Agrégateur de flux

Spin Master Toys UK / EUIPO - Verdes Innovations
Marques de l’Union européenne : le Tribunal confirme l’annulation des marques constituées de la forme du « Rubik’s cube »

Fritz Egger e.a. / ECHA (Mélamine)
La décision de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques identifiant la mélamine comme substance pouvant avoir des effets graves sur la santé humaine et sur l’environnement est confirmée

Gotek
Fiscalité
Neuf mois après s’être vu confier une compétence en matière de renvoi préjudiciel, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne rend son premier arrêt préjudiciel

The T.M.C. Asser Institute has launched a call for abstracts for the panel Emerging Voices in Private International Law, which will take place as part of Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty – Asser Institute 60 Years Series Conference, to be held on 24 October 2025 in The Hague. PhD candidates and […]

Alors que la publication de l’enquête sur « l’accès aux droits et sur les relations entre police et population » par le Défenseur des droits, appelant notamment à modifier le cadre légal de la pratique des contrôles d’identité et à mieux en encadrer la pratique, a été publiée le 24 juin 2025, la France a également été condamnée ce 26 juin par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Elle ne l’a cependant pas été pour la pratique du contrôle au faciès en tant que telle, mais s’agissant de la situation spécifique d’un requérant qui a subi des contrôles discriminatoires.

en lire plus

L’article R. 211-13, 2°, du code des assurances, dans sa rédaction antérieure au décret du 21 décembre 2023, excluait la garantie de l’assureur en cas d’accident survenu pendant la suspension du contrat pour non-paiement des primes. Cette disposition est contraire aux articles 3, § 1 et 13 de la directive n° 2009/103/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 septembre 2009 qui imposent aux États membres d’assurer la couverture obligatoire de tous les véhicules en circulation, afin de garantir une protection effective des victimes d’accidents. Cependant, malgré cette violation, tant la cour d’appel que la deuxième chambre civile, ont jugé que l’assureur n’était pas tenu à garantie. Ce refus s’explique, d’une part, par l’absence d’effet direct vertical inversé des dispositions de la directive et, d’autre part, par l’impossibilité pour le juge national de procéder à une interprétation conforme des dispositions nationales sans en altérer le sens.

en lire plus

Le recours, prévu par le règlement Bruxelles I, contre une déclaration constatant la force exécutoire d’un jugement d’un État membre n’est pas un appel, bien qu’il soit porté devant la cour d’appel.

Cette déclaration doit être signifiée conformément aux dispositions de l’article 680 du code de procédure civile, qui constitue un principe général.

en lire plus

Axel Halfmeier (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany) has kindly shared the following advertisement for a 3-year PhD scholarship with us, which will be part of a research project on ‘Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy’.

The research project will investigate the role of private litigation in a democracy, in particular collective litigation, public interest actions or strategic litigation. There is an ongoing discussion about these phenomena and whether they support deliberative democracy by empowering citizens or are anti-democratic in the sense that they transfer excessive power to the judiciary in political questions. To answer this question, normative (legal doctrine, legal theory, political theory) but also empirical approaches are possible. The project can also focus on specific areas of private law, such as media and data protection law, climate litigation, capital markets or tort law in general. The exact study design will be discussed with a view to the interests and qualifications of the candidate.

Application deadline is October 1st, 2025.

Further information on the ‘Embracing Transformation’ scholarships can be found here.

Further information on the specific research project on ‘Democratic Resilience’ is available here.

Questions may be directed to Axel Halfmeier.

The Faculty of Law at Humboldt University of Berlin is inviting applications for a Junior Professorship in Private Law and Private International Law, to be filled as of 1 October 2026. The successful candidate will engage in teaching and research across private law and private international law, broadly defined – including international family and succession […]

In response to both global and domestic revelations of serious shortcomings in the intercountry adoption system, the Swedish government launched an official inquiry on the matter in October 2021. The objective was to assess past practices and propose legal reforms as well as other appropriate measures. Titled ‘Sweden’s intercountry adoption activities – Lessons learned and […]

On Tuesday, 6 July 2025, 12pm CEST, ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable on the Commission’s Brussels Ia Report.

Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.

More information can be found here.

The establishment of an international chamber in the Paris Commercial Court aimed at competing with and divesting judicial business from the London Commercial Court. As the possibility that the United Kingdom would stop participating in the various instruments of judicial cooperation adopted by the European Union appeared to be increasingly credible, the governments of a […]

Conventions & Instruments

On 17 June 2025, the Republic of Korea deposited its instrument of ratification of the 1993 Adoption Convention. With the ratification of the Republic of Korea, the 1993 Adoption Convention now has 107 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for the Republic of Korea on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.

