular, as to the scope for contextual variability, and on the role of intention. In this article, the CJEU’s treatment of dual or concurrent habitual residence is analysed in detail, and an attempt is made to anticipate the future development of what is now the main connecting factor in EU private international law.

 

Felix Berner, “Characterisation in context – a comparative evaluation of EU law, English law and the laws of southern Africa”

Academic speculation on characterisation has produced a highly theorised body of literature. In particular, the question of the governing law is the subject of fierce disagreement: Whether the lex fori, the lex causae or an “autonomous approach” governs characterisation is hotly debated. Such discussions suggest that a decision on the governing law is important when lawyers decide questions of characterisation. Contrary to this assumption, the essay shows that the theoretical discussion about the governing law is unhelpful. Rather, courts should focus on two questions: First, courts should assess whether the normative context in which the choice-of-law rule is embedded informs or even determines the question of characterisation. Insofar as the question is not determined by the specific normative context, the court may take into account any information it considers helpful, whether that information comes from the lex fori, the potential lex causae or from comparative assessments. This approach does not require a general decision on the applicable law to characterisation, but focuses on the normative context and the needs of the case. To defend this thesis, the essay offers comparative insights and analyses the EU approach of legislative solutions, the interpretation of assimilated EU law in England post-Brexit and the reception of the via media approach in southern Africa.

 

Filip Vlcek, “The existence of a genuine international element as a pre-requisite for the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation: a matter of EU competence?”

Under Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, parties, regardless of their domicile, may agree on a jurisdiction of a court or the courts of an EU Member State to settle any disputes between them. The problem with this provision is that it remains silent on the question of whether it may be applicable in a materially domestic dispute, in which the sole international element is a jurisdictional clause in favour of foreign courts. Having been debated in the literature for years, the ultimate solution to this problem has finally been found in the recent judgment of the ECJ in Inkreal (C-566/22). This article argues that the ECJ should have insisted on the existence of a material international element in order for Article 25 of the Regulation to apply. This, however, does not necessarily stem from the interpretation of the provision in question, as Advocate General de la Tour seemed to propose in his opinion in Inkreal. Instead, this article focuses on the principle of conferral, as the European Union does not have a legal base to regulate choice-of-court clauses in purely internal disputes. Accordingly, with the Regulation applying to legal relationships whose sole cross-border element is a prorogation clause, the Union legislature goes beyond the competence conferred on it by Article 81 TFEU. Such an extensive interpretation of the Regulation’s scope, which is, in reality, contrary to the objective of judicial cooperation in civil matters, is moreover prevented by the principle of subsidiarity as well as the principle of proportionality. Finally, this approach cannot be called into question by the parallel applicability of the Rome I and II Regulations in virtually analogous situations as those Regulations become inherently self-limiting once the international element concerned proves to be artificial.

 

Adrian Hemler, “Deconstructing blocking statutes: why extraterritorial legislation cannot violate the sovereignty of other states”

Blocking statutes are national provisions that aim to combat the legal consequences of foreign, extraterritorial legislation. They are often justified by an alleged necessity to protect domestic sovereignty. This article challenges this assumption based on an in-depth discussion of the sovereignty principle and its interplay with the exercise of state power regarding foreign facts. In particular, it shows why a distinction between the law’s territorial scope of sovereign validity and its potentially extraterritorial scope of application is warranted and why, based on these foundations, extraterritorial legislation cannot violate foreign sovereignty. Since Blocking Statutes cannot be understood to protect domestic sovereignty, the article also discusses how they serve to enforce international principles on extraterritorial legislation instead.

 

Michiel Poesen, “A Scots perspective on forum non conveniens in business and human rights litigation: Hugh Campbell KC v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd”

In Hugh Campbell KC v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd the Inner House of the Court of Session, the highest civil court in Scotland subject only to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, stayed class action proceedings brought by a group of Kenyan employees who claimed damages from their Scottish employer for injuries suffered due to poor labour conditions. Applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, the Court held that Kenya was the clearly more appropriate forum, and that there were no indications that the pursuers will suffer substantial injustice in Kenya. Campbell is the first modern-day litigation in Scotland against a Scottish transnational corporation for wrongs allegedly committed in its overseas activities. This article first observes that the decision of the Inner House offers valuable insight into the application of forum non conveniens to business and human rights litigation in Scotland. Moreover, it argues that the decision would have benefitted from a more rigorous application of the jurisdictional privilege in employment contract matters contained in section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

 

Hasan Muhammad Mansour Alrashid, “Appraising party autonomy in conflict-of-laws rules in international consumer and employment contracts: a critical analysis of the Kuwaiti legal framework”

Party autonomy plays a vital role in international contracts in avoiding legal uncertainty and ensuring predictability. However, its application in international employment and consumer contracts remains a subject of debate. Consumers and employees are typically the weaker parties in these contracts and often lack the expertise of the other party, raising questions about their autonomy to choose the applicable law. Globally, legal systems differ on this point with some permitting full party autonomy, others rejecting it outrightly and some allowing a qualified autonomy with domestic courts empowered to apply a different law in deserving cases to protect the employee or consumer. Kuwaiti law allows full autonomy only in international consumer contracts but prohibits it in international employment contracts. This paper critically analyses Kuwait’s legal approach to find an appropriate balance between the principle of party autonomy in the choice of law and the protection of employees and consumers.

 

Alexander A. Kostin, “Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in bankruptcy and insolvency matters under Russian law”

This article addresses the role of certain Russian Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” provisions (eg Article 1(6)) for resolving bankruptcy and insolvency matters under Russian law. The author argues that the “foreign judgment on the insolvency matters” term covers not only the judgments on initiation of bankruptcy/insolvency, but also other related judgments like those on vicarious liability, avoidance of transactions and settlement agreements. The issues associated with enforcing foreign judgments on the grounds of reciprocity under Article 1(6) of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” are being explored and valid arguments in favour of recognition simpliciter (recognition of foreign judgments without extra exequatur proceedings at the national level) are provided. The legal effects of foreign judgments on the initiation of bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings recognition are analysed as well as the interconnection between relevant provisions of the Russian legislation on lex societatis of a legal entity and the rules for recognising foreign judgments on the initiation of bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings.

On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (SICD) is pleased to announce its 35th Conference on Private International Law, to be held on 19–20 November 2025 in Lausanne.

The conference addresses how courts, lawyers, and litigants have shaped—and how they continue to shape—private international law. Special emphasis will be placed on how legal practice drives the development of private international law at both the national and supranational levels. Judges, through landmark rulings, have clarified conflicts of laws rules, set precedents on the recognition of foreign judgments, and adapted legal frameworks to globalization and digital commerce. Lawyers, by crafting novel arguments, have influenced judicial reasoning and contributed to evolving legal doctrines. Finally, strategic litigation, led by litigants and advocacy groups, has driven major jurisprudential shifts, particularly in fundamental rights, corporate liability, and cross-border regulation. The conference will analyse these actors’ distinct but interconnected roles in shaping contemporary private international law.

We invite scholars (both established and early-career researchers), legal practitioners, and policymakers to submit papers addressing these issues.

Possible topics include:

• The role of national and supranational courts in shaping private international law
• The impact of key judicial decisions on cross-border legal relationships
• The influence of legal practitioners in driving jurisprudential change
• Strategic litigation as a tool for legal evolution in private international law
• Comparative approaches to judicial reasoning in international private law cases
• Judicial responses to global challenges such as migration, digital commerce, corporate responsibility, and human rights protection

Paper Submission
Please submit an abstract (up to 500 words) of your proposed paper by 11 May 2025 to Ms. Marie-Laure Lauria (marie-laure.lauria@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch), with the subject line “ISDC 35th PIL Conference Submission“. Abstracts may be submitted in English, German, or French.

