The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA), one of the oldest international arbitration institutions in the world founded in 1950, has published the 6th Volume of its annual journal on commercial arbitration: Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal.
The journal features articles on international commercial arbitration, mediation, and litigation related to Japan. These articles are authored by prominent scholars and experienced practitioners who are well-versed in the resolution and prevention of international commercial disputes.
The Japan Commercial Arbitration Journal is particularly valuable for non-Japanese readers, including foreign researchers and practitioners, as it provides insights into Japan’s approach to international dispute resolution. By offering comprehensive analysis and updates on arbitration, mediation and litigation practices in Japan, the journal helps bridge the knowledge gap for those working in international commercial law. Access to this information is essential for professionals seeking to understand the nuances of Japanese legal procedures and effectively engage with Japan in cross-border commercial matters.
The new volume features the following articles:
Shinji Ogawa
JCAA in Action: Recent Developments and Its Global Engagement
Kenya Suzuki
Management of Arbitration-Related Cases in the Tokyo District Court (Business Court)
Fumiyasu Miyazaki, Chloé Terraube, Lederer Nadine, Itai Apter, Jinah Park, Carlos Esplugues
Evolving Landscape Surrounding International Arbitration and Mediation ? Comparative Approach ?
Luke Nottage
The Prospects and Challenges for International Commercial Arbitration
Hiroyuki Tezuka
Impact of the Amendments to the Arbitration Act in 2023 and the Enactment of the Act to Implement the Singapore Convention on Mediation on Practice
Kazuhiro Kobayashi
Case Study: Petition for a Ruling on Arbitral Tribunal Jurisdiction under Article 23, Paragraph 5 of the Arbitration Act of Japan
Miriam Rose Ivan L. Pereira, Mami Kadono
Unlocking the Potential of Third-Party Funding in Arbitration in Japan ?Legal Landscape, Practical Considerations, and Arbitral Rules?
Colin Trehearne, Daniel Allen
“Reasonable” Costs in Japan-Seated Arbitrations in the light of Macroeconomic Trends
Takayuki Matsuo, Yui Takahashi
Generative AI and International Arbitration
Shunsuke Domon, Ryan Leon, Riko Ishimaru
Recent Discussions on the Scope of the Parties to Arbitration Agreements
Approaches toward the “Group of Companies” Doctrine in Various Jurisdictions
Shinichiro Abe
When Arbitration and Insolvency Intersect: Developments from Common Law Jurisdictions and Key Takeaways for Japan
Peter Harris, Owain Cooke
Filling the Void – Issues That Arise When an Arbitrator Dies
Yoshie Midorikawa
The Transformation of Dispute Resolution in Japan: Group Claims by Japanese Investors in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Naoki Idei
The Japan International Dispute Resolution Center – Its Achievements and Challenges – Its Achievements and Challenges –
Masafumi Kodama, Aoi Inoue
Know-how regarding the logistics of international arbitration hearings
Satoshi Kawai
ODR Demonstration Project conducted by Japan Federation of Bar Associations (“JFBA”)
Haruo Okada
Japan’s Potential in International Mediation and Japan’s Role in Global Dissemination and Promotion thereof
All volumes can also be freely consulted and downloaded here.
Guest post by Gustavo Ferraz de Campos Monaco, Full Professor of Private Internacional Law – University of São Paulo
In Brazilian law, the regulation of conflicts of laws is still based on a legislation from 1942, during a dictatorial regime, which explains its inspiration from the Italian fascist regime. The values prevailing in Brazilian society back then were quite different from those we hold today, especially in matters concerning family relationships. At that time, the family unit was viewed as having a single domicile, and questions related to the definition of parenthood were unthinkable outside traditional presumptions.
On at least two occasions over the past 83 years, attempts to draft new regulations were undertaken by leading figures in the field – Haroldo Valladão, Jacob Dolinger, and João Grandino Rodas – but both initiatives failed during the process, without the Plenary of the Legislative Houses having expressed an opinion on the merits of the projects.
In a context like this, embarking on a new attempt could easily seem discouraging from the start. However, the Secretariat for Institutional Relations, through the Council for Sustainable Economic and Social Development, linked to the Presidency of the Republic, decided in December 2024 to appoint a large commission composed of representatives from the Executive, the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, public and private legal professions, and the Academy. Through its Drafting Committee, this commission was entrusted with the task of preparing a new proposal.
After two public hearings, and the collection of around one hundred suggestions for improving the proposed articles, the Preliminary Draft, prepared by the appointed general rapporteurs, is now ready for analysis by the Executive Branch, which is responsible for transforming it into a Project to be submitted to the Legislative.
The proposal aims to address Private International Law in its essence, covering procedural and conflicts of laws issues. Regarding procedural matters, the Committee chose to make only minimal changes, since these provisions are already contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, enacted by Congress in 2015 and in force since 2016, less than a decade ago. In this regard, much of the proposed legislation refers back to the 2015 Code.
It is, therefore, in the field of conflicts of laws that the proposed amendments are truly innovative. With a focus on legal certainty, the text clarifies the function and scope of the main institutions of Private International Law, while updating the selected choice-of-law elements and connecting factors. It also strengthens the principle of party autonomy, giving individuals and entities greater freedom to determine the applicable law in contractual, family, and inheritance matters.