On 30 June 2025, Denmark signed the 2007 Child Support Convention and deposited its instrument of approval of the Convention. With the approval of Denmark, 55 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. It will enter into force for Denmark on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 5 June 2025, the first meeting of the Working Group established to finalise the Good Practices document relevant to the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence, and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions was held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. More information is available here.

On 13 June 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. More information is available here.

From 16 to 18 June 2025, the Experts’ Group on Digital Tokens met for the first time. More information is available here.

From 25 to 27June 2025, HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2025 was held in Seoul, co-hosted by the Republic of Korea and the HCCH. The conference brought together over 400 participants from across Asia and the Pacific and beyond for wide-ranging discussions on the most recent developments relating to the HCCH’s key Conventions and instruments, ongoing normative projects, and possible future work. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

On 2 June 2025, the Host Seat Agreement between Morocco and the HCCH was signed in Rabat, establishing the Regional Office for Africa of the HCCH. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

Professor Mareike Schmidt (Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology) has kindly shared the attached  Call for Applications with us.

She is seeking to fellows working on ‘Complexity as an Issue of Law’ within the framework of her larger project on Change in and through Law: Digital Transformation and Climate Change

The latest issue of the new French journal dedicated to international dispute resolution, Perspectives Contentieuses internationales (PCI), has been released. It is an open access publication and can be freely downloaded here. Real Madrid v Le Monde The main focus of the issue is on the case of Real Madrid v. Le Monde (Case C-633/22). […]

Wiszkier
Consommateur en faillite : le tribunal de la faillite doit pouvoir examiner d’office le caractère potentiellement abusif des clauses contractuelles

Al Nasiria
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Protection internationale : la législation grecque obligeant un demandeur d’asile à comparaître en personne lors de l’examen d’un recours et prévoyant une présomption d’introduction abusive du recours en cas de non-respect de cette obligation est contraire au droit de l’Union

On 30 May 2025, the signing of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed)  in Hong Kong marked an advancement in the field of international dispute resolution. Attended by representatives from over 85 countries and 20 international organisations – including the United Nations – the event introduced a treaty-based institutional framework dedicated specifically to mediation.

The IOMed Convention – with equally authentic texts in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish – outlines a structured, treaty-based model of mediation whose scope is deliberately broad, encompassing disputes between States, between a State and nationals of other States, as well as disputes between private parties involved in international commercial relationships (Article 24).

A defining feature of the IOMed Convention is its treatment of the legal effect and enforceability of mediated outcomes. Articles 40 and 41 affirm both the binding nature of settlement agreements resulting from IOMed-facilitated mediation and their enforceability within the domestic legal systems of contracting States. This model of consensual yet normatively binding dispute resolution finds a compelling parallel in – and complements – the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention). The Singapore Convention – which, as of 3 July 2025, counts 58 signatories and 18 parties – reinforces party autonomy while requiring the good faith implementation of mediated settlements. Particularly significant is Article 3 of the Convention, which obliges courts in contracting States to recognise international commercial settlement agreements and to enforce them in accordance with domestic procedures, provided the agreement satisfies the Convention’s requirements. While the Singapore Convention offers a uniform and efficient framework for the enforcement and “invocation” (see Art. 3(2)) of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, the IOMed Convention contributes by establishing the institutional and procedural framework necessary for the conduct of mediation itself. Together, these instruments enhance both the normative foundation and the practical viability of cross-border mediation, thereby reinforcing its legitimacy in complex international commercial contexts.

Beyond its dispute resolution functions, IOMed also assumes a broader mandate to promote mediation (Art. 5). This includes fostering best practices (Art. 5(b)), organising conferences and training initiatives (Art. 5(c)), and implementing targeted capacity-building programmes (Art. 5(d)). A dedicated Mediation Fund (Art. 44), financed through voluntary contributions, is intended to promote equitable access to services, while a Capacity Building Committee (Art. 43) provides strategic oversight in this domain.

Ultimately, the IOMed Convention does not seek to alter the fundamental character of mediation. Rather, it aims to provide a coherent legal and institutional foundation at the international level. By anchoring mediation within a treaty-based framework, the IOMed Convention offers States and other actors a structured yet flexible environment in which to pursue dialogue-based resolution, with greater predictability, neutrality, and institutional support – while preserving the essential consensual nature that distinguishes mediation from adjudication. While its practical impact will depend on how States and other actors engage with its mechanisms over time, the Convention offers a new platform for exploring the potential of mediation in a variety of international contexts.

Two years have passed since the European Commission published two proposals on the protection of adults in international situations, namely a proposal for a Council Decision that would authorise all EU Member States to become parties of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the international protection of adults “in the interest of the […]

 

Written by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.