All submissions will undergo a double-blind peer review and decisions will be communicated by 3 June 2025. Accepted papers will be considered for publication in an edited volume or a special journal issue.

Organization
The conference will be hosted by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law.

Funding
The Swiss Institute of Comparative Law will provide funding for the travel costs and accommodation of all presenters.

On 14 April 2025, the Council of the European Union approved the position of the European Parliament at first reading, illustrated in this blog, on the proposal for a directive amending Directives (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 (the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive – CSDDD) as regards the dates from which Member States are to […]

On 9 April 2025, the French Ministry of Justice issued instructions for the public prosecutors of Nantes and Rennes, who are responsible of the French central status registry, to register parentage as resulting from foreign surrogacies. The instruction expressly relies on the judgments of the Cour de cassation of October 2024 and November 2024 which […]

In April, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will be relaunching its Crossroads in Private International Law research seminar series. It will feature both online and hybrid events.

For the upcoming term, six events have been scheduled:

23 April 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Consumer Protection and Justice in Israeli Private International Law” by Prof Sharon Shakargy (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) | online and in-person

In 1933, Professor David Cavers argued for rethinking the choice of law process by prioritizing justice and party expectations over formal rules, sparking the American choice of law revolution. While this movement had some lasting impacts, it ultimately was mostly unsuccessful. Nearly 90 years later, the issue of justice in conflict of laws remains relevant, especially regarding power disparities between major tech companies and consumers. This paper calls for a renewed focus on justice within this context, outlining its implications for the existing legal framework.

24 April 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Collisions and Autonomous Ships: A Challenge for the Collision Convention 1910” by Ms Luci Carey (University of Aberdeen) | online only

The introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) whereby human crews are replaced by AI driven navigation systems raises novel legal questions. One of these relates to the liability of the vessel in the event of a collision. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (1910 Collision Convention) apportions liability between colliding ships based upon the degree of fault. The introduction of artificial intelligence is making the determination of fault or liability in negligence increasingly difficult. This seminar questions whether fault-based liability for collisions involving ships navigated without human control is appropriate, enquires if strict liability is the logical solution or if the 1910 Collision Convention is robust in its current form to accommodate technological developments.

30 April 2025 at 12:00 (UK time) | “A Skewed Bargain? Platforms get the King’s Protection for little or no Obedience or Allegiance” by Prof Uta Kohl (University of Southampton) | online only

Common law jurisprudence on civil jurisdiction over non-resident defendants has occasionally made explicit reference to the justification of jurisdiction as formulated in Calvin’s Case (1608): ‘when an alien in amity cometh into England, because so long as he is within England he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for the one (as it hath been said), draweth the other.’ This justification is powerful in so far as it demonstrates that territorially based jurisdiction (in civil and criminal cases) is one side of a two sided bargain: obedience and allegiance in exchange for protection. In this talk I will reflect on how this bargain has played out – or not played out – in the case of online platforms, and on how we might use Calvin’s Case to fundamentally rethink the treatment of platforms.

7 May 2025 at 11:00 (UK time) | “Should the Rules on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Be Harmonised in Africa? A Comparative and Empirical Assessment” by Dr Chukwuma Okoli (University of Birmingham) | online only

This study examines 200 decided cases from 18 African legal systems, focusing on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. It reveals significant disparities in outcomes and grounds for recognition and enforcement and refusal. It underscores the diversity of legal frameworks, procedural rules, and judicial interpretations across the continent. The findings highlight the challenges posed by this fragmentation and make a strong case for harmonisation. A more unified approach, the study argues, would not only streamline cross-border legal processes but also foster economic development and strengthen investor confidence across Africa.

14 May 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Navigating Generative AI, Copyright Protection, and Private International Law in Europe” by Dr Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) | online and in-person

Generative AI has an intellectual property problem. This seminar enquires whether the current framework of private international law in the European Union is fit to deal with cross-border copyright infringement litigation concerning (i) the use of copyrighted work to train and develop GenAI and (ii) AI-generated content (AIGC) which resembles protected work.

21 May 2025 at 10:00 (UK time) | “Platform Governance and Wikilegality” by Prof David Nelken (UCL) (Joint seminar with the Aberdeen Centre for Constitutional and Public International Law) | online and in-person

Registration for all events is possible here.

Stefano Dominelli (Università di Genova) has just published a book titled Regolamento Bruxelles I bis e US jurisdiction in personam: riflessioni e proposte su condivisioni valoriali, influenze e osmosi di metodi with Editoriale Scientifica. The book is written in Italian but also features conclusions in English.

The author has kindly shared the following summary with us:

The book analyses the basic principles of the EU’ and US international civil procedure in contract and tort law. The investigation shows how both systems are partly inconsistent with their respective premises – of legal certainty, on the one hand, and fairness and justice, on the other. The juxtaposition of the dogmatic approaches and their contextualisation in the light of the law in action makes it possible to reconstruct a common and shared principle which shapes solutions in both systems – that of the necessary existence of a minimum connection between the jurisdiction and the case. This conclusion opens up, to a limited extent, to a conceptual rapprochement between legal systems and to reflections on possible legal transplants that respect the characteristics of the local legal culture.

The whole book is available open access under this link.

Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris, Postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of the Opinion of Advocate General de la Tour in CJEU, Case C-713/23, Trojan

From Coman to Trojan

On 5 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered its judgment in the case C-673/16, Coman. In this landmark ruling, the CJEU decided that Member States are required to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in another Member Stated to grant a residence permit to the non-EU citizen spouse of an EU citizen under the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. The pending case C-713/23, Trojan goes a step further than C-673/16, Coman. On this occasion, the CJEU was asked whether EU law requires a civil registry of Poland, a Member State that does not provide any form of recognition to same-sex couples, to transcribe the certificate of same-sex marriage validly contracted in another Member State. A positive answer would imply that the same-sex marriage established under German law would be able to deploy the same effects as a validly contracted marriage under Polish law. While the CJEU has not yet rendered a judgment, on 3 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour issued his Opinion on the case. While the CJEU might decide differently from AG de la Tour, the Opinion already gives an idea of the solution that might potentially be reached by the CJEU. This post aims to analyse the case and explore its implications should the CJEU side with AG de la Tour.

Background of the case

Mr. Cupriak-Trojan, a German-Polish citizen, and Mr. Trojan, a Polish national, got married in Germany, where they used to live. Then, they moved to Poland, where they requested to transcribe the German marriage certificate in the Polish civil registry. Their request was rejected on the ground that marriage is not open to same-sex couples under Polish law. It was considered that the transcription of the certificate would go against Polish public policy. Upon the rejection, the couple decided to contest the decision before Polish administrative jurisdiction. They considered that refusal to transcribe the certificate contravenes the right to freedom of movement and residence enshrined in Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘EUCFR’) in light of the principle of non-discrimination under Article of 7 of the EUCFR. In other words, when they decided to move to Poland, the non-recognition of their marriage under Polish law hindered their right to freedom of movement and residence. Eventually, the case reached the Polish Supreme Administrative Court, which decided to submit the following preliminary reference to the CJEU:

‘Must the provisions of Article 20(2)(a) and Article 21(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 21(1) of [the Charter] and Article 2(2) of Directive [2004/38], be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of a Member State, where a citizen of the Union who is a national of that State has contracted a marriage with another citizen of the Union (a person of the same sex) in a Member State in accordance with the legislation of that State, from refusing to recognise that marriage certificate and transcribe it into the national civil registry, which prevents those persons from residing in the State in question with the marital status of a married couple and under the same surname, on the grounds that the law of the host Member State [(18)] does not provide for same-sex marriage?’

