Agrégateur de flux

OHB System / Commission
Marché publics
Programme Galileo : l’arrêt du Tribunal rejetant le recours d’OHB System contre l’attribution du marché des satellites de transition est annulé

On 5 June 2025, the Law Commission of England and Wales published a consultation paper (paper; summary) making proposals for reform on certain rules of private international law that apply in the context of digital assets and electronic trade documents. The Commission also made proposals for reform of section 72 of the Bills of Exchange […]

Written by Yip Man (Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University)

To bolster Singapore’s position as an international dispute resolution hub, the Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill (the International Committee Bill)[1] was introduced in Parliament on 14 October 2024 to establish the International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court (the SICC), a standalone body, to hear prescribed civil appeals and related proceedings from prescribed foreign jurisdictions.[2] The establishment of this transnational appeal mechanism followed the signing of a bilateral treaty between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain on 20 March 2024. This treaty concerned collaboration between the two jurisdictions on two key matters: 1) the establishment of the Bahrain International Commercial Court (the BICC); and 2) the setting up of a mechanism for appeals from the BICC to be heard by the SICC.[3] The remit of the International Committee of the SICC is not limited to appeals from the BICC. Arrangements between Singapore and other foreign jurisdictions may be made for appeals on certain class of civil judgments from a court of the originating foreign jurisdiction to lie to Singapore.

A standalone body

The International Committee Bill makes clear that the International Committee, when established, will not be a court of Singapore. Nor will it exercise the judicial power of Singapore. However, the International Committee will leverage ‘the close relationship with the SICC’, for instance, the International Committee proceedings will take place in Singapore and it may use the resources and facilities of the Supreme Court of Singapore.[4]

Constitution

The International Committee will comprise the Chief Justice (who shall be the President of the Committee), the Judges, Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the International Judges of the SICC, as well as ad hoc members drawn from the court of the jurisdiction from which the appeal arose.[5]

Jurisdiction and Powers

Where arrangements have been made between Singapore and a foreign jurisdiction for appeals on certain civil matters to lie to Singapore, jurisdiction regulations will be promulgated to give effect to these arrangements (including what jurisdiction and powers the International Committee will have) and designate the International Committee as the appellate body to hear these appeals.[6] In other words, the Bill envisages and allows for different collaborative arrangements to be entered into between Singapore and different foreign jurisdictions.[7] The contents of the jurisdictional regulations “will be subject to inter-governmental negotiations”.[8] The International Committee has jurisdiction to decide any question about its own jurisdiction.[9]

 Hearings and Procedure  

Save for contrary provision in the jurisdiction regulations or relevant procedural rules, the International Committee will sit in public.[10]  The Chief Justice may make rules to govern the procedure and practice to be followed by the International Committee and the registry, including matters concerning: documents-based hearings; for the International Committee to sit in private; costs; the means by which facts may be proved and the way in which factual, exert or opinion evidence may be adduced for the proceedings, etc.[11]

Legal Representation

Singapore lawyers and foreign lawyers and legal experts registered to appear before the SICC may also appear before the International Committee. The SICC model of registration for foreign lawyers and law experts will be extended to apply to the International Committee. Amendments to the Legal Professional Act 1966 will be made to give effect the aforesaid arrangements.[12]

Enforcement of orders and judgments of the International Committee

A judgment or order of the International Committee on an appeal from a court of a foreign jurisdiction is considered a foreign judgment or order from that foreign jurisdiction.[13] Enforcement of the judgment or order in Singapore will follow the existing rules or mechanisms applicable to that jurisdiction,[14] unless the judgment or order does not have effect under the law of that foreign jurisdiction.[15]

Finality of Decision

To ensure finality, a decision of the International Committee is “final and may not be appealed or reviewed by any court”.[16]

The International Committee of the SICC is expected to be launched very soon. That it is not a Singapore court, and coupled with the fact that foreign judges could be appointed to hear the proceedings, strengthens the positioning of the International Committee as a truly international (Singapore-based) dispute resolution mechanism.

 

[1]  https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills-Supp/36-2024/Published/20241014?DocDate=20241014

[2] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/enhancing-singapore-s-offerings-as-an-international-dispute-resolution-hub-with-the-sicc-ic-bill/

[3] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/singapore-bahrain-sign-treaty-on-appeals-from-bicc/

[4] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/second-reading-speech-by-minister-of-state-murali-pillai-on-sicc-bill/

[5] The International Committee Bill, section 4.