 

ABSTRACT

In around 2019, a Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to enforce a US default monetary judgment from a California court on the grounds that a valid arbitration agreement was in place (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3). This decision underscored the court’s reliance on the arbitration agreement’s validity, even though a subsequent legislative proposal to include arbitration agreements as an indirect jurisdictional filter in China’s Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment) was ultimately not adopted.

 

Key takeaways:

• In around 2019, a Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to enforce a US default monetary judgment issued by a California court, on the grounds of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3).
• The Hebei Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Chinese law (the law of the seat of arbitration), since the parties did not specify the law governing the arbitration agreement.
• The Chinese company’s failure to appear in the California court did not constitute a waiver of the arbitration agreement, as the Hebei Court ruled that silence does not imply an intention to abandon arbitration.
• The proposed inclusion of “arbitration agreements” as one of the indirect jurisdictional filters in China’s Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment) was ultimately not adopted, following legislative review which deemed it inappropriate to override foreign courts’ determinations regarding the validity of such agreements.

 

What happens if a foreign court default judgment was rendered despite an arbitration agreement and is later submitted for recognition and enforcement in China?

A local Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to recognize and enforce such a default judgment issued by a California court in the United States, on the grounds that the US court lacked indirect jurisdiction due to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3).

Although the full text of the judgment has not yet been made publicly available, a case brief is included in a recent commentary book – Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide[1] – authored by the Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court (‘Understanding and Application’).

This raises an interesting and complex question: How would Chinese courts assess the indirect jurisdiction of the court of origin today, in particular, when an arbitration agreement is involved?

 

I. Case background

In January 2011, Sunvalley Solar Inc.(“Sunvalley”), a U.S. company, entered into an agreement with Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms (“BTS”), a Chinese company, for the manufacture of solar panels.

Sunvally later allegedly incurred damages due to defective equipment supplied by BTS and subsequently filed a lawsuit against BTS before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, US (“California Court”).

On 7 Sept. 2017, the California court rendered a default judgment (no. KC066342) in favor of Sunvalley, awarding a total amount of USD 4,864,722.35 against BTS.

In 2019, Sunvalley filed an application before Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court, Hebei Province, China (“Hebei Court”), seeking the recognition and enforcement of the California judgment (“US Judgment”).

 

II. Court’s Reasoning

Upon review, the Hebei Court held that the jurisdiction of a foreign court over a civil case is a prerequisite for courts to lawfully exercise judicial jurisdiction and also forms the basis upon which a foreign civil judgment may acquire res judicata and become entitled to be recognized and enforced in other countries.

In this case, the key issue was whether the arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties was valid, and if so, whether it excluded the jurisdiction of the California Court. This issue was essential in deciding whether the US Judgment could be recognized and enforced by the Hebei Court.

First, the Hebei Court examined the validity of the arbitration clause. In this case, the parties had only agreed on the governing law of the main contract, which was the laws of California, under Art. 15, Paragraph 1 of the “Procurement Contract”., The parties, however, had not specified the law governing the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court deemed the arbitration clause to be governed by the law of the seat of arbitration, which in this case Chinese law.[2] Under Art. 15, Paragraph 2 of the “Procurement Contract”, the parties had clearly expressed their intention to resolve their disputes through arbitration. According to the said provision, disputes arising out of the contract shall be submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). As such, the Hubei Court held that the arbitration clause met the requirements of Art. 16 of China’s Arbitration Law and was therefore valid.

Second, the Hebei Court considered whether BTS’s default constituted a waiver of the arbitration agreement. According to Art. II, Para. 1 of the New York Convention, Contracting States are required to respect valid arbitration agreements. Such agreements are not only legally binding on the parties but also have the legal effect of excluding the jurisdiction of national courts. This principle is fully consistent with Art. 5 of China’s Arbitration Law and Art. 278 of China’s Civil Procedure Law (CPL), both of which clearly provide that a valid arbitration agreement excludes court jurisdiction. If the parties intend to waive the arbitration agreement afterward, such waiver must be clear, explicit and mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the general principle of contract modification. Mere non-appearance in court proceedings does not constitute a waiver of arbitration or submission to the jurisdiction of the California Court. In this case, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement remained unaffected by BTS’s failure to respond to the California Court’s summons. Accordingly, BTS’s silence could not be construed as an intention to waive the arbitration agreement. Thus, the California Court was deemed to lack jurisdiction over the case.

Third, the Hebei Court interpreted Art. 289 of the CPL, which provides for the recognition of “[J]udgments and rulings made by foreign courts that have legal effect”. The Court clarified that this refers specifically to judgments rendered by competent foreign courts. Judgments rendered by courts lacking jurisdiction, including in matters that should have been submitted to arbitration, do not qualify. Since the California Court issued its judgment despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and without proper jurisdiction, the resulting US judgment could not be recognized and enforced under Chinese law.