AG de la Tour’s analysis

AG de la Tour starts his analysis by acknowledging that matters concerning the civil status of persons depend on the national law of the Member States. However, the right of freedom of movement and residence imposes on Member States the recognition of the civil status of persons validly established in other Member States. In this regard, he recalls that the CJEU adopted a two-fold approach to civil status matters. In matters concerning an EU citizen’s identity (e.g. name or gender), Member States are required to include those identity details in the civil registries. However, in civil status matters concerning ties legally established in other Member States (e.g. marriage or parenthood), there is no such obligation, and recognition of those ties is limited to the ‘sole purpose of exercising the rights which the person concerned derived from EU law’ (para. 29).

In the present case, AG de la Tour considers that the non-recognition of the same-sex marriage amounts to a ‘restriction on the exercise of the right’ to freedom of movement and residence under EU law (para. 32). Subsequently, he proceeds to examine whether such restriction is compatible with the right for respect for private and family life guaranteed by Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘EUCFR’). He examines this issue through the lens of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) case law on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the equivalent provision of Article 7 of the EUCFR. It should be reminded that the EUCFR expressly acknowledges in its Article 53 the ECHR and the ECtHR case law as the term of reference for establishing the minimum standards for its interpretation. In this regard, the ECtHR has repeatedly stated that Article 8 of the ECHR requires its contracting States to provide same-sex couples with a ‘specific legal framework’. Nonetheless, contracting States are not required to legalize same-sex marriages and enjoy a margin of discretion to decide how the recognition of the same-sex couple provided.

Based on the referred ECtHR case law, it appears that the non-recognition would constitute a restriction on the right to freedom of movement and residence incompatible with the EUCFR. At this point, the question arises whether such recognition should be done by entering the same-sex marriage certificate into the civil registry. Here, AG de la Tour considers that EU law does not require the marriage licence transcription. As he mentioned at the beginning of his reasoning, ‘Member States’ obligations in terms of civil status relate only to the determination of a Union citizen’s identity’ (para. 38). In his view, the registration of foreign marriage certificate ‘falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States’ (para. 42). Member States can thus refuse the transcription of the marriage certificate if the recognition of the same-sex marriage can be achieved through other means. This discretion is given to Member States to decide whether they enter a foreign same-sex marriage in their civil registry or not would also be in line with the ECtHR case law, which acknowledges States a wide margin of appreciation on how to recognize foreign same-sex marriages.

In the case of Poland, since there is no kind of legal framework for same-sex couples in this Member State, the only possible solution appears to be the registration of the marriage certificate. Therefore, as an exception, and given the specific Polish circumstances, AG de la Tour considers that Poland would be required to entry into its civil registry of the same-sex marriage.

Recognition yes, transcription no

The fil rouge of AG de la Tour’s reasoning was to find a manner to provide recognition for same-sex marriages without overstepping on the Member States’ competences in matters concerning the civil status. Finding that right to freedom of movement and residence entails an obligation to transcribe the marriage certificate would not be ‘in strict compliance with the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States’ (para. 55). That would imply that an understanding of the ‘freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens which may be exercised without limit so far as concerns personal status’ (para. 56). Such a solution that would depart from the well-established CJEU case law on this matter, moving ‘from an approach based on the principle of free movement of a Union citizen that is limited to his or her identity, to an approach based solely on the right to respect for his or her family life’ (para. 57). This why AG de la Tour adopted a solution that allows recognition without the need for transcription of the marriage licence in the civil registry.

Regarding the recognition of same-sex marriages, it should also be noted that AG de la Tour leaves the Member States with wide discretion on how same-sex marriage is recognized. This means that the marriage does not necessarily need to be recognized as a marriage. They could be recognized in the form of a civil partnership. That is, for instance, the solution that exists under Italian law. Article 32bis of the Italian Private International Law Act provides that ‘a marriage contracted abroad by Italian citizens with a person of the same sex produces the effects of the civil union regulated by Italian law’. Based on AG de la Tour’s reasoning, had Poland had a similar, he would have accepted the recognition of a same-sex marriage in the downgraded form of a civil partnership and the transcription of the marriage certificate would have been required.

Promoting the effectiveness of the ECtHR case law through EU law

On its reasoning, AG de la Tour strongly relies on the ECtHR case law. This does not come as a surprise. Other LGBT rights cases involving civil status matters and the right to freedom of movement contain similar references to the ECtHR jurisprudence. The most recent example is the C-21/23, Mirin in which the CJEU found that Romania had to recognize the gender change that occurred in another Member State. The main basis of this ruling was the ECtHR judgment, in which Romania had been found in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR because Romanian law did not provide a clear procedure to obtain legal gender recognition (X and Y v. Romania).

Such reliance on the ECtHR case law also serves to expose that Member States do not duly implement the ECtHR rulings. Poland has been found twice in violation of Article 8 of the ECtHR for not providing same-sex couples with any kind of formal legal recognition (Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland and Formela and Others v. Poland). While the Polish government has proposed an act introducing a civil partnership regime open to same-sex couples, it has not been approved yet. Furthermore, such an initiative only appeared after a more progressive government emerged out of the 2023 Polish general election. The situation is similar in other Member States such as Romania or Bulgaria. These Member States have been also called out by the ECtHR (Buhuceanu and Others v. Romania and Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria) for not providing any sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples. However, unlike in Poland, no legislative changes are expected on this matter in the near future. If the CJEU adopts AG de la Tour’s solution, all these Member States would have to allow the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted in other Member States, even if in the downgraded form of civil partnership. Unlike the Council of Europe with regards to the ECtHR rulings, the EU counts with more effective means to ensure that CJEU rulings are followed by Member States. Formally, the Commission could even trigger an infringement procedure against them in case they do not comply with the judgment in C-713/23, Trojan. Therefore, EU law would become the indirect path to make Member States comply with the ECtHR rulings.

The potential for reverse discrimination

The solution proposed by AG de la Tour entails the risk of recreating a situation of reserve discrimination of same-sex couples that have not left Poland against those who have obtained certain legal status for the relationship in other Member States while exercising the right to freedom of movement. A same-sex couple moving who married or entered a civil partnership in a Member State would be able to attain the recognition of their marriage or civil partnership in a Member State that does not provide any legal framework for same-sex relationships. This is as far as EU law can go in this matter, given domestic family law matters strictly fall within the scope of Member States competencies.

It should also be noted that going to another Member State to get a marriage licence because the Member State where the same-sex couple resides does not provide any legal recognition would not be sufficient to achieve the recognition of such marriage in the Member State of residence. As AG de la Tour pointed out in his Opinion in C-4/23, Mirin, a close link needs to exist between the person and the Member State where the legal gender recognition is obtained (para. 71 and 72). Otherwise, there would be an abuse of EU law. The same would apply in the case of a marriage. Going to another Member State with the only purpose of obtaining a marriage licence and circumventing domestic law that does not provide a legal status for same-sex couples. The same-sex couple would have to establish a close link with the Member State where they seek to contract their marriage.

 

A collection of essays honoring Marc Fallon has recently been published by Larcier under the title Vers un code européen de droit international privé? Further information can be found here. The collection, edited by Jean-Yves Carlier and Stéphanie Francq (both professors at the Université Catholique de Louvain, as the honoree), brings together some twenty contributions (mostly […]

On 4–5 December 2025, the Department of Law at the University of Ferrara will host the XXII edition of the Conference of Young Scholars of International Legal Studies, dedicated to “The Principle of Good Faith in International and European Union Law”.