As the saying goes” self-praise is no recommendation”. Thus, the reader may wish to take any enthusiasm in this assessment with a grain of salt, as I had the honor of serving on the Drafting Committee and sharing the role of General Rapporteur with Professor Carmen Tiburcio. Still, I am convinced that one of the project’s greatest merits, should it become law, will be to bring Brazil, long anchored in 19th-century values, decisively into the 21st century. It will ensure the inclusion of Brazil’s many private actors, both in the global economic arena and within the complex web of transnational relationships, on equal terms and with wide autonomy.
As to the contents of the draft general law, there are three main chapters (after introductory and final provisions), dealing with jurisdiction and evidence, applicable law, and international cooperation in civil and commercial matters.
The longer Chapter (III) deals with conflict of laws. It starts by addressing general questions such as characterization or public policy, also adding a rule invested rights and a general escape clause. Then, special conflicts rules are to be found namely on personal and family law, including maintenance and successions, as well as rights in rem, intellectual property, and companies. Contracts are dealt with in several rules, where – unlike in the previous law, currently in force – it is made clear that choice of law by the parties is accepted, “except in cases of abuse”. Special contracts, such as the ones concluded with consumers and workers, benefit from rules favorable to the weaker party.
Readers may find below the full content of the draft (in Portuguese).
***
PROJETO DE LEI
Dispõe sobre as relações e as situações jurídicas com elementos estrangeiros.
O CONGRESSO NACIONAL decreta:
CAPÍTULO I
DO ÂMBITO DE INCIDÊNCIA
Objeto e âmbito de aplicação
Art. 1º Esta Lei dispõe sobre as relações e as situações jurídicas com elementos estrangeiros.
Prevalência dos tratados
Art. 2º As relações e as situações jurídicas que apresentem vínculos com mais de um ordenamento jurídico serão regidas pelo disposto nesta Lei e pelas demais normas de direito internacional privado de fonte nacional, observada a prevalência das disposições contidas em tratados de que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte.
Parágrafo único. Para fins do disposto no caput, as autoridades brasileiras competentes poderão considerar, como meio de sua interpretação e integração, instrumentos normativos não vinculantes, como princípios compilados ou guias de boas práticas, elaborados por organismos internacionais.
CAPÍTULO II
DA JURISDIÇÃO E DA PROVA EM MATÉRIA INTERNACIONAL
Limites da jurisdição
Art. 3º A autoridade judiciária brasileira terá jurisdição nas hipóteses previstas na lei processual e nos tratados de que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte.
I – a situação tenha conexão suficiente com a jurisdição brasileira; e
II – a propositura ou a condução da demanda perante autoridade estrangeira com a qual possua vínculos estreitos revele-se impossível.
Escolha de jurisdição
Art. 4º A escolha inequívoca de jurisdição nacional ou estrangeira em contratos internacionais não dependerá de vinculação prévia com a jurisdição eleita, nem exigirá a indicação das razões que a justifiquem.
Produção de provas
Art. 5º A forma de produção de provas, judiciais ou extrajudiciais, observará o direito do foro responsável por sua colheita.
I – o documento for produzido por pessoa beneficiária de assistência judiciária gratuita; e
II – a demora na apresentação da versão juramentada comprometer a efetividade da prestação jurisdicional.
CAPÍTULO III
DA DETERMINAÇÃO DO DIREITO APLICÁVEL
Seção I
Dos princípios e da aplicação do direito estrangeiro
Qualificação
Art. 6º A qualificação destinada à determinação do direito aplicável será feita de acordo com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro.
Parágrafo único. Estabelecido o direito aplicável, este determinará a natureza jurídica da relação ou situação jurídica para fins de aplicação das normas aos fatos.
Questões prévias e questões incidentais
Art. 7º As questões prévias e as questões incidentais serão reguladas pelo direito aplicável a cada uma delas, observadas as normas de direito internacional privado brasileiro.
Reenvio
Art. 8º Quando o direito internacional privado brasileiro determinar a aplicação do direito estrangeiro, será considerado apenas o direito material estrangeiro, exceto se as partes determinarem em sentido contrário, expressamente, por escrito.
Fraude à lei
Art. 9º Para fins de aplicação das regras de conflito, são ineficazes as situações de fato ou de direito simuladas com o intuito de evitar a aplicação do direito que seria aplicável caso não tivesse havido a simulação.
Instituição desconhecida
Art. 10. Caso o direito estrangeiro indicado pelas regras de direito internacional privado brasileiro contiver instituição que não encontre correspondência direta no direito brasileiro, a autoridade judiciária, ainda assim, aplicará o direito estrangeiro, desde que sua incidência não contrarie a ordem pública internacional brasileira.
Ordem pública
Art. 11. As leis, os atos públicos e os privados, e as decisões judiciais ou extrajudiciais de outro Estado não terão eficácia na República Federativa do Brasil quando sua incidência produzir resultados potencialmente contrários à ordem pública internacional brasileira.
Parágrafo único. Será considerada contrária à ordem pública internacional brasileira, sem prejuízo de outras situações assemelhadas, a norma estrangeira que importe violação grave a princípios fundamentais consagrados pela Constituição ou por tratados internacionais de direitos humanos ratificados pela República Federativa do Brasil, especialmente em situações de discriminação baseada em raça, gênero, etnia, orientação sexual, nacionalidade, deficiência ou pertencimento a povos e comunidades tradicionais.