[6] The International Committee Bill, section 6.

[7] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/second-reading-speech-by-minister-of-state-murali-pillai-on-sicc-bill/ paragraph 35.

[8] https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/second-reading-speech-by-minister-of-state-murali-pillai-on-sicc-bill/ paragraph 25.

[9] The International Committee Bill, section 7(2).

[10] The International Committee Bill, section 8(2).

[11] The International Committee Bill, section 10(2).

[12] The International Committee Bill, section 14.

[13] The International Committee Bill, section 13(1)(a).

[14] The International Committee Bill, section 13(1)(b).

[15] The International Committee Bill, section 13(2).

[16] The International Committee Bill, section 12. See also https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/second-reading-speech-by-minister-of-state-murali-pillai-on-sicc-bill/, paragraph 28 (it is made clear that the decision of the International Committee may not be reviewed by “any court in Singapore”).

 

Le 14 mai 2025, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne a annulé la décision de la Commission européenne qui refusait à une journaliste du New York Times l’accès aux messages textes échangés entre la présidente de cette dernière, Madame von Der Leyen, et le président-directeur général de l’entreprise Pfizer. Cet arrêt, constituant outre une étape importante pour la transparence sur la gestion de la crise sanitaire de 2020 et 2021, est l’occasion d’une mise en lumière sur le droit d’accès aux documents des institutions de l’Union et apporte d’utiles précisions sur l’argumentaire devant accompagner une décision de refus de communication.

en lire plus

L’étranger qui n’a pas été entendu régulièrement devant la commission du titre de séjour est privé d’une garantie au sens de la jurisprudence Danthony, estime la Cour administrative d’appel de Paris. 

en lire plus

Espagne / Commission
Agriculture
Les recours introduits contre la détermination par la Commission de zones à protéger, abritant ou susceptibles d’abriter des écosystèmes marins vulnérables dans certains lieux de pêche en eau profonde, sont rejetés

The newest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. Since 2024, RabelsZ has been an open access publication, with all articles freely available to readers online. The second issue of 2025 contains four German-language articles on comparative and private international law. Here are their titles and English abstracts, […]

The Ulrik Huber Institute for Private International Law will host on 23 June 2025 a one-day conference in English entitled: The Next 25 Years of Private International Law: What Does the World Need? The event is held on the occasion of Mathijs ten Wolde’s 25-year tenure as a professor and director of the Institute and […]

This post was contributed by Fabien Marchadier, who is a professor of private international law at the University of Poitiers. On 28 May 2025, the Cour de cassation delivered its judgment in Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v. Société éditrice Le Monde following the preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union […]

Last month the book The Heroes of the Judicial Periphery: Court Experts, Court Clerks, and Other Actors in the Shadows, edited by Alan Uzelac and Stefaan Voet (Hart/Bloomsbury Publising, 2025) was published. The book highlights the role of perhaps less prominent, but nevertheless important actors in (international) judicial procedures from a national, comparative and/or international perspective.

The European Civil Justice Centre (Erasmus School of Law) hosts a seminar in collaboration with the editors to launch the book on 4th July 2025 from 10-12 CEST.

Discussions on civil justice mostly focus on procedural rules, and the role of courts, parties and lawyers. This book addresses other actors that are often overlooked in academic and policy debates. It assesses the role of court experts, court clerks and court staff, and other actors on the ‘judicial periphery’ who play an important role and often co-determine the pace, outcome, and tone of the judicial process.

The knowledge and skills of experts may be indispensable at times, but it is among the most expensive, complicated and time-consuming means of evidence. The judges adjudicate, but where experts are involved in the process, they have a decisive impact on the outcome of litigation. Therefore, a principal focus of the book is on experts and how they are appointed, managed, and remunerated across Europe and the world.

The editors will discuss topical issues highlighting these ‘actors in the shadows’ and key experts will present their ideas based on the key findings of the book chapters, followed by discussion.