The organizers have issued a call for papers open to scholars of public and private international law and EU law, who are currently enrolled in a PhD program or who have obtained their PhD no more than five years ago.

To apply, authors must submit an abstract (no more than 600 words), in either Italian or English, along with a curriculum vitae, by 22 June 2025, to the following email address: giovaniinternazionalisti2025@gmail.com.

Further information is available here.

The Ulrich Huber round of the Pax Moot competition ended on Friday in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion, at the University of Maastricht to be precise.

During three fierce days 34 Moot teams from all over Europe and as far as Georgia, Kazakhstan, India, Singapore and Uzbekistan pleaded against each other. They argued about whether self-employed content moderators for social media companies could be considered employees; about how to locate the damage that consists of the stress and mental health harm suffered by these digital nomads; about whether a UK subsidiary of an Irish company could be considered to be domiciled in the EU; about whether the proceedings instituted by a foundation under the Dutch WAMCA should be characterised as contract or tort; about whether a settlement in front of a UK court could be recognised under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention and much more. They relied on old and new case law, reports and legal scholarship.

At the end, the University of Ljubljana won the competition, with Jindal Law School as the runner-up. The other two teams that made it to the semi-finals were the Universities of Sofia and Paris-Saclay.

The prize for the best memorials went to ESADE Business School, with the University of Ghent in second place, and Paris Dauphine and Sofia Universities in shared third places.

Jana Ušen won the best pleader’s award, followed by Brin Smole, both of Ljubljana University. In the third position was Joshua Tan and in fourth Ong Xin Yan, both of Singapore Management University.

Under the inexhaustible leadership of Marta Pertegás, expect the Pax team to be back with a new case in October/November, to be pleaded in Sofia in roughly one year’s time. Pax Moot is co-funded b y the European Commission.

Reciprocity in the field of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has long been a subject of passionate debate. While some scholars question its desirability, others firmly defend it as a legitimate legal requirement. What remains undeniable is that the topic continues to spark intense discussion and scholarly interest.

A clear illustration of this ongoing debate is provided by two recent publications addressing the issue from different perspectives and jurisdictions.

The first is an enlightening open-access article by Eszter PAPP and Nobumichi TERAMURA, titled “Enforcing Singapore Judgments in Cambodia: Reciprocity Under the Loupe“. The paper explores the practical and legal challenges related to the enforcement of Singaporean money judgments in Cambodia, with a specific focus on the requirement of reciprocity.

The abstract reads as follows:

Abstract:
This article examines the feasibility of enforcing Singapore money judgments in Cambodia, focusing on the “guarantee of reciprocity” – an ambiguous yet critical condition. It is ambiguous because Cambodian courts have not yet interpreted it. It is critical because it is perceived as the main obstacle to enforcing foreign judgments. Without a treaty-based mutual enforcement mechanism between Cambodia and Singapore, it is unclear whether a Singapore money judgment could be enforced in Cambodia or if a judgment creditor’s application would be dismissed in any event citing lack of reciprocity. Following an analysis of the laws of Cambodia, Singapore, and Japan, the article concludes that there is no legal obstacle before the Cambodian courts to enforce a Singapore money judgment. The flexible interpretation of the guarantee of reciprocity outlined in this article would enhance access to justice, eliminate a trade barrier, and make the investment environment more attractive in Cambodia.

The second is a case comment written by myself (in French) on a decision of the Tunisian Cour de cassation that addresses the reciprocity requirement in the context of the enforcement of foreign judgments, under the title “La réciprocité en matière d’exequatur?: Quoi de nouveau?? Observations sous l’arrêt de la Cour de cassation n° 6608 du 13 mars 2014” (Reciprocity in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: What’s New? Commentary on Court of Cassation Ruling No. 6608 of 13 March 2014)

The (English) abstract reads as follows:

Abstract:
The enforcement of foreign judgments in Tunisia is governed by Article 11 of the 1998 Code of Private International Law, which states that enforcement cannot be allowed if, inter alia, the reciprocity principle is not observed. This case note analyzes and reviews this issue in light of the Tunisian Cour de cassation’s decision No. 6608 of 13 March 2014. In this decision, the Court ruled that, in the absence of an international cooperation agreement, reciprocity is a factual matter, and its respect must be presumed. It is therefore up to the party contesting this presumption to provide evidence of its non-existence. This decision provides a valuable clarification of the nature and legal framework of reciprocity under Tunisian law, particularly regarding the burden of proof.

Together, these two contributions offer a concise yet comprehensive look at how the principle of reciprocity is interpreted and applied in different legal systems.

Stefano Dominelli (Univ. of Genova) has authored ‘Regolamento Bruxelles I bis e US jurisdiction in personam: riflessioni e proposte su condivisioni valoriali, influenze e osmosi di metodi’ (Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2025). The volume, in Italian (with the conclusive chapter also translated in English) is freely accessible online. He has shared the following presentation of his […]

I am grateful to Charlotte de Meeûs for her summary below of the most extensive review of TPLF in the EU. It would look to me that the lack of firm support by the study for any of the 3 options it outlines (see below), probably makes it veer towards the first: which one that is, is for readers to find out at the end of this post.

Charlotte inter alia has her own comparative overview here, has also published on the use of TPLF in public interest litigation, and discusses costs recovery (one of the important elements to TPLF) in the context of the ECHR here: I am most happy that as a scholar in the know, she was prepared to write on the study for the blog.

Geert.

*****

European Commission publishes long-awaited study mapping the use and regulation of third-party litigation funding in the EU.

On 21 March 2025, the European Commission published the BIICL study “Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union” (the Mapping Study). The Mapping Study provides a comprehensive examination of the legal frameworks, practices, and stakeholder perspectives on third-party litigation funding (TPLF) across EU Member States and selected non-EU countries, including Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Aims and structure of the Mapping Study

The EC’s initiative was undertaken in response to the European Parliament’s Resolution adopted in September 2022, calling for the Commission to regulate the TPLF market. Upon request of the Commission, the Mapping Study was conducted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and Civic Consulting, and supported by various national experts.

 The extensive Mapping Study is divided into two main sections. First, a legal analysis carried out by national experts describing the regulation and practice of TPLF in the selected jurisdictions. Second, the results of the stakeholders’ consultation, gathering the opinions of various stakeholders (e.g., lawyers and law firms, businesses, litigation funders, consumer organisations, academics, public authorities, members of the judiciary) on the possible regulation of TPLF and its practical operation.

Key Findings

On the TPLF regulatory landscape, the Mapping Study finds that within the EU, specific regulation of TPLF is largely absent, except in the context of consumer collective redress following the national transpositions of the Representative Actions Directive – RAD 2020/1828.

This means that TPLF is primarily governed by national contract law and national civil procedure. In jurisdictions outside the EU, such as Canada and the UK, regulation primarily stems from case law, while TPLF in the USA is subject to an interplay of federal and state regulations. Logically, the absence of regulation at national level also means that very few countries have provisions similar or equivalent to provisions laid down in the 2022 Parliament Resolution on TPLF.

On the use of TPLF in the selected jurisdictions, the Mapping Study shows in essence that TPLF practices vary widely depending on the jurisdiction and the sector concerned. TPLF is indeed used in a wide variety of sectors. The selection of funded claims as well as the terms of litigation funding agreements diverge depending on the funder and the claim at hand.