Direitos adquiridos em outras ordens jurídicas
Art. 12. Os direitos adquiridos no exterior em conformidade com direito estrangeiro terão eficácia na República Federativa do Brasil, exceto se produzirem resultado gravemente contrário à ordem pública internacional brasileira.
Aplicação do direito estrangeiro
Art. 13. O direito estrangeiro indicado pelo direito internacional privado brasileiro será aplicado de ofício pelas autoridades judiciais ou extrajudiciais brasileiras.
Meio de prova do direito estrangeiro
Art. 14. A prova ou a contraprova do teor, da vigência e do sentido do direito estrangeiro será feita por qualquer meio idôneo, preferencialmente por mecanismos públicos oficiais disponibilizados pelo Estado de cujo direito se trata.
Parágrafo único. Se o Estado estrangeiro não dispuser de mecanismos públicos oficiais para a comprovação do teor, da vigência e do sentido da norma a ser aplicada, a prova poderá ser feita pela juntada de opinião legal firmada por advogado habilitado naquele Estado.
Ordenamento jurídico plurilegislativo
Art. 15. Caso o direito internacional privado brasileiro determine a incidência de ordenamento jurídico plurilegislativo, serão observadas as disposições estabelecidas pelo direito desse Estado quanto à definição da legislação aplicável.
Parágrafo único. Se não houver, no ordenamento jurídico do Estado a que se refere o caput, disposição quanto à definição da legislação aplicável, o juiz brasileiro deverá aplicar aquela que possuir conexão mais estreita com o caso concreto.
Cláusula de exceção
Art. 16. Em situações excepcionais, o direito indicado por esta Lei não será aplicável se, considerado o conjunto das circunstâncias, for evidente que o caso concreto possui conexão frágil com esse direito e manifestamente mais estreita com o direito de outro Estado.
Parágrafo único. O disposto no caput não se aplica na hipótese de o direito a ser aplicado ter sido indicado pelas partes.
Seção II
Das regras de conflito
Estatuto pessoal
Art. 17. A capacidade e os direitos da personalidade serão regidos pelo direito do domicílio da pessoa física.
Relações familiares
Art. 18. As relações familiares serão regidas pelo direito do domicílio comum dos membros da família.
Casamento
Art. 19. A forma, a existência e a validade do casamento serão regidas pelo direito do local em que for celebrado.
Regime matrimonial de bens
Art. 20. O regime de bens entre os cônjuges será determinado pelo regime indicado no registro de casamento, cuja certidão será emitida pela autoridade competente do local em que for celebrado.
Uniões estáveis ou entidades equivalentes de direito estrangeiro
Art. 21. O disposto nos art. 18 a 20 aplica-se às uniões estáveis ou às entidades equivalentes de direito estrangeiro, com as devidas adaptações à natureza das convivências.
Filiação
Art. 22. Nas ações referentes à constituição ou desconstituição de relações de filiação, o juiz aplicará, dentre os direitos dos domicílios das partes, aquele que se mostrar mais favorável à parte vulnerável.
Obrigações alimentares
Art. 23. As obrigações alimentares, a qualidade de credor e a qualidade de devedor de alimentos serão reguladas pelo direito mais favorável ao credor, dentre os direitos da nacionalidade, do domicílio ou da residência habitual de quaisquer dos envolvidos.
Sucessões
Art. 24. A sucessão por morte ou ausência será regida pelo direito do Estado do domicílio do falecido à data do óbito ou do ausente à data da ausência, independentemente da natureza e da situação dos bens.
Bens e direitos reais
Art. 25. Os bens imóveis, os bens móveis corpóreos, os direitos reais a eles relativos e a posse serão regidos pelo direito do local em que estiverem situados.
Parágrafo único. Os bens móveis que o proprietário trouxer consigo e os direitos reais a eles relativos serão regidos pelo direito do domicílio de seu proprietário.
Embarcações, aeronaves e carregamentos
Art. 26. As embarcações e as aeronaves que estejam em águas ou espaços não jurisdicionais reputam-se situadas no local de matrícula, enquanto o carregamento que nelas se encontre reputa-se situado no local de destino efetivo das mercadorias, exceto se as partes escolherem de forma diversa.
Direitos de propriedade intelectual
Art. 27. Os direitos patrimoniais de autor serão determinados pelo direito do local de sua publicação ou veiculação.
Forma de atos e negócios jurídicos
Art. 28. Os atos e os negócios jurídicos respeitarão as formalidades previstas no direito do local de sua celebração, ou do domicílio de quaisquer das partes ou do local de sua execução, ou, ainda, do direito aplicável ao mérito da situação ou da relação jurídica.
Parágrafo único. Os atos e os negócios jurídicos entre ausentes poderão ser firmados isoladamente, hipótese em que poderão ser utilizados meios eletrônicos para sua comprovação.
Obrigações contratuais
Art. 29. Exceto se houver abuso, as obrigações decorrentes de contratos internacionais serão regidas pelo direito escolhido pelas partes.
I – expressa ou tácita, desde que inequívoca; e
II – alterada a qualquer tempo, respeitados os direitos de terceiros.
Contratos de trabalho
Art. 30. Exceto se houver abuso, os contratos individuais de trabalho serão regidos pelo direito escolhido pelas partes.
I – local de prestação de sua atividade laboral;
II – domicílio do trabalhador;
III – domicílio ou do estabelecimento do empregador, conforme o caso; ou
IV – local de celebração do pré-contrato, quando houver.