Registration for free here (hosted through Eventbrite)

Speakers & program:

10.00 Opening and welcome: Xandra Kramer

10.05 Alan Uzelac & Stefaan Voet – Heroes of the Judicial Periphery

10.15 Juraj Brozovic – The Case of Judicial Advisors in Croatia

10.30 Camilla Bernt – Expert Evidence in Custody Disputes and Child Protection Cases

10.50 Discussion

11.05 Michael Stürner – Experts on Foreign Law in German Civil Procedure

11.30 Adriani Dori & Xandra Kramer – The Role of Third-Party Funders in the Shadow of the Procedure

11.45 Discussion

 

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission 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.]

Thank you Alain Devers for alerting us to the Supreme Court’s decision in follow-up of the CJEU judgment in Case C‑633/22 Real Madrid Club  de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA which I discussed here.

On 28 May the Supreme Court held that the court of appeal’s refusal of recognition is annulled, and needs to be reconsidered by a different court of appeal. Its annulment is based squarely on the court of appeal not having properly considered the elements identified by the CJEU. Evidently, the final judgment may still lead to the same result, but will have to be justified differently if that is the route that will be taken.

[33] it notes that the court of appeal had reviewed the substance of the Spanish courts’ findings, in reassessing whether the French journalists and editor had acted with disregard for their professional duties and in reevaluating both the seriousness of their disregard and the impact this had on the aggrieved.

[39] it refers to the court of appeal’s ordre public finding which had not considered the seriousness of the infringement as held by the Spanish courts.

[45] the court of appeal is faulted for not having considered the financial means of the journalist in question, in considering whether the recognition and enforcement would have an impact on free speech: this is one of the criteria the CJEU had held as being relevant.

[51] the same consideration is made viz the newspaper itself.

[57] the court of appeal should have considered, as now instructed by the CJEU, the distinction between the reputation of a legal cq natural person (the former lacking the ‘moral’ element of impacting on the ‘dignity’ of the person).

The CJEU had given very specific instructions to the national judges in cases like these and I am not sure that is the way to go. As Szpunar AG had noted in his Opinion in the case, the relevant CJEU authorities prior to current case hitherto had engaged with procedural law ordre public exceptions, rather than substantive rules such as here fundamental rights. The obvious downside of that route is that national courts may now be tempted nay feel obliged to refer to the CJEU to seek substantive instruction for the ordre public assessment of other rights, too, leading to Kirchberg having to give specific instructions for umpteen scenarios. Not what Brussels Ia intended, me thinks.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, 2.619 ff.

On 26 May 2025, the European Commission launched a call for evidence to support the preparation of the EU Digital Justice Strategy for 2025-2030 – DigitalJustice@2030. Anyone can contribute by logging in to an EU login account. The call is open for feedback until 23 June 2025.  General Context As explained on the dedicated webpage, […]

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission 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.]

In Stichting Environment and fundamental rights v Repsol Perú BV et al ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:8700, the claim relates to the 15 January 2022 oil leak at La Pampilla, Peru, also known as the Callao Oil Spill.

Defendants are Repsol Perú BV, domiciled at The Hague: this is the anchor defendant and jurisdiction against it is easily established using Article 4 Brussels Ia. The other defendants are Repsol SA Madrid, and Refinería La Pampilla SAA of Callao. Peru.

‘Forum connexitatis’ is the power for a court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants against whom it does not ordinarily have jurisdiction, provided the claims against them are so closely related to (hence ‘connexitatis’) one against a defendant viz whom said court undisputedly has jurisdiction, that the interest of justice requires joint treatment of all claims concerned. The latter defendant is called the ‘anchor defendant’.

In the case at issue, forum connexitatis needs to be tested against the EU rules (Article 8 Brussels Ia) in the case of Repsol SA; and under residual Dutch rules (Article 7(1) CPR, because A8(1) does not apply against non-EU domiciled defendants) in the case of Refiniería La Pampilla SAA.

Current judgment deals with the jurisdictional issues only and does not mention applicable law at all. It is likely claimants make use of Article 7 Rome II’s lex ecologia provisions (compare the Lliuya v RWE judgment just last week) however I cannot be sure.

A first argument of defendants is that under Article IX of the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage  – CLC, the claim must be brought in Peru:

“Where an incident has caused pollution damage in the territory, including the territorial sea or an area referred to in Article II, of one or more Contracting States or preventive measures have been taken to prevent or minimize pollution damage in such territory including the territorial sea or area, actions for compensation may only be brought in the Courts of any such Contracting State or States.”