In this context, the Mapping Study emphasises the difficulties arising from the broad diversity in funding practices and from the lack of available data. In the words of the authors of the Study, caution regarding the results of the Study is needed as

“[t]his variety makes general conclusions regarding practices of litigation funders difficult, and it also implies that the results of this consultation are not necessarily a complete picture of litigation funding in the EU, but rather provide a summary of those practices that were observed by the participating litigation funders and other stakeholders” (p. 637).

On the views of stakeholders regarding the use and regulation of TPLF, it is interesting to note that, amongst the 231 stakeholders who took part in the consultation, most views on TPLF were (at least partially) positive. Around 34% of stakeholders indeed viewed TPLF as having only positive effects, 24% considered TPLF to have both positive and negative effects and 17% only perceived negative effects.

Lawyers, litigation funders, and, importantly, consumer organisations generally viewed TPLF as having predominantly positive effects, whereas businesses (excluding lawyers and funders) perceived TPLF more negatively. The main positive effects listed by stakeholders were better access to justice, professionalism and expertise provided by funders in complex cases and filtering effect for non-meritorious cases. Among the four most cited negative effects of TPLF, stakeholders mentioned the reduced compensation for the funded party due to the remuneration owed to the funder; conflicts of interests arising from the involvement of a third-party litigation funder; the control or influence that the funder has on litigation (including on substantive and procedural decisions regarding legal proceedings and settlements); and possible frivolous claims funded by TPLF.

Regarding the question whether regulation of TPFL was needed, the majority (58%) of respondents found that TPFL should be regulated. However, among these 58%, the Mapping Study showed that there was little willingness for regulation exclusively at national level (29% of stakeholders were of the opinion that regulation should take place at EU level and 25% answered that regulation should take place at both EU and national level).

Interestingly, stakeholders also pointed out the issues that were in their view the most in need for regulation, by giving scores of “effectiveness” to the measures proposed in the 2022 Parliament Resolution on TPLF.

The issues that obtained the higher “effectiveness scores” were transparency requirements, conflicts of interests, capital adequacy and responsibility for adverse costs. However, although these issues received the highest “effectiveness score”, none of the measures envisaged in the 2022 Parliament Resolution on TPLF, except for transparency requirements, are considered to be “rather effective”.

Opinions diverged however regarding the type of regulation needed. The Mapping Study identified three possible routes for TPLF regulation namely:

No regulation: this position is based on the argument that there is no evidence that TPLF has negative effects and that overly strict regulation could drive litigation funders away from the EU market. This position adds that the existing national rules (e.g., general contract law and civil procedure, consumer protection, financial and banking rules and collective redress laws) are sufficient and should be used in parallel with courts’ supervision to address some issues linked to TPLF.

Light-touch regulation: this position, adopted by the widest number of stakeholders, is in favour of adopting basic rules governing TPLF without being too specific or too strict so as to drive litigation funders away from the EU market. Regulation would in this scenario not only increase predictability for funders and funded parties but also avoid placing an excessive burden on the courts insofar as regulation of TPFL is concerned. The issues identified as needing regulation include transparency and disclosure of the existence of litigation funding agreements, capital adequacy requirements and consumer protection.

Strong regulation: this position, which focuses on the negative effects associated with TPLF, favours the adoption of a comprehensive regulation of the TPLF market, in line with the approach proposed in the 2022 Parliament Resolution on TPLF. This position contends that while TPLF practices should not be excessively limited, the (negative) impact that TPLF may have on litigation requires some controls through regulation.

Next steps

It is said that information gathered in the context of the Mapping Study will inform the European Commission’s policy decisions regarding TPLF. However, it remains to be seen what steps the European Commission will take following the publication of the Mapping Study and whether and how it will further react to the 2022 Parliament Resolution on TPLF.

The Commission has indeed not explicitly confirmed whether it is inclined to follow one of the three possible routes for TPLF regulation identified in the Mapping Study, nor whether it will take any formal initiative in this respect.

In the meantime, one will therefore have to continue closely to monitor  possible national developments viz the practices of litigation funders, starting with the final report of the UK Civil Justice Council (CJC) reviewing litigation funding and its possible regulation in the UK, which is said to be  expected by summer 2025.

Charlotte de Meeûs.

As reported on this blog, the European Commission published on 26 February 2025 a proposal for a directive amending Directives 2006/43, 2013/34, 2022/2464 and 2024/1760. The initiative, part of the Omnibus Simplification Package, seeks to adjust certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations. On 1 April 2025, the European Parliament invoked the urgent procedure […]

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.

Advocate-General Kokott opined last week in Joined Cases C-672/23 and C-673/23 Electricity & Water Authority of Government of Bahrain ea v Prismiian ea .

After her Opinion in Athenian Brewery, where the CJEU itself was less claimant friendly than the AG had opined,  it is the second Kokott AG Opinion on the use of anchor defendant mechanism in follow-on antitrust damages claims in quick succession.

Case C‑672/23 concerns the determination of the joint and several liability of the defendants for damage claimed as arising from an infringement of the prohibition on cartels under EU law in the form of a cartel in relation to underground and submarine cables and related products, works and services.  The claim in the main proceedings is directed not only against the companies mentioned in the relevant Commission Decision but also against other companies that fall into three groups of undertakings. These have at their centre Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl, ABB AB and Nexans France SAS. Of all the defendants, only Draka Holding BV, which is a subsidiary of Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi and itself holds all of the shares in the capital of Prysmian Netherlands BV, is established in Amsterdam, Netherlands. All of the other defendant companies (collectively ‘Draka and others’) each have their registered office in other locations within and outside the Netherlands. Claimants in the main proceedings in this case, the Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and others (collectively ‘EWGB and others’), operate high-voltage networks in the Gulf States. Damage arguably took place outside the EEA.

Case C‑673/23 likewise concerns the determination of the joint and several liability of the defendants in the main proceedings at first instance for damage which is alleged to have arisen as a result of two infringements of the prohibition of cartels under EU law, in this case not established by the European Commission, rather by the Italian national competition authority. The claim in the main proceedings at first instance was directed not only against the companies mentioned in that decision but also against other companies that fall into two groups of undertakings. These have at their centre, on the one hand, Smurfit Kappa Italia SpA, and, on the other hand, Toscana Ondulati SpA. Of those defendants, only Smurfit International BV is established in Amsterdam, Netherlands. All of the other companies (collectively ‘Smurfit and others’) each have their registered office in other locations within and outside the Netherlands.

The questions referred are very detailed indeed (see (17) of the Opinion). They essentially request from the CJEU a roadmap to determine the justifiable use of the anchor mechanism in cases like these. Particularly after Athenian Brewery, national courts arguably have enough material to make that assessment themselves, however the courts at Amsterdam had of course referred these cases prior to Athenian Brewery having been held.

The AG first of all and succinctly recalls

• the principles of an ‘undertaking’ in EU antitrust law [(30):

“in order for it to be found that the parent company and the subsidiary company form an economic unit, the claimant must not only establish the economic, organisational and legal links between these companies, but also prove that there is a specific link between the economic activity of that subsidiary company and the subject matter of the infringement by the parent company”

• and the core application of A8(1) Brussels Ia in the antitrust context (32): (A8(1)’s condition of close relatedness is

“fulfilled where several undertakings that participated in an infringement of EU competition rules, established by a decision of the Commission, are the subject of claims based on their participation in that infringement, despite the fact that they participated in that infringement in different places and at different times” (reference to CJEU CDC); and

” The same is also true of claims based on a company’s participation in an infringement of the EU competition rules which are directed against that company and against its parent company and in which it is alleged that those companies together form one and the same undertaking” (reference to CJEU Athenian Brewery).