Contratos de consumo
Art. 31. Os contratos internacionais de consumo, entendidos como aqueles realizados entre consumidor, pessoa física, com fornecedor de produtos e serviços, cujo domicílio ou estabelecimento envolvido na contratação esteja situado em Estado distinto do domicílio do consumidor, serão regidos pelo direito do domicílio do consumidor ou do local em que forem celebrados, desde que mais favorável ao consumidor.
Obrigações por atos ilícitos
Art. 32. As obrigações resultantes de atos ilícitos serão regidas pelo direito do local em que o dano for verificado.
Parágrafo único. Na hipótese de o dano ocorrer em múltiplos locais, o juiz brasileiro poderá, no exercício de sua jurisdição, aferir os danos verificados em outros Estados e determinar a sua reparação integral, hipótese em que se aplicam os direitos de cada Estado para quantificar o montante devido.
Pessoas jurídicas
Art. 33. As pessoas jurídicas serão regidas pelo direito do Estado em que tiverem sido constituídas.
Ações e valores mobiliários
Art. 34. As ações e os valores mobiliários serão regidos pelo direito do local de constituição da pessoa jurídica que os tiver emitido.
Parágrafo único. As obrigações pecuniárias constantes de debêntures ou outros valores mobiliários representativos de dívida emitidos no exterior, caso tenha havido escolha pelas partes, poderão ser regidas pelo direito do local da emissão, respeitados os requisitos de registro previstos no local de constituição da pessoa jurídica que os tiver emitido.
Prescrição e decadência
Art. 35. A prescrição e a decadência serão regidas pelo direito aplicável ao mérito do litígio.
Aquisição de imóveis por pessoas jurídicas de direito público externo
Art. 36. As pessoas jurídicas de direito público externo e as entidades de qualquer natureza por elas constituídas ou dirigidas não poderão adquirir no País bens suscetíveis de desapropriação ou direitos reais a eles relativos.
CAPÍTULO IV
DA COOPERAÇÃO JURÍDICA INTERNACIONAL EM MATÉRIA CIVIL E COMERCIAL
Cooperação jurídica internacional
Art. 37. A cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria civil e comercial deverá ser prestigiada e poderá se valer de qualquer meio em direito admitido, nos termos dos tratados em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e dos direitos dos Estados envolvidos, inclusive quanto ao uso de mecanismos tecnológicos e comunicação direta entre as autoridades, desde que não ofendam a ordem pública internacional brasileira.
Homologação de decisão estrangeira
Art. 38. As decisões oriundas de Estado estrangeiro que, no País, demandem a intervenção indispensável do Poder Judiciário, observarão, para sua homologação, o disposto na legislação brasileira, nos tratados em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e, quando aplicáveis, no regimento interno do Superior Tribunal de Justiça.
Medidas de urgência em homologação
Art. 39. A autoridade judiciária brasileira poderá deferir pedidos de urgência e realizar atos de execução provisória no processo de homologação de decisão estrangeira, observadas as disposições da legislação brasileira, dos tratados em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e, quando aplicáveis, do regimento interno do Superior Tribunal de Justiça.
Demais atos de cooperação
Art. 40. Os demais atos de cooperação jurídica internacional, tais como as cartas rogatórias e os pedidos de auxílio direto, obedecerão às disposições da legislação brasileira, dos tratados em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e, quando aplicáveis, do regimento interno do Superior Tribunal de Justiça.
CAPÍTULO V
DISPOSIÇÕES FINAIS
Revogação
Art. 41. Ficam revogados os art. 7º a art. 19 do Decreto-Lei nº 4.657, de 4 de setembro de 1942.
Vigência
Art. 42. Esta Lei entra em vigor cento e oitenta dias após a data de sua publicação.
***
La condamnation d’un individu en France pour association de malfaiteurs à caractère terroriste s’oppose à ce qu’il soit également condamné pour acte de terrorisme en Espagne.
I have reported before on the jurisdictional issues of collective action under Dutch law, viz both the GPDR (Article 79; 80) and Brussels Ia. See in particular my post on the claim against TIKTOK and various references there. In an update to that post over the summer I also refer to the Rotterdam courts’ reference to the CJEU on the application of Article 80 GPDR: Stichting Data Bescherming Nederland v Amazon ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:9088.
Yesterday the Amsterdam courts [Stichting Massaschade en Consument t Tiktok Technology LTd et al ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:2666] published their partial appeal finding in the case that led to my orginal post [the first instance jurisdictional finding ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:6488].
The appeals court first of all holds [4.16] to continue its discussion of the non-GDPR claims seeing as, it argues, WAMCA (the Dutch collective action procedure) encourages swift outcome of claims, and give that success in these might render the GDPR-based claims without purpose. The non-GDPR claims include unjust enrichment, economic law (acts of unfair competition: eg hidden prices of in-app purchases of “digitale items”) and consumer law claims.
Viz the Irish TikTok entitity, Brussels Ia determines jurisdiction (as TikTok note, leading also to territorial not just national jurisdiciton). Viz the non-EU defendants, Dutch residual private international law does (with CPR rules allocating territorial jurisdiction), however [4.18] those are applied as the EU rules would.
