Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

And Then There Were … Seventeen!

October 10, 2016/2 Comments/in /by Jan von Hein
image_pdfimage_print

Estonia has recently joined the Rome III Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 on enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, increasing the number of participating Member States to seventeen. The Decision of the Commission of 10 August 2016 has been published in (2016) OJ L 216/13. Before, Lithuania and Greece had already joined the original fourteen participating Member States. Contrary to some dire forecasts made at the time when the Rome III Regulation was adopted, this instrument has turned out to be rather successful, being now in force in a clear majority of Member States. Rome III shall apply to Estonia from 11 February 2018. Article 3 of the said Council’s decision contains specific transitional provisions, in particular with regard to choice-of-law agreements.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Jan von Hein https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Jan von Hein2016-10-10 09:58:002016-10-10 09:58:00And Then There Were … Seventeen!
2 replies
  1. Patricia Orejudo says:
    October 10, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    You seen to be satisfied with this Decision. Do you really think it is a good news to have another Member State aplying a rather conservative instrument as regards, for instance, egalitarian marriages?

  2. Jan von Hein says:
    October 12, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Thanks for your comment! Yet, with due respect, I do not think that labeling Rome III a “conservative” instrument is appropriate. First, the Regulation extends party autonomy to the law applicable to divorce, which is fairly new to most Member States. Second, it replaces the spouses’ nationality as the traditional main connecting factor by their habitual residence, thus modernizing PIL as well. Third, it even contains a special public policy clause (Article 10) that is specifically designed to fight discriminatory laws. So, what’s not to like from a progressive point of view? It is true, though, that the Regulation does not define the meaning of “marriage”. I doubt, however, whether a consensus on this controversial issue among the Member States may be reached soon; the recast of Brussels IIa certainly won’t settle the matter either. In the meantime, it’s better to light a candle (by way of enhanced cooperation in PIL) than curse the darkness.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: ERA-Conference: The Impact of Brexit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in London Link to: ERA-Conference: The Impact of Brexit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in London ERA-Conference: The Impact of Brexit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in Lo... Link to: Conference on International Banking Transactions Link to: Conference on International Banking Transactions Conference on International Banking Transactions
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top