The AG then entertains the referring court’s question on whether the prospect of success of the claim against the anchor defendant must be taken into account. ‘Prospect of success’ is a better translation than the translation elsewhere in the Opinion of the questions referred, where the Dutch term ‘toewijsbaarheid’ is translated as ‘admissibility’. The referring court clearly seeks guidance on the relevance of the merits of the claim.

The AG concludes on this section

“account is to be taken of the prospects of success of the claim against the anchor defendant, but only as an indication that the claimant has not artificially fulfilled the conditions for that provision’s applicability, which may be true in the case of a manifestly unfounded claim.”

‘Prospect of success’ must be an echo of common law CPR (a ‘real issue to be tried’), although we do not quite know: the AG, as is her MO, refers to no scholarship in her Opinion.

On this point I do not think the authorities support the conclusions which the AG draws from it.  She writes (37)

“Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation must not be abused by bringing a claim against several defendants for the sole purpose of removing one or more of them from the jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which that defendant or those defendants is or are domiciled. That would be the case if there were firm evidence to support the conclusion that the claimant artificially fulfilled, or prolonged the fulfilment of, the conditions for that provision’s applicability.” (references omitted)

References were to CJEU CDC, and what the AG writes (37) is correct.

However the AG then jumps to the claim being ‘manifestly unfounded’: (38)

“For that to be the case, however, it is not sufficient that the claim against the anchor defendant should (possibly) appear to be unfounded. Rather, the claim must be manifestly unfounded or contrived or be devoid of any real interest to the claimant at the time when it is brought.”

In the original German, the Opinion uses ‘unbegründet’, which clearly refers to substantial merit of the case, not procedural or other inadmissability (and indeed this is also how the referring court has intended its question).

In support of her position in (38) the AG refers (other than to her Opinion in Athenian Brewery and to Mengozzi AG in Freeport) to CJEU Reisch Montage para [33]. This CJEU para does not however talk about the claim being unfounded, manifest or not. Rather it is summary of the judgment, right before its operative part and it addresses procedural inadmissability (due to a pending bankruptcy proceeding). In Reisch Montage the CJEU does not address meritorious prospect of success at all.

Whether the likelihood of success of an action against a party before the courts of the State where it is domiciled (some kind of merits review, therefore) is relevant in the determination of whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of A8(1), was raised in Freeport but not answered by the CJEU, for such answer was eventually not necessary for the preliminary reference at issue.

The issue was discussed in England, pre Brexit. In the first instance judgment in Sabbagh v Khoury, Carr J’s extensive merits review hinged on the CJEU instruction ‘to take account of all the necessary factors in the case-file’ per CJEU Freeport at [41]. The Court of Appeal on majority confirmed the need for a rather extensive merits review.

I do not think this is what A8(1) either requires or indeed sanctions, and I agree with Lady Justice Gloster, who dissented in the Sabbagh appeal, [178]:

‘the operation of a merits test within Article [8](1) does give rise to risk of irreconcilable judgments, which can be demonstrated by reference to the present facts’,

and [179]

“the overwhelming tenor of the CJEU authorities is to emphasise the fundamental aim of eliminating, rather than simply reducing, a risk of irreconcilable judgments. This aim is achieved if Article [8](1) does not incorporate a merits test and is undermined if it does do so.”

Article 8(1)’s ‘so closely connected’ test clearly requires some appreciation of the facts and the legal arguments, as well as a certain amount of taking into account the defendant’s arguments, however only with a view to assessing relatedness with a view to avoiding irreconcilable judgments. This in my view does not amount to a merits test, whether a wide or a narrow (‘manifestly unfounded’) one and this remains an important difference with the common law ‘real issue to be tried’ requirement.

(40) ff the AG then zooms in on some issues related to the prospect of success (in my opinion the CJEU will not follow on prospect of success and, practising judicial economy, will not entertain these questions).

As she notes, these questions are only raised viz the exercise of jurisdiction, and they are (43) “a complex legal question calling for in-depth examination” – a question which I suspect may be referred again if and when the Dutch courts do exercise jurisdiction. This includes [(44) ff) how attributability of damage to an adverse effect on competition in the internal market, must be interpreted where damage arguably occurred outside of the EEA, and the general issue of territorial scope of A101 TFEU. (In my view the answer may be much more straightforward perhaps than seemingly suggested in the submissions, by focusing on the claims essentially being in compensation for damage following breach of statutory duty). This section also discusses substantive issues of presumption of control in competition law.

(68) ff then returns to the issues of jurisdiction, addressing ia the topic of groups of undertakings, taking into account that in one of the cases it is the  downstream liability of a subsidiary company for an infringement committed by its parent company that is at stake. Intense reference here of course to CJEU Athenian Brewery.

(79) ff addresses the role of the foreseeability of the co-defendant’s being sued in the jurisdiction of the anchor defendant.

I wholly agree with the AG’s view (81) that “foreseeability is not.. an independent criterion that is examined alongside the other elements defining the fulfilment of the provision at issue.” And, (82)

there is no requirement under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation for the co-defendant him or herself to have specifically foreseen that he or she would be sued in the jurisdiction of the anchor defendant. Rather, abstract foreseeability, in the form of the ability of an informed and reasonable defendant to foresee before which courts he or she might be sued outside his or her State of domicile, is sufficient.

(83) a ‘close connection’ with the defendant, such as here through the group undertaking issue, is particularly relevant in this respect.

I have seen many instances recently where opposing counsel banks on lack of predictability to propose rejecting jurisdiction. I would welcome a finding by the CJEU that brings that interpretative rule back to its true nature.

(87) ff then addresses territorial jurisdiction under A8(1). Statutory interpretation as the AG argues, points to a strong yes (reference ia to FTI Touristik) as does linguistic comparison and the report Jenard, despite the CJEU not having yet ruled on the issue viz A8(1) specifically. If there are two anchor defendants in the same Member State, and subject to the effectiveness of EU jurisdictional law not being impaired, national CPR ought to be allowed to join the case against both, but only I assume in one of the courts where the conditions of A8(1) are fulfilled (see (97) “a court which considers itself to lack jurisdiction may take up the option to make a reference to another court available under its national procedural law, provided that the effective enforcement of the Brussels I bis Regulation is not restricted as a result”).

All in all a very relevant Opinion, CJEU judgment is one to watch!

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.516.

https://bsky.app/profile/gavclaw.bsky.social/post/3lm7gymxlkk24

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_more-on-the-blog-later-after-athenian-brewery-activity-7314912971514662913–mmY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1909147234995782066

On 20 March 2025, the Danish Supreme Court ruled (in case BS-34884/2024-HJR) that a Chinese arbitral award could not be enforced in Denmark due to a lack of proper service. Background In 2020, a Chinese arbitral tribunal held that the investments that an investor had made for a company should be repaid. Since the defendant […]

By Ryan Joseph, final-year BBA LLB (Hons) student, Jindal Global Law School, India.

Introduction

The recent decision of the UK High Court (“Court”) in Tyson International Company Limited (“Tyson”) v. General Insurance Corporation of India (“GIC”) sets a critical precedent for cases that lie at the intersection of arbitration, contractual hierarchy, and judicial intervention through anti-suit injunctions. The principal issue in the case revolved around the harmonious application of two conflicting dispute resolution clauses contained in two separate agreements pertaining to the same transaction. While one provided for dispute settlement through arbitration seated in New York, the other was an exclusive jurisdiction clause that provided for dispute settlement by England and Wales courts. To resolve this apparent conflict between the two clauses, the Court relied on a confusion clause (also known as a hierarchy clause) in the parties’ agreement to rule that the exclusive jurisdiction clause, in favour of  England and Wales courts, prevails over the arbitration clause. Based on this conclusion, the Court issued an anti-suit injunction against GIC from arbitrating the dispute in New York.

