Views
Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment
Written by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM, PhD (KIMEP University)
Facts of the case
An unreported judgment of the Family, Childhood and Capacity Section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Alicante (No. 3), dated 29 April 2026, has attracted attention for ordering a Mexican gestational surrogate to pay child maintenance to the Spanish father for whom she carried a child, despite having no custody, no exercise of parental authority, and no contact rights (here and here).
From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime
South Africa occupies a strategic position in African and Global South trade networks, yet its economy continues to lag behind its BRICS partners and many of its African peers. A recurring, if underexamined, contributor to this underperformance is the state of its private international law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ). The article, published in the Journal of African Law (2026), investigates why and how the principle of comity might help resolve this issue.
The empirical picture is striking. Of the reported South African REFJ cases collated for this study, roughly 44 per cent of foreign judgments brought for enforcement are refused. Contrary to what one might expect, the leading cause is rarely fraud or public policy. Instead, over half of all refusals (53 per cent) turn on a single, narrow ground: the rendering court’s lack of “international competence” under South African law. Under the framework laid down in Jones v Krok (1995), a foreign court is internationally competent only where the debtor was resident in, or voluntarily submitted to, that court’s jurisdiction. Every other basis for jurisdiction recognised elsewhere – the place of contractual performance, the place where harm occurred, or a valid choice-of-court agreement standing alone- is, on the weight of authority, insufficient.
Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings?
A. The Impetus for Presenting the Issue
In light of the publication of three judgments of the Thessaloniki First Instance Court concerning the service of documents in Contracting States to the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [hereinafter: HSC], the issue examined was whether proceedings may continue despite the absence of a certificate of service from the State addressed. In this context, a decisive role for the judge is played by the answer to the question whether “persistent efforts” within the meaning of the Greek version of Article 15(2)(c) HSC, or “reasonable efforts” (in the English-language formulation), were undertaken by the competent authorities of the State addressed in order to obtain a certificate. The same issue arises under the relevant EU Regulation (Article 22 Regulation 2020/1784), concerning cross-border service within the EU. Finally, the very recent amendment of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, introducing new Article 134A GCCP, is also of particular interest.
The discussion will begin with the case law referred to above, examined in the light of the HSC (B). This will be followed by a reference to the corresponding provision of the EU Regulations (C). Next, a preliminary account will be given of the recent provision of Article 134A GCCP and its innovative features (D). This will be followed by an analysis of the terms “persistent effort” and “reasonable effort” (E-F). The study concludes with a detailed presentation of German legal scholarship (G), followed by a brief conclusion (H).
News
Second Seminar of the Global Network on Private International Law, Employment, and Labour Relations (GNPILE) (22 Oct 2026)
Ulla Liukkunen (University of Helsinki) has kindly shared the attached programme for the Second Seminar of the Global Network on Private International Law, Employment, and Labour Relations (GNPILE).
The event is open to all, but registration is required.
Virtual Workshop (in English) on October 6, 2026: Sandrine Brachotte and María Julia Ochoa Jiménez on “Conflicts of Worldviews and Private International Law”
On Tuesday, October 6 2026, 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).
Sandrine Brachotte (University of Antwerp) and María Julia Ochoa Jiménez (Comillas Pontifical University) will speak, in English, about the book
“Conflicts of Worldviews and Private International Law” (Hart Publishing, 2026).
This book brings together European private international law and decolonial thinking. It examines how European courts deal with conflicts between legal frameworks and postcolonised worldviews. Through three case studies—religious arbitration, Indigenous sacred land, and sexual minorities in the Global South—it shows that these conflicts are often overlooked. This results in the inadequate protection of the claims and identities of formerly colonised peoples. The book therefore proposes a more pluralist approach to jurisdiction, choice of court, and foreign law, giving greater weight to postcolonised worldviews. Prof. Ochoa Jiménez will comment on it, while focusing on private international law.
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.
Out now: Brachotte on ‘Conflicts of Worldviews and Private International Law’
The publisher’s blurb is as follows. Readers of the blog may use the discount code indicated below to get 20% off.
Conflicts of Worldviews and Private International Law
Sandrine Brachotte
This book develops a decolonial theory of European private international law. To do so, it begins with Western court cases involving what the author terms a ‘conflict of worldviews’: a clash between the legal frameworks governing the dispute and the worldviews of the formerly colonised parties involved, referred to here as ‘postcolonised worldviews’.