Like the first instance judgment, the appeals judgment IMO too readily assumes application of A7(2) BIa (non-contractual obligations) rather than A7(1) (contractual. The collective organisations are said [4.19] to act using their own representative interest, which it is said is non-contractual. CJEU C-167/00 VKI v Henkel in my view is not entirely relevant authority: in Henkel the relevant organisation was Verein für Konsumenteninformation, a consumer protection organisation created purely to uphold statutory consumer law, and in the case at issue seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms in consumer contracts; see similarly also CJEU VKI v Amazon, where VKI sought a similar injunction. In a WAMCA action, the often ad hoc collective organisations seek financial damages for and on behalf of enlisted consumers, but often also for their own financial benefit and usually indeed, as here, financed by third party litigation funding. Claimants arguably are purely procedural vehicles. Their claim in my opinion is so intimately bound up with the contracts of the consumers that it can hardly qualify as a non-contractual claim.
Having identified A7(2) BIa als the jurisdictional gateway (again: I am not convinced), in 4.21.2 the court identifies The Netherlands as forum damni /Erfolgort. 4.1.1 and elsewhere the court supports the use of centre of interests as a relevant jurisdictional trigger which again I find awkward: that criterion per CJEU eDate etc only applies to the infringement of personality rights and quite a few of the claims are related to issues such as financial interest for which centre of interest has no calling. Hence I also find the court’s finding unconvincing [4.21.2]
Voor zover SMC bedoelt op te komen voor personen die de TikTok Dienst gebruiken of hebben gebruikt ”op een moment” dat zij in Nederland waren terwijl zij hun gewone verblijf elders hebben (zie hiervoor rov. 4.1.1.), heeft de Nederlandse rechter geen rechtsmacht.
: Dutch court’s have no jurisdiction for those who used TikTok ‘at a time they were in The Netherlands whilst having their habitual residence elsewhere”. That is not just an unorthodox use of locus damni; it also conflates the relevance of habitual residence, which earlier in the judgment the court used to refer to GDPR-based jurisdiction.
[4.22.2] the court summarily dismisses TikTok’s argument that A7(2) determines territorial jurisdiction, hence that the claims cannot be centralised in Amsterdam. That Dutch civil procedure rules may trump A7(2)’s clear instruction to this effect, cannot in my view be right.
The remainder of the judgment then discusses the merits of the issues and largely upholds the first instance court’s findings.
I think it is clear from the above that I am far from convinced the jurisdictional analysis here is right.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.12.2
La chambre criminelle refuse de transmettre au Conseil constitutionnel trois questions prioritaires de constitutionnalité concernant la compétence du procureur européen délégué. Elle saisit toutefois l’occasion de se prononcer sur l’impartialité et l’indépendance du procureur européen délégué ainsi que sur les garanties offertes aux justiciables dans le cadre des procédures qu’il conduit.
Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships at the headquarters of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) in The Hague, for the period from January to June 2026!
Interns work with our legal teams in the Family and Child Protection Law Division, the Transnational Litigation and Apostille Division, and the Commercial, Digital and Financial Law Division. Duties may include carrying out research on particular points of private international law and/or comparative law, taking part in the preparation of HCCH meetings, and contributing to the promotion of the HCCH and its work.
Applications should be submitted by Friday, 31 October 2025 at 18.00 (CET). For more information, please visit the Internships Section of the HCCH website.
This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).
Par son arrêt rendu en grande chambre le 1er août dernier, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte des précisions intéressantes concernant la directive « Procédures ». Elle réaffirme l’importance de la protection juridictionnelle effective des demandeurs dans la mise en œuvre du texte par les autorités nationales, et confirme l’impossibilité d’assortir l’application de ses articles 36 et 37, relatif au concept de pays d’origine sûr, d’exceptions.
La compétence du procureur européen délégué en matière de maintien et de modification du contrôle judiciaire ne porte atteinte ni au principe d’impartialité, ni à la présomption d’innocence, ni aux principes d’égalité devant la loi et devant la justice. Elle ne porte pas non plus atteinte aux droits à la liberté individuelle et à un recours juridictionnel effectif, sous réserve que la décision du procureur ne consiste pas à imposer à l’intéressé de rester à son domicile ou dans son lieu de résidence pendant plus de douze heures par jour et puisse être contestée devant le juge des libertés et de la détention.
Si les règles de procédure relatives à l’obtention de l’autorisation de saisir conservatoirement un navire sont régies par la loi de l’État contractant dans lequel la saisie a été demandée, la simple allégation par le saisissant de l’existence, à son profit, de l’une des créances maritimes visées à l’article 1er de la Convention de Bruxelles du 10 mai 1952, suffit à fonder son droit de saisir le navire auquel cette créance se rapporte.
Guest post by Janaína Albuquerque, International Family Lawyer; Research Associate at the NOVA Centre for the Study of Gender, Family and the Law; Legal Coordinator at Revibra Europa. Janaína represented Revibra, Instituto Maria da Penha and Instituto Superação da Violência Doméstica as amici curiae in the cases discussed below.
The Brazilian Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark judgment in two Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (Ações Diretas de Inconstitucionalidade, or ADIs), namely ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, concerning the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction(1980HC). Despite their denomination, these actions did not aim to invalidate the Convention, but rather to harmonize its interpretation with the principles enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution.[1]
The full written judgment has not yet been published. What follows is the official summary, which consolidates the main points reached by the Justices:[2]
“The Court unanimously ruled partially in favor of the requests made in ADI 4.245 and, by majority vote, ruled partially in favor of the requests made in ADI 7.686, on the following grounds:
Finally, the following judgment thesis[3] was established:
All in accordance with the vote of Justice Luís Roberto Barroso (President and Rapporteur). Justice Dias Toffoli was partially defeated in ADI 7.686, as he considered the action to be entirely well founded. Plenary session, August 27, 2025.”