Accordingly, the Hebei Court refused to recognition and enforcement of the US judgment.

 

III. Comments

Clearly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was the decisive reason why the Hebei Court found that the California court lacked proper indirect jurisdiction and thus refused to recognize the judgment it rendered.

While it may seem straightforward that a valid arbitration agreement generally precludes litigation before court, the extent to which such an agreement influences the review of a foreign court’s indirect jurisdiction raises a more nuanced and compelling question. This very issue was at the heart of legislative debates during the drafting of China’s recently amended CPL (“2023 CPL”), which entered in force on 1 January 2024.

 

1. The jurisdiction filter once in the draft

Interestingly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was initially included as one of the filters for assessing the indirect jurisdiction of foreign courts in the 2023 CPL Draft Amendment (see Art. 303, Para. 4 of the 2022 CPL Draft Amendment on indirect jurisdiction). Similar judicial views pre-dating the Draft can also be found in Art. 47 of the “Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide”, as well as in the commentary on that Article authored by the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC in the Understanding and Application.

However, this proposed filter was ultimately removed from the final version of the 2023 CPL Amendment.

So why was this filter removed? We can find the answer in the legislative review report on the Draft, the “Report on the Review Results of the ‘CPL Draft Amendment’” issued on Aug. 28, 2023, by the Constitution and Law Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) to the NPC Standing Committee:

“[S]ome members of the Standing Committee suggested that Paragraph 4 was inappropriate. If the arbitration agreement has been deemed invalid by a foreign court and thus jurisdiction is assumed, Chinese courts should not easily deny the jurisdiction of the foreign court. It is recommended to delete it. The Constitution and Law Committee, after research, suggested adopting the above opinion and making corresponding amendments to the provision.”

 

2. What now?

If this case were to occur today, how would a Chinese court approach it? In particular, if there were a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, would the court still assess the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court based on that agreement, if so, how?

This brings us back to the current rules on indirect jurisdiction set out Art. 301 of the 2023 CPL. It is important to note that where the foreign judgments originates from a country that has entered into a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance with China, the indirect jurisdiction rules in the treaty – rather than those in the CPL – will govern the recognition and enforcement process.

Related Posts:

• What’s New for China’s Rules on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement? – Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (1)
• Thus Spoke Chinese Judges on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement: Insights from Chinese Supreme Court Justices on 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (4)

Under Art. 301 of the CPL, China adopts a hybrid approach to assessing indirect jurisdiction, one that combines the law of the rendering court and the law of the requested court. Specifically, for a foreign judgment to be recognized and enforced by Chinese courts, the foreign rendering court must meet the following jurisdictional requirements:

(1) it first must have had jurisdiction under its own national laws;

(2) even if a foreign court had jurisdiction under its own national laws, it must also maintain a proper connection with the dispute. If such a connection is lacking, the foreign court will still be considered incompetent for the purpose of recognition and enforcement in China.;

(3) The foreign court will also be deemed incompetent if its exercise of jurisdiction

a) violates Chinese courts’ exclusive jurisdiction under 279 and Art. 34 of the 2023 CPL, or

b) contradicts a valid exclusive choice-of-court agreement between the parties

In the context of the hypothetical scenario involving an arbitration agreement, a Chinese court would primarily examine the situation under Art. 301, Para. 1 of the CPL. This provision requires the court to consider whether the foreign court properly determined the validity of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the law of the country where the judgment is rendered and thereby determine whether it had jurisdiction.

a) If the foreign court determined that the arbitration agreement was invalid and exercised jurisdiction accordingly under its own law, a Chinese court would generally not deny the foreign court’s jurisdiction (unless it finds that the foreign court lacked proper connection with the dispute). This approach is also consistent with the legislative intent expressed by the NPC Constitution and Law Committee.

b) If the foreign court did not consider or address the validity of the arbitration agreement (as may occur, g., in a default judgment like in the Sunvalley case), how should the Chinese court evaluate the agreement’s validity during the recognition and enforcement stage? This raises a key unresolved issue: Should it assess the validity of the arbitration agreement according to the rules of Chinese private international law, or instead refer to the conflict-of-law rules in the State of origin? The 2023 Civil Procedure Law does not provide a clear answer to this question. As such the issue remains to be tested in future cases.

Related Posts:

• China Issues Landmark Judicial Policy on Enforcement of Foreign Judgments – Breakthrough for Collecting Judgments in China Series (I)
• First Case of Reciprocal Commitment: China Requests Azerbaijan to Enforce its Judgment Based on Reciprocity
• US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement

 

————————-

[1] The Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court, Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao Lijie Yu Shiyong], People’s Court Press, 2023, pp. 332-333.

[2] Cf. Art. 18, 2010 Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relationships (2010 Conflicts Act)