Factual Background

Tyson entered into a reinsurance agreement with General Insurance Corporation of India (“GIC”), a state-owned-entity. The transaction involved two agreements; a Market Reforms Contract (“MRC”) and second Facultative Certificates (“Certificates”). The MRC contained an explicit choice of law and an exclusive jurisdiction clause, submitting disputes to English courts to be governed by the laws of England and Wales (“English DRC”). However, the subsequently issued Certificates introduced an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration in New York to be governed by the laws of New York (“Arbitration Clause”). A pivotal provision, termed the “Confusion Clause,” was embedded within the Certificates, stipulating that in the event of a confusion, the MRC would take precedence over the Certificates.

The dispute arose when GIC claimed that Tyson had undervalued certain commercial numbers on which the insurance premium was based. Therefore, GIC sought to initiate arbitration in New York pursuant to the arbitration clause in the Certificates. In response, Tyson approached the High Court for an anti-suit injunction against the arbitration, arguing that  pursuant  to the English DRC, English courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute emanating from the transaction.

The Court stressed on the importance of circumspect judicial intervention when interfering in arbitration. However, considering the existence of the “confusion clause”, Tyson argued that the arbitration agreement did not come into existence. Therefore, the principal  question before the Court was: what is the effect of the confusion clause when interpreting the two agreements? If the confusion clause had the effect of a hierarchy clause (as argued by Tyson) and hence gave precedence to the MRC, the arbitration agreement wouldn’t come into existence and the anti-suit injunction would be granted. On the other hand, if the confusion clause was merely to give meaning to confusing terms in the Certificates (as argued by GIC), the two agreements would be read harmoniously without giving preference to either. GIC argued this can be done in two ways. First, the conflicting clauses could be read as an agreement between parties to treat the arbitration as a condition precedent to raising any claims before the English Courts. Or in the alternative, the two agreements would be read together to mean that English Courts will have jurisdiction to supervise the New York arbitration. Either ways, the arbitration agreement would be valid and hence the anti-suit injunction should fail.

Submissions of Parties

The Court summarised the principles governing anti-suit injunctions in Times Trading Corp v National Bank of Fujairah[1] to hold that an anti-suit injunction can be granted in all cases where it is just and convenient to do so.[2] However, such power must be exercised with circumspection where the claimant can demonstrate a negative right to not be sued. Tyson can establish such a right if it can demonstrate that an arbitration agreement was not concluded between the parties. Crucial to this conclusion would be determining the effect of the confusion clause in the Certificates.

The judge cited various authorities; specifically Surrey County Council v Suez Recycling and Recovery Surrey Limited[3], to discuss principles of contractual construction and summarised the position in that the role of the court is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. GIC made the following submissions in this regard: First, the phrase “confusion” in the clause refers to obscurity or uncertainty in the meaning of provisions and does not refer to a conflict or a contradiction. They relied on the meaning of the word “confusion” in the Oxford dictionary to support this premise and submitted that the clause operates to address any uncertainty that may arise when reading the provisions of the Certificates. Such uncertainties must then be addressed by interpreting the provisions in light of the MRC. However, the clause does not operate to address a conflict between the MRC and the Certificates, for such an instance is a “conflict” and not a “confusion”. Lastly, they submitted that there is no confusion because the arbitration clause in the Certificates should be read as a Scott v. Avery[4] clause[5] or, a clause conferring English Courts with supervisory jurisdiction over the New York arbitration.

Tyson submitted that by using the phrase “takes precedence” in the confusion clause, the clear objective intent of the parties is to create a hierarchy between the MRC and Certificates whereby in case of a confusion, the terms contained in the MRC will prevail over those in the Certificates. They further submitted that GIC is taking a very narrow interpretation of the word “confusion” and is reading it in isolation of the remainder of the clause to arrive at its conclusion. The word “confusion”, when read in the context of the provision, has a broader purport to cover circumstances of contradicting terms between the MRC and the Certificates that create confusion regarding which clause will prevail. Thus the clause operates as a hierarchy clause whereby it clears the confusion by giving precedence to clauses in the MRC.

 

The Judgement

The Judge agreed with the submissions of Tyson and found that GIC’s interpretation of “confusion” was too narrow to reflect an objective meaning of the language used by parties. He ruled that confusion can also arise where there are two clauses within a contract which are inconsistent such that there is confusion as to the intent of the parties as to their respective rights and obligations under the contract because of such inconsistency. Second, when the MRC grants exclusive jurisdiction to English Courts and the Certificates provide for disputes to be resolved through arbitration in New York, there is an obvious confusion as to which dispute resolution clause should apply. The judge noted that English courts must give generally give effect to an arbitration clause but this is a case of routine construction of contracts wherein courts cannot rewrite the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, when parties have explicitly agreed that the MRC must take precedence in case of a confusion, such intention must be given effect. The Court opined that any attempt to resolve the confusion through any other means such as viewing arbitration as a condition precedent to any right of action or allowing the arbitration to continue under the supervision of English Courts would amount to rewriting the contract. As a sequitur, the court ruled in favour of Tyson and granted an anti-suit injunction against GIC.

 

GIC’s Attempt to Appeal

In response to the judgment, GIC sought permission to appeal on two grounds (i) the court misconstrued the Confusion Clause in the Certificates and (ii) the court misconstrued the MRC and the Certificates in concluding that the English Court did not have jurisdiction over New York arbitration. When considering whether to grant an appeal, the test is whether GIC has a real prospect of success in relation to any of its grounds.

In order to discharge this burden, GIC made the following arguments: (1) the ‘confusion’ language is novel and has not been interpreted by courts in the past which gives it considerable scope to argue about its meaning; (2) the Certificates were contractual documents intended to supersede the MRC and not merely administrative documents; and (3) the Court has failed to consider the strong policy adopted by English courts in favour of giving effect to arbitration agreements whereby the conflict should be interpreted in a manner that upholds the agreement to arbitrate. Tyson in response argued that (1) the Court’s construction of the word “confusion” gives effect to the meaning of the word in light of the clause as a whole whereas GIC’s construction focuses only on the word ‘confusion’ in isolation of the entire clause. (2) GIC’s interpretation of the Confusion Clause runs against commercial common sense; for an overriding effect would essentially nullify many of the provisions contractually agreed to in the MRC. (3) judicial precedents[6] that have ruled in favour of arbitration by resolving potential conflicts between contractual provisions lacked a hierarchy clause necessitating the courts to engage in the endeavour of contractual interpretation. In this case, where a hierarchy clause exists, it is not a matter of resolving conflicts by applying judicial standards of interpreting contracts but one giving effect to the parties’ method of resolving confusion between conflicting provisions.