[4.6] the court acknowledges that prima facie this does look like a knock-out point. However [4.7] it points out that on the other hand, the CLC only regulates the liability of the ship owner and its insurer and how they can be sued. [4.9] the court confirms its reading of text itself, the travaux and the DNA of the CLC as not pertaining to claims against parties other than the ship owner and its insurer. ‘A 2002 judgment by the Italian Supreme Court’ which I suspect is I.O.P.C.F. v. Registro Italiano Navale and others, re the sinking
of m/t “Erika”, Italian Supreme Court 17 October 2002 n. 14769 is distinguished on the ground that that claim involved the affiliated persons listed in A IX CLC.

The court then considers A8(1) BIa viz Repsol SA, and [4.13] points out that the same principles in application of the EU anchor rules, apply equally to the residual Dutch rules.

[4.11] it suggests that the claim against the anchor defendant must have a prospect of success, for A8(1) jurisdiction to be possible. That view is not imo supported by the authorities and the issue is currently sub judice at least as far as follow-on damages claims are concerned, in CJEU C-673/23 Electricity & Water Authority of Government of Bahrain ea v Prismiian ea. I review the Opinion of Kokott AG here.

[4.16] the core reproach viz the defendants is said to concern the inadequacy of the La Pampilla reception facilities, and defendants’ inadequate response to the spill. Repsol BV argues that it is a most remote shareholder and not at all involved in the goings-on in Peru and that even Repsol SA has no direct dealings with the Peruvian operations. [4.17] claimants argues the near exclusive ownership (more than 99%) of Repsol BV in La Pampilla, a shared director and other links show the direct involvement or at the very least a culpable non-involvement: Repsol VB ought to have used its influence to avoid the calamity.

[4.18] however the court rejects the shareholding and other circumstances and demands claimants show “direct involvement” by Repsol BV. That is most definitely a step back viz recent duty of care litigation, including in The Netherlands. The court did not immediately refuse instant permission to appeal hence I suspect (but I am not a Dutch CPR expert) this must be possible – and most definitely should be exercised.

The merits review test is as I argue above, not good law under A8(1) authority and the requirement of ‘direct involvement’ is not in line with recent duty of care practice.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1 (in particular 2.496); Heading 2.2.15.3.2; Chapter 7.

'Global North' business & human rights claim, Peru oil spillDutch court rejects forum connexitatis viz Spanish, Peruvian corps, wth Dutch anchor defendantAccepts jurisdiction viz NL defendant despite 1992 CLC ConventionStichting E&FR v Repsol BV ea deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T07:17:55.045Z

Tony’s Open Chair have today published my opinion on the impact the European Commission’s ‘Omnibus’ deregulation proposal will have on the applicable law for supply chain liability claims. In short: not a good one.

Richard Gardiner has other updates on the issue here and he is generally a marvel when it comes to sharing all things CS3D.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2025, Chapter 7.

The 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law will take place at the Faculty of Laws of University College London between 11 and 13 September 2025. The conference organizers, Ugljesa Grusic (UCL) and Alex Mills (UCL), and the editors of the Journal, Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), are pleased to announce that the conference programme […]

Commission / Zippo Manufacturing e.a.
Relations extérieures
Litige de 2020 entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis concernant les droits de douane : selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, la Commission n’a pas violé le droit de Zippo d’être entendue

Pumpyanskiy / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Gel des fonds : l’avocate générale Medina considère que le critère d’inscription de femmes et d’hommes d’affaires influents sur les listes de personnes faisant l’objet de mesures restrictives à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie est légal

Commission / Hongrie (Valeurs de l’Union)
Liberté d'établissement
Valeurs de l’Union : l’avocate générale Ćapeta considère que, en interdisant ou en restreignant l’accès aux contenus LGBTI, la Hongrie a violé le droit de l’Union

Commission / Grèce (Actualisation des plans de gestion de district hydrographique et des risques d’inondation)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour condamne pour la première fois la Grèce pour ne pas avoir actualisé les plans de gestion des risques d’inondation afférents à 14 districts hydrographiques

A significant decision for the current climate change debate was delivered on 28 May 2025, by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Hamm. The OLG in Hamm has dismissed the climate lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against the energy company RWE. The court ruled that an appeal of this decision is not […]