The judgment introduced three important innovations that will standardize and shape the interpretation of the Convention going forward. First, by recognizing domestic violence as an arguable exception under Art. 13(1)(b), the Court established that this ground can no longer be dismissed on the basis that it is not expressly mentioned in the Convention. Second, the clarification that children need not be the primary victims ensures that courts cannot disregard evidence showing that they merely witnessed the violence, since such exposure also constitutes harm. Third, the instruction to evaluate abduction cases through a gender-based lens acknowledges the multiple and intersecting vulnerabilities faced by migrant women and requires a contextual assessment of each situation.
Nevertheless, the central unresolved issue concerns the evidentiary threshold. While the Court established that proof is required, it also indicated that the standard should be lower, without clarifying what qualifies as objective and concrete indications of violence sufficient to configure grave risk. Given the repeated acknowledgment of the obstacles faced by migrant mothers, it seems evident that demanding criminal convictions would set the bar far too high. What remains uncertain is whether police complaints, medical records, social service evaluations, psychological reports, or even documented but unsuccessful attempts to obtain assistance in the State of origin will suffice. This definition can only be built with time and through the practical application by domestic federal courts.
The timing of the judgment coincides with the organization of the Second Forum on Domestic Violence and the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, scheduled for October 2025 in Fortaleza, Brazil. Building on the discussions initiated at the first meeting in Sandton, South Africa, in 2024, the Forum will once again convene experts from around the world to reflect on the persistent challenges posed by cases involving allegations of domestic and family violence. In this setting, the recent decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court will likely serve as a point of reference for its methodological contribution to advancing a gender-sensitive and human rights-based approach.
Background of the Actions
ADIs are a special kind of proceedings that may only be introduced by the President of the Republic; the President of the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, or state legislative assemblies; the Brazilian Bar Association; the Attorney General; political parties; or national unions. Unlike ordinary judicial proceedings, whose effects only extend to the parties, ADI rulings have erga omnes effect and are endowed with binding force, compelling compliance by the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive at all levels.
The first ADI (4245) was filed in 2009 by the now-dissolved Democratas party (DEM), less than a decade after Brazil’s ratification of the Convention and against the backdrop of the Sean Goldman case.[4] The dispute concerned the wrongful retention in Brazil of a 4 year-old child habitually resident in the United States, leading to lengthy proceedings under the 1980HC. Although lower courts initially concluded that Sean had become settled in the new environment, the Supreme Court ultimately ordered his return 5 years later following the death of the taking parent. The litigation attracted intense media scrutiny and sustained significant political and diplomatic pressure. Its repercussions also contributed to the enactment of the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014[5] in the United States, a statute designed to strengthen governmental responses to abduction cases and to oversee compliance by other Contracting States.
Prompted by these circumstances, the DEM party brought the matter before the Supreme Court to assess whether the manner in which the Convention was being applied was compatible with the constitutional framework. Their concern was that, following the damaging repercussions of the Goldman case, domestic authorities had adopted an automatic-return approach without sufficient consideration of the specific circumstances of each case, thereby infringing fundamental principles such as human dignity and the best interests of the child.
The initiating application requested that return orders and urgent measures be issued only after due process and a case-specific assessment; that the one-year time limit not prevail over the best interests of the child; and that the grave risk exception be interpreted broadly. It further sought to limit the Attorney General’s Office’s legitimacy to initiate return proceedings, to condition the effectiveness of foreign custody decisions on recognition by the Superior Court of Justice, and to preserve the validity of domestic custody rulings. The main legal basis invoked was Art. 227 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of ‘integral protection’ and imposes on the family, society, and the State the duty to ensure, as an absolute priority, children’s rights to life, health, education, dignity, and protection against neglect, exploitation, and violence.
ADI 4245 remained without significant developments for 15 years, until a hearing was scheduled for the presentation of oral arguments in May 2024. The judgment was set to take place in August 2024, yet, the Socialism and Liberty party (PSOL) filed another ADI (7686) in July of the same year, which led to the suspension of the first so that both could eventually be judged together.
The circumstances surrounding the second ADI differed, despite being similarly propelled by not one, but numerous widely covered cases, which were further amplified through social media. Most involved mothers who had fled to Brazil after experiencing discrimination and domestic violence abroad, yet, whose children were nevertheless ordered to return. Public pressure and social mobilization were decisive in bringing these issues to the forefront and making them the central focus of the proceedings.
As regards the merits, ADI 7686 contained only one request: that suspicion or indications of domestic violence in the foreign country be taken into account when assessing the grave risk standard and the applicability of the exception under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980HC, so that children would not have to be returned The legal basis rested primarily on Art. 226 (8) of the Constitution, which explicitly establishes the State’s positive obligation to ‘ensure assistance to the family in the person of each of its members, creating mechanisms to suppress violence within the family’.
Oral arguments in ADI 7686 were presented in February 2025, but the rendering of the Justices’ votes only began in August. The case was considered by the Plenary of the Supreme Federal Court, composed of eleven Justices, of whom a single member is a woman. Three sessions were needed to conclude, and a decision was finally reached on 27 August 2025. Although the written judgment has not yet been released, the hearings were televised, and each Justice presented at least a summary of their vote. For clarity, the following account is organized thematically rather than chronologically, highlighting the main strands of reasoning that emerged.