Based on the submissions, the Judge concluded that GIC did not have a realistic prospect of success on either of its grounds. At the outset, although one could accept GIC’s construction of the Confusion Clause, it still lacks the realistic prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal to eschew the construction adopted by the Court and instead acceding to GIC’s construction. Finally, the Confusion Clause in this case is a relevant factor that distinguishes this case from  previous cases favouring arbitration because it operates as a hierarchy clause to mitigate any confusion when reading the Certificates and the MRC together. Since the parties have contractually agreed to the hierarchy clause when resolving any confusion, the court must give effect to the clause when resolving conflicts and cannot apply its own principles of interpreting conflicting terms of a contract; for any such attempt would amount to rewriting the parties’ agreement. Therefore, even the second ground lacks a realistic prospective of succeeding before the court of appeals. Since both the grounds for appeal lacked a realistic prospective of succeeding, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

 

Key Takeaways and Implications

The said ruling in underscores the Court’s role in upholding contractual intention of parties when resolving conflicts between competing dispute resolution clauses. By affirming the primacy of the Market Reform Contract through the Confusion Clause, the court reinforced the principle that hierarchy clauses serve as decisive mechanisms in contractual interpretation. Furthermore, the court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal solidifies the precedent that courts will not rewrite contracts but will instead give effect to unambiguous terms agreed upon by parties. This case sets as an important judicial precedent for interpreting confusion clauses and strengthens the predictability of contractual enforcement in commercial agreements. As a takeaway, when drafting multiple contracts for the same transaction, it is worth considering the harmonious impact of differing clauses in the various agreements. Parties, must discuss their commercial objectives and have a clearer communication of their intended outcomes before agreeing to multiple dispute resolution clauses that cover the same transaction.

 

[1] Times Trading Corp v National Bank of Fujairah (Dubai Branch) [2020] EWHC 1078 (Comm)

[2] Girish Deepak, ‘ANALYSIS: UK HIGH COURT ISSUES ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION AGAINST NEW YORK-BASED COURT ANDARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS IN DISPUTE INVOLVING INDIAN STATE-OWNED INSURANCE COMPANY’ (IA Reporter, 27 February 2025) <https://www.iareporter.com/articles/analysis-uk-high-court-issues-anti-suit-injunction-against-new-york-based-court-and-arbitration-proceedings-in-dispute-involving-indian-state-owned-insurance-company/> accessed 11 March 2025

[3] Surrey County Council v Suez Recycling and Recovery Surrey Limited [2021] EWHC 2015 (TCC)

[4] Scott v Avery (1856) 5 HL Cas 811

[5] Keren Tweeddale, Andrew Tweeddale, ‘Scott v Avery Clauses: O’er Judges’ Fingers, Who Straight Dream on Fees’ [2011] 77(4) Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, pp. 423 – 427

[6]Sulamerica CIA Nacional de Seguros SA & Ors v Enesa Engenharia SA & Ors [2012] EWHC 42 (Comm), Surrey County Council v Suez Recycling and Recovery Surrey Limited. [2021] EWHC 2015 (TCC)

The Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is relaunching its Crossroads in Private International Law research seminar series. The programme will open on 23 April 2025, at 14:00 (UK time), with a seminar on Consumer Protection and Justice in Israeli Private International Law by Sharon Shakargy (The Hebrew […]

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.] SD Rebel v Elise Tankschiffahrt [2025] EWHC 376 (Admlty) is a classic case to consider the impact of anti-suit injunctions issued post Brexit by the English courts, upon ongoing proceedings in a court in the EU. Defendant did not enter an appearance, having withdrawn legal representation in light of the ongoing Dutch proceedings. The history of the case is summarised [3]: On 14 November 2023 salvage services were provided by the VB REBEL to the STELA at Scheurhaven, which is part of the Port of Rotterdam complex in the Netherlands. At the conclusion of the services, the Master of the STELA signed a “Certificate of Safe Delivery” which stipulated that any dispute arising out of the provision of salvage services would “be settled in London, in accordance with English law”. Notwithstanding that stipulation, on 24 January 2024, Elise Tankschiffahrt KG as owner of the STELA commenced proceedings in the Rotterdam District Court seeking a declaration that the services provided did not amount to salvage and, in the alternative, for the Dutch Court to determine the salvage award. To commence proceedings in Rotterdam was an apparent breach of the jurisdiction agreement in the Certificate of Safe Delivery. The claimants therefore issued these proceedings in England and, on 20 February 2024, applied for an anti-suit injunction. On 21 March 2024, Andrew Baker J granted the application and made an anti-suit injunction against Elise Tankschiffahrt KG. Because neither the charterer of the STELA, Beresina UG, nor the operator of the VB Rebel, Boluda Towage Rotterdam BV, were parties to the jurisdiction agreement, he set aside service of the Claim Form in respect of the claims made by Boluda and in respect of the claims made against Beresina UG. He gave a fully reasoned judgment, reported under the neutral citation number [2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty). [4]

The remaining defendant has defied the anti-suit injunction. It has continued its claim in the Netherlands. On 23 October 2024, the Rotterdam District Court gave an interim judgment in which it declared its competence to adjudicate upon the claim. I have not been supplied with the judgment itself. But in a witness statement of 4 February 2025 from Mr John Strange of Penningtons Manches Cooper, the claimants’ solicitors, I have been informed that the reasoning was that the jurisdiction agreement was not enforceable on the ground that it was “too vague as it specified the jurisdiction as ‘London’ rather than the English courts”.

Relevant Dutch judgment is Elise Tankshiffahrt AG and Beresina UG v SD Rebel BV and Boluda Towage Rotterdam BV ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:10435. In that judgment, the Rotterdam court held it has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 4 Brussels Ia despite aforementioned clause in the certificate of safe delivery: “Any dispute arising out of the services performed by the tug, will be settled in London, in accordance with English law.” The Rotterdam court held that this clause is neither valid choice of court in accordance with A8(2) of the Dutch CPR, nor a valid arbitration clause in accordance with A1074 of the Dutch CPR. [4.6] it argued that for both, the clause needs to be ‘sufficiently clear and specific’ and that [4.5] the clause at issue simply refers to a place, not a medium: whether in courts in ordinary or indeed arbitration. I am not privy to submissions in the case and I do not know how extensively the issue was argued. Of note is all lack of reference to either the Hague Choice of Court Convention, Brussels Ia (with A25 arguably not covering choice of court away from the EU) or the 1958 New York Convention. [4.7] The Dutch court holds that the requirement of clarity and specificity is a procedural requirement covered by Dutch CPR as the lex fori, and not a substantive requirement in which English law as the putative lex causae can have a say (the court oddly refers to A3 and 10 Rome I, despite A1(2)e excluding choice of court and arbitration agreement from its scope of application). The court also [4.9] rejects a lis pendens stay on the basis of Dutch residual rules, and, summarily, an A33 Brussels Ia stay, with reference to the English claim form having been issued after the Dutch courts had been seized. At the time of posting the Dutch finding on the merits had not yet been published. Back then to the English judgment: [53] Davison AR like his Dutch colleague seems to have overlooked A1 Rome I’s exclusion of choice of court and applies English law as the putative law to the (alleged) choice of court agreement. [54] he holds Masters of vessels must, in the ordinary course, sign many documents of a commercial nature such as bills of lading, statements of fact, certificates of compliance etc. Mr Soukup would be no exception. The working languages of VTS Rotterdam and VTS Antwerp are English and Dutch. I find it hard to accept (especially without hearing from him and having his evidence tested in cross-examination) that Mr Soukup did not, in fact, understand what he was signing. But if that was the case, he should have made a proper enquiry, not a casual one. And having failed to do so, he and his principal are bound by the content of the document he signed. [55] deals with the alleged lack of certainty in the clause The document is clear (as Andrew Baker J has already found [this is in 2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty): the interim ASI, GAVC]). It provides for English law and jurisdiction in London. On any reasonable interpretation that means the courts in London, including this court. A final anti-suit injunction is made, as is an award for the salvage services. Clearly the judgment will clash with the eventual Dutch judgment and how that in turn will be resolved, will be one to watch. Geert. https://bsky.app/profile/gavclaw.bsky.social/post/3ljz5hc2xss2j https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1899016175897510296