(i) Gender, domestic violence and the reframing of the best interests principle
The deliberations revealed a broad consensus that gender inequalities are central to the evaluation of return requests under the Convention, particularly where domestic violence is raised. Justice Barroso, rapporteur of the case, underscored that most taking parents are mothers fleeing from abandonment or abuse, cautioning that automatic returns in such circumstances risk perpetuating cycles of violence. Justices Mendonça and Cármen Lúcia echoed this concern, stressing that intimate-partner violence destabilizes the family environment and thereby places the child in danger.
Justice Moraes added that the prevalence of taking mothers reflects structural patriarchy, requiring an interpretation of the Convention consistent not only with the standards inscribed in domestic law but also with international human rights instruments such as the UNCRC and the Convention of Belém do Pará. Justice Dias Toffoli supported this approach by grounding it in the Convention’s own architecture, highlighting a combined interpretation of Arts. 13(1)(b) and 20, insofar as the latter provides that courts may refuse the return when such an order would conflict with the fundamental principles and freedoms of the requested State.
Taken together, these positions signalled a jurisprudential shift: the Convention’s effectiveness in Brazil will henceforth be measured not solely by the speed of returns but by its capacity to reconcile international cooperation with the substantive protection of women and children.
(ii) Procedural and evidentiary standards
A central aspect of the debate revolved around the difficulties faced by migrant women and their intersecting vulnerabilities. Justice Barroso argued that imposing a standard of irrefutable proof in cases involving domestic violence is both inconsistent with the Convention’s requirement of urgency and detrimental to the best interests of the child. He stressed that migrant mothers are frequently cut off from institutional resources and isolated from their support networks, which, compounded by linguistic and cultural obstacles, place them at a significant disadvantage in producing evidence. Justice Toffoli further developed this argument, insisting that courts must apply a gender-based perspective and give decisive weight to victims’ testimonies, precisely because these structural barriers cannot be overcome through procedural formalities.
Alongside evidentiary issues, the Justices devoted close attention to procedural safeguards. Justice Flávio Dino criticised the privileged role of the Attorney General’s Office, noting that its authority to initiate proceedings produces inequality of arms. While the interests of left-behind parents are defended, even if representation is for the State, taking parents are not ensured access to legal aid. Building on this concern, Justice Cristiano Zanin drew attention to the absence of a specific law governing Hague cases in Brazil. In his view, this vacuum not only generates procedural uncertainty but also creates room for jurisdictional conflicts, especially when custody proceedings are initiated domestically in parallel with return requests.
Other votes highlighted the persistent tension between efficiency and fairness. Justice Nunes Marques stressed that the Convention’s effectiveness depends on swift decisions and suggested technology and mediation as tools to accelerate outcomes. Justice Barroso, however, set this pursuit for speed against the structural reality of Brazil’s civil procedure, which, though intended to protect due process, is overly complex and has become a recurrent source of delay. Justice Dino noted that, as a result, courts frequently resort to urgent measures, granting return orders without analysing the case in depth and even without hearing the taking parents, a practice he considered incompatible with constitutional guarantees. Justice Luiz Fux disagreed with Dino on this point, resisting the view that judicial discretion should be in any way limited.
(iii) Measures to strengthen the application of the Convention
Apart from the interpretative parameters and procedural elucidations, a series of proposals were advanced to reinforce the Convention’s operation through systemic measures and reforms. Consensus emerged around the need for standardized protocols in embassies and consulates to ensure consistent assistance and reliable mechanisms for processing reports of abuse. In addition, the Justices addressed the domestic judicial structure, calling for stronger coordination between federal and family courts and for the use of liaison judges to improve communication with foreign authorities. The Court also encouraged studies to support legislative initiatives, including the prospect of Brazil’s accession to the 1996 HCCH Child Protection Convention as part of a broader effort to align institutional practice with international standards.
A final strand of discussion was dedicated to the participation of children. Justice Cármen Lúcia stressed that they must be recognised as rights-bearing subjects and that procedural mechanisms should be developed to secure their direct involvement in return proceedings. At present, the law provides only for the hearing of children from the age of 12 and contains no guidance on the manner in which their statements are to be obtained. Ensuring that children’s perspectives are effectively taken into account was thus deemed essential to aligning the Convention’s operation with the principle of integral protection enshrined in the Constitution.
[1] Available in English at: <https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf>.
[2] Available, only in Portuguese, at: <https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=2679600>.
[3] In the context of Direct Actions for the Declaration of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) before the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, the term ‘thesis’ refers to the authoritative interpretative statement of the Constitution that distills the complex reasoning into a concise and binding formula. Arising from the abstract constitutional review of statutes, such theses clarify the constitutional meaning of contested provisions and ensure that the decision extends beyond the specific case at hand. By consolidating the practice of formulating theses at the end of landmark rulings, the Court provides clarity, consistency, and general applicability, thereby guiding judges, public administration, and society as a whole while establishing constitutional standards for future cases.
[4] Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, 2009 Activities Report. Available in Portuguese at: <https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/principaldestaque/anexo/relatorio_stf_2009__18032010__qualidade_web__orcamento.pdf>.
[5] Available at: <https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3212>.
IE Law School in Madrid, Spain, is again advertising four tenure-track assistant professorships, preferably in private law, commercial & corporate law, and IP law among others. Scholars of private international law are also invited to apply.
The deadline is 31 October 2025.
More information can be found here.
By Alexia Kaztaridou (Linklaters)
On 25 September 2025, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved the text of the political agreement on the Alternative Disputes Resolution for Consumer Disputes Directive. This Directive establishes a framework for resolving through ADR procedures contractual domestic and cross-border consumer disputes arising from the sale of goods or provision of services between consumers and traders within an EU context. The amendments to the prior Directive aim to modernise the existing framework in light of new consumer trends, such as the growth of e-commerce, and bring significant changes across several areas, enhancing the protection for consumers and clarifying obligations for traders and ADR entities. The Directive maintains its minimum harmonisation approach, allowing Member States to provide for stronger consumer protection.
Key changes introducedEnhanced obligations for traders
Expanded material scope
New requirements for ADR entities
Promoting participation to the procedures
In principle, the Directive provides that the ADR procedures should be free of charge for consumers. In the event that costs are applied, those costs should not exceed a nominal fee. Member States should encourage ADR entities to reimburse consumers the nominal fee paid where and to the extent that their complaint is justified.
In that context, the Directive requires Member States to implement measures that promote participation in ADR procedures from both traders and consumers. These measures can be either financial or non-financial in nature.
A new role for ADR contact points
Following the discontinuation of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, the tasks previously handled by ODR contact points will be taken over by newly established ADR contact points. These contact points will be, inter alia, responsible for:
The ADR contact point is to be determined by the consumer’s place of residence. Member States can choose to extend the mandate of these contact points to cover domestic disputes as well.
Consumer assistance and new digital tools
Consumers will have the right to be assisted by third parties, such as consumer organisations or businesses that specialise in claims management, though transparency must be ensured.
In addition, the Commission is mandated to develop a digital interactive tool to guide consumers to the correct ADR entity.
Next steps and national transpositionThe next step is the formal adoption of the text by the European Parliament’s plenary, which is expected to take place between 15 and 18 December. Following this, the text must also be formally adopted by the Council. Once the Council has formally adopted the text, it will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Directive will then enter into force 20 days after its publication.
The timeline for the Directive’s implementation is set out in Article 5. Specifically, Member States are required to adopt and publish the national laws necessary to comply with the Directive by 26 months after its entry into force. These new national measures must then be applied starting from 32 months after the Directive’s entry into force.
Given this is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States retain discretion to introduce measures that empower consumers even further. For example, they may make ADR mandatory for certain disputes or further extend the material scope. It will therefore be crucial to monitor the national transposition of the Directive to understand how the legal framework will evolve in each Member State.
As part of the International Law Association (British Branch) Lecture Series, a special lecture on Cross-Border Disputes and Conflict of Laws in India: The Case for Asian-Inspired Reform will be delivered by Prof. (Dr) Saloni Khanderia, Professor at Jindal Global Law School (India) and Professor at the Center for Transnational Legal Studies (London), on Wednesday, 15 October 2025, at 6:00 PM (London BST ??) | 10:30 PM (India IST ??). The event takes place at the UCL Faculty of Laws and will also be available online. The session will be chaired by Professor Alex Mills (UCL Laws).
India’s transformation since its 1991 economic liberalisation has positioned it as a key player in global commerce. Indian judges have contributed significantly to international law, both domestically and in global forums such as the International Court of Justice and commercial courts abroad. Yet, despite judicial progress, structural gaps in India’s private international law persist.
This lecture examines how India can strengthen its framework for cross-border dispute resolution, drawing lessons from leading Asian jurisdictions—Singapore, China, Japan, and South Korea—to ensure coherence, predictability, and competitiveness in transnational litigation.
Who should attend:
Practitioners, scholars, students, policymakers, and anyone interested in India’s evolving role in global dispute resolution.
For more details about the lecture and the registration process, visit https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2025/oct/hybrid-cross-border-disputes-and-conflict-laws-india-case-asian-inspired-reform?mc_cid=f1dfe473a9&mc_eid=UNIQID
On Wednesday, October 8, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Professor Nadia de Araujo (Pontifícia Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro) will speak, in English, about the topic
“Highlights on the project for a Brazilian Law on Private International Law”
After more than eighty years Brazil finally has a project for a new Law on Private International Law. The current 1942 law devotes only seven articles to the whole subject. In light of the developments in PIL, the complexities of modern life and the adoption of a series of Hague Conventions and Inter-American Conventions, the project addresses PIL in its entirety. The new law introduces several significant changes: it expressly allows for party autonomy in international contracts, a concept that was not clearly defined in previous legislation, while safeguarding consumer and labour contracts. Additionally, it introduces new rules for proof of foreign law and a more comprehensive set of family law. It also retains domicile as the main rule for capacity and other family rights.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
The University of Genoa (Italy), together with the partnership of the EU co-funded project UniPAR, is organizing a conference on parenthood in the light of Human Rights Law and Private International Law.
In the Conference, the UniPAR research team will present the results of the research and various topics related with EU private international law and children’s rights in the context of parenthood will be addressed. Dr. Raffaele Sabato, judge of the European Court of Human Rights, will deliver the introductory speech.
The Conference will take place on Friday 24 October, 10.00-13.00 CET and 14.00-17.00 CET.
See the programme. Online attendance is possible after prior registration.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer