Yesterday, on 14 November 2018, the UK cabinet, after five hours of deliberation, accepted the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, as agreed at negotiators’ level on the same day. The text (TF 50 [2018] 55) contains provisions on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in Articles 66 to 69. Pursuant to Article 66(a) of the Draft Agreement, the Rome I Regulation shall apply in the UK in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period, which will be on 31 December 2020 (Article 126 of the Draft Agreement). Under Article 66(b) of the Draft Agreement, the Rome II Regulation shall apply in the UK in respect of events giving rise to damage, where such events occurred before the end of the transition period. The remaining EU Member States will continue to apply the Rome I and II Regulations in EU-British relations anyway following the principle of universal application (Article 2 Rome I, Article 3 Rome II).

Article 67 of the Draft Agreement deals with jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions, and related cooperation between central authorities. This article reads as follows

“1. In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period and in respect of proceedings or actions that are related to such legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 or Articles 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC)  No 4/2009, the following acts or provisions shall apply:

(a) the provisions regarding jurisdiction of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012;

(b) the provisions regarding jurisdiction of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, of Regulation (EC)  No 6/2002, of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

(c) the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 regarding jurisdiction;

(d) the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 regarding jurisdiction.

2. In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following acts or provisions shall apply as follows in respect of the recognition and enforcement of judgments, decisions, authentic instruments, court settlements and agreements:

(a) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, and to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and court settlements approved or concluded  before the end of the transition period;

(b) the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 regarding recognition and enforcement shall apply to judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments, and agreements concluded before the end of the transition period;

(c) the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 regarding recognition and enforcement shall apply to decisions given in legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, and to court settlements approved or concluded, and authentic instruments established before the end of the transition period;

(d) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period, and to court settlements approved or concluded and authentic instruments drawn up before the end of the transition period, provided that the certification as a European Enforcement Order was applied for before the end of the transition period.

3. In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following provisions shall apply as follows:

(a) Chapter IV of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 shall apply to requests and applications received by the central authority or other competent authority of the requested State before the end of the transition period;

(b) Chapter VII of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 shall apply to applications for recognition or enforcement as referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article and requests received by the central authority of the requested State before the end of the transition period;

(c) Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to insolvency proceedings, and actions referred to in Article 6(1) of that Regulation, provided that the main proceedings were opened before the end of the transition period;

(d) Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to European payment orders applied for before the end of the transition period; where, following such an application, the proceedings are transferred according to Article 17(1) of that Regulation, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted before the end of the transition period;

(e) Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to small claims procedures for which the application was lodged before the end of the transition period;

(f) Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to certificates issued before the end of the transition period.”

Article 68 of the Draft Agreement concerns ongoing judicial cooperation procedures, in particular within the framework of the EU Regulations on cross-border service of documents and the taking of evidence. Article 69 of the Draft Agreement contains miscellaneous provisions dealing, inter alia, with legal aid, mediation, and relations with Denmark.

The full text of the Draft Agreement is available on the Commission’s website here and in the press, e.g. via the Guardian’s website here. It remains to be seen, however, whether the British Parliament will ratify this text (see here). Stay tuned!

The third issue of the Belgian Journal on Private International Law has been published and is available for free here.

The Journal contains case law by Belgian Courts in Dutch and French as well as recent case law of the CJEU.

This issue includes Court of Cassation cases on contracts, torts and evidence.

The Journal also contains one article in English:

Isabelle  Bambust,  Jan  De  Meyer,  Valerie  De  Ruyck,  Sarah  Den  Haese,  Laura Deschuyteneer,  Erinda  Mehmeti and Jinske  Verhellen  (Ghent University): Cross-Border  Proceedings  in  Family  Law  Matters  before  National  Courts  and the CJEU: National Report Belgium

and two in Dutch:

The latest issue of the Zeitschrift für Europäische Privatrecht has just been released. It contains the following articles:

Thomas Ackermann, Sektorielles EU-Recht und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik

In the German tradition, private law is considered as a system of consistent rules that can be reduced to a unity formed by a small number of axioms. This idea has been the driving force behind huge efforts to overcome the fragmentation of EU private law. However, the concept of a private law system is unsuitable for a democratic polity whose supranational level is formed by the EU. Instead, the systematic quest for unity and consistency should aim at positioning private law rules in the entirety of our legal order. This leads to a better understanding of European legislation and case-law in the field of private law.

Jürgen Basedow, Sektorielle Politiken und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik

Following Ackermann the author elaborates on the distinction of horizontal and vertical EU legislation. The problems caused by the latter aggravate by the increasing use of regulations (instead of directives) and by the progressive adoption of rules on liability in acts aiming at market regulation. The author advocates renewed work on a Common Frame of Reference and the creation of a unit within the Commission that would be tasked with the survey of coherence of provisions of the private law acquis.

Brigitta Lurger, Die Dominanz zwingenden Rechts – die vermeintlichen und tatsächlichen Schattenseiten des EU-Verbraucherschutzrechts

EU private law, in particular EU consumer law, has encountered heavy criticism: It was, for instance, accused of being one-dimensional – ie only market functional – or to transform contract law into a set of mostly inadequate or inefficient mandatory rules. The article analyses this criticism by creating links between several discourses: (behavioral) law and economics, paternalism, fundamental rights, competences, contract law versus regulatory law, and the conflict between self-interest and social responsibility.

Gerhard Wagner, Zwingendes Vertragsrecht

Modern contract law, as applied between businesses and consumers, operates in the form of mandatory law. This pattern dominates not only in Europe, but also in the United States. It is supported by strong normative reasons. However, it is time to rethink the relationship between mandatory law and court control over standard business terms: Court control over standard terms does better than mandatory law in reconciling consumer protection and private autonomy, and should thus be preferred.

Pietro Sirena, Die Rolle wissenschaftlicher Entwürfe im europäischen Privatrecht

The article deals with the projects of a European private law, which have been drafted in black letter rules, and their influence upon the laws of the Member States as well as that of the European Union. The author points out that a genuine European private law could not overlook the best developments of the national legal cultures, which have been flourishing in the last two centuries on the basis of the national codifications of civil law and the judge-made common law.

Reinhard Zimmermann: Die Rolle der wissenschaftlichen Entwürfe im europäischen Privatrecht

The creation of various sets of „model rules“, „restatements“, or „non-legislative codifications“, particularly concerning contract law, is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the field of comparative private law over the last fourty years. The present essay argues that one important function of these model rules is to facilitate the discussion of legal problems beyond national borders and thus to stimulate the development of a truly European legal doctrine. They can thus help to achieve what Professor Sirena in his lecture is aiming for.

Horst Eidenmüller: Collateral Damage: Brexit’s Negative Effects on Regulatory Competition and Legal Innovation in Private Law

This article attempts to assess the consequences of Brexit for English and European private law. More specifically, I am interested in how the level of legal innovation in private law will be influenced by Brexit. I argue that Brexit will reduce the level of efficiency-enhancing legal innovation in Member States’ and European private law. Brexit will eliminate the UK as a highly innovative competitor on the European market for new legal products in private law, reducing the beneficial effects of regulatory competition. Further, private law-making on the European level will no longer benefit from the UK’s efficiency-enhancing influence. I substantiate and illustrate the main thesis of this article with examples taken mostly from contract law and dispute resolution, company law and insolvency law.

Marc-Philippe Weller/Chris Thomale/Susanne Zwirlein, Brexit: Statutenwechsel und Acquis communautaire

The Brexit will have considerable consequences for international private and procedural law. From an individual point of view, there will be changes to the applicable law that can be managed with the methods of the PIL. At a general and abstract level, the shape of the acquis will change in several respects.

Lado Chanturia, Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten am Beispiel Georgiens

Georgia signed an Association Agreement with the EU on 27.6.2014. According to the Association Agreement (AA) the reform of private law should be considered as further development of the Europeanization of Georgian law, which began in the early 1990s. The political decision in favor of the Europeanization of law is now turning into an obligation of legal harmonization. The pertinent areas as per the agreement are electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, competition, company law, accounting and auditing, corporate governance and consumer policy.

Reiner Schulze, Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten

Following the article by Lado Chanturia (‘Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten am Beispiel Georgiens’, in this issue, page 919), this contribution analyses different ways of third countries adopting European Private Law beyond the institutionalized forms of approximation of law. In particular, it deals with the reception of the law of the Member States and the „acquis commun“ alongside the Acquis communautaire and criticizes the concept of a „legal transplant“ of European law in third countries.

Issue 14. 3 of the Journal of Private International Law has just been released. It contains the following articles:

Maria Caterina Baruffi, A child-friendly area of freedom, security and justice: work in progress in international child abduction cases, pp. 385-420

The protection of children’s rights constitutes the subject matter of various private international law instruments within both the international and the EU frameworks. The paper focuses on their relevant provisions regarding child abduction, which pose a number of problematic issues as to their interpretation and practical application. Against the existing background, future legislative developments are assessed with a view to proposing a provisional evaluation as to their effectiveness and actual improvement.

Charlotte Mol & Thalia Kruger, International child abduction and the best interests of the child: an analysis of judicial reasoning in two jurisdictions, pp. 421-454

The Hague Child Abduction Convention aims to secure the speedy return of abducted children. Judges can use a limited number of grounds for refusal. They may not make an in-depth assessment of the merits of any custody issue. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This article analyses the use that judges make in their decisions on the concept of “the best interests of the child”. For this purpose it scrutinizes the case law on international child abduction of the Netherlands and England and Wales. By using software designed for qualitative research, the authors are able to make an objective and systematic analysis. This article confirms the hypothesis that the concept of the best interests of the child is often used without substance, and sometimes only to endorse conclusions that would have possibly been reached in any event.

Hayk Kupelyants, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the absence of the debtor and his assets within the jurisdiction: reversing the burden of proof, pp. 455-475

The article examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the absence of the defendant and his assets within the jurisdiction. While at first sight a seemingly futile tactic, it opens a whole array of potential benefits to the judgment creditor. Under English law, to enforce a foreign judgment in the absence of the debtor and his assets, the judgment creditor needs to establish a reasonable prospect of legitimate benefit arising from the enforcement. The article challenges this view and argues that the position in English law is needlessly onerous: the burden should be on the judgment debtor to establish that the enforcement of the foreign judgment is an abuse of process. The paper also draws analogies to other legal regimes, both in the UK and outside.

Aleksandrs Fillers, Implications of Article 81(1) TFEU’s recognition clause for EU conflict of laws rules, pp. 476-499

The last decades have been marked by the extensive Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules. Traditionally, national conflict of laws rules in Continental Europe were aimed at determining the closest connection between the legal relation and the putatively applicable law. This universal objective was often combined with more local objectives: the achievement of certain substantive policies of the forum through conflictual mechanisms. The Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules poses a legitimate question: do EU conflict of laws rules pursue identical or similar policies as national conflict of laws rules? The issue may be approached using different methods. One approach is inductive – the analysis of conflict of laws rules found in EU secondary law and their comparison with national conflict of laws rules. Another approach is deductive – the analysis of the Treaty basis for EU conflict of laws rules, in order to identify whether this constitutional framework prescribes certain policies that may be different from those used in national conflict of laws rules. This contribution is devoted to the second method and analyses whether the recognition clause found in Article 81 TFEU has any meaningful influence on the nature and scope of EU conflict of law rules.

Mukarrum Ahmed, The nature and enforcement of choice of law agreements, pp. 500-531

This article seeks to examine the fundamental juridical nature, classification and enforcement of choice of law agreements in international commercial contracts. At the outset, it will be observed that the predominance of jurisdictional disputes in international civil and commercial litigation has pushed choice of law issues to the periphery. The inherent dialectic between the substantive law paradigm and the internationalist paradigm of party autonomy will be harnessed to provide us with the necessary analytical framework to examine the various conceptions of such agreements and aid us in determining the most appropriate classification of a choice of law agreement. A more integrated and sophisticated understanding of the emerging transnationalist paradigm of party autonomy will guide us towards a conception of choice of law agreements as contracts, albeit contracts that do not give rise to promises inter partes. This coherent understanding of both the law of contract and choice of law has significant ramifications for the enforcement of choice of law agreements.

Diletta Danieli, Mixed contracts under the Brussels Ia Regulation: searching for a “jurisdictional identity”, pp. 532-548

This paper addresses the debated application of the jurisdictional regime in contractual matters provided in the Brussels Ia Regulation to cases involving mixed contracts, which comprise elements of a sale of goods, as well as a provision of services, and are not expressly regulated by that legal instrument. The starting point of the assessment is a recent Italian Supreme Court ruling, which is further compared with the relevant CJEU and national case law. Then, some broader considerations are proposed with regard to the actual desirability of specific provisions concerning these types of contracts within the Brussels system.

Torsten Bjørn Larsen, The extent of jurisdiction under the forum delicti rule in European trademark litigation, pp. 549-561

This contribution compares the extent of jurisdiction of two different forum delicti rules namely that under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which applies in national trademark litigation, with that under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, which applies in EU trade mark litigation. The former has been interpreted to cover both the place of acting and the place of effect and it seems likely that both places have limited jurisdiction. The latter covers only the place of acting which also seems likely to have limited jurisdiction.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

D. Martiny: Virtual currencies, particularly Bitcoins, in private international law and in the international law of civil procedure

Virtual currencies like Bitcoins are substitute currencies that are not issued by a state and that are limited in supply. Whereas the discussion in substantive law on the classification of virtual currencies and Distributed Ledger Technology is in full progress, there is no established approach in private international law as to blockchain, smart contracts or tokens. Also, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have to be classified. An examination of these digital techniques leads to a classification as a contractual obligation. Contracts which have as their object virtual currency units are, in general, subject to the Rome I Regulation. Currency is mainly a matter of the law governing the contract. Domestic finance market restrictions under the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz – KWG) can intervene as overriding mandatory rules under Article 9(2) Rome I Regulation. Additionally, foreign rules may be taken into account (Article 9(3) Rome I Regulation). Jurisdiction for contractual matters is determined by the place of performance or the place of the harmful event (Article 7 No. 1, 2 Brussels I Recast).

A.S. Zimmermann: Blockchain-Networks and Private International Law – or: the Savignian seat-doctrine and decentralized legal relations

The ubiquitous availability of the world wide web fundamentally changed international commerce. The legal system has proven to be surprisingly flexible in dealing with the issue of digitalisation and has hence provided reasonable solutions for several problems of the modern era. The field of Private International Law is particularly challenged by the decentralism of the digitalised world. However, as the case of blockchain-networks illuminates, the classic Savignian paradigm of Private International Law is capable of coping with new phenomena and allocating them to an appropriate legal framework.

M. Lieberknecht: The blocking regulation: private international law as an instrument of foreign policy

The EU has updated its blocking statute in order to shield European businesses from the extraterritorial reach of the reactivated U.S. secondary sanctions against Iran. The present article provides an analysis of the blocking regulation’s impact on matters of private law. Concerning the issue of overriding mandatory provisions, the Regulation adds little but emphasis to the pre-existing approach. It prohibits EU-based parties to comply with the U.S. sanctions, thereby forcing them into a “catch-22” situation, which bears a particular risk of managerial liability. Indirectly, this prohibition produces lopsided results under substantive German law, while potentially nullifying prevalent contractual solutions. Finally, the article assesses the legal nature and substantive scope of the clawback provision which allows for the recovery of sanction-related damages. It concludes that, while such a claim may have some potential to trigger litigation between private parties, it fails to fulfil its actual purpose, which is to neutralize the overall effects of U.S. sanctions. The same holds true for the Regulation as a whole: It not only offers weak protection, but exposes private parties to various additional legal risks and restraints.

S. Bajrami/M. Payandeh: The Recognition of Foreign Judgments under Private International Law in Light of the Duty of Non-Recognition under International Law

For the recognition of foreign judgments under private international law, the question of the legality of the foreign judgment under international law is usually irrelevant. Private international law attributes recognition to foreign judgments based on factual and effective sovereign power regardless of whether the judgment has been issued by a state that is internationally not recognized or whether the judgment constitutes the exercise of jurisdiction over a territory over which the state may not exercise jurisdiction. This approach under private international law is, however, called into question when the foreign judgment constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction which is the consequence of a violation of the prohibition of the use of force under international law, as in the case of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by Russia. In such cases, customary international law constitutes a duty of non-recognition of the illegal situation. The present contribution analyses this conflict from the perspective of international law and comes to the conclusion that the recognition of foreign judgments, in general, is in conformity with the duty of non-recognition under international law.

M. Gebauer: Classification of section 1371 para 1 of the German Civil Code as a rule falling within the scope of succession law in terms of the EU Succession Regulation and the consequential classification of the rule under the German-Turkish bilateral succession treaty

The CJEU recently classified section 1371 para 1 of the German Civil Code as a rule falling within the scope of inheritance law in terms of the European Succession Regulation. The article analyses the consequences of this classification beyond EU law for cases governed by the German-Turkish bilateral succession treaty and its interpretation by German courts. Presumably, German courts will feel obligated to classify the German substantive rule in the same way under the bilateral succession treaty when it has to be applied in combination with EU conflict rules on matrimonial property regimes.

J.A. Bischoff: Much ado about nothing? The future of investment arbitration after Achmea v. Slovakia

In his judgment dated March 6, 2018, the CJEU held investment arbitration proceedings incompatible with Art. 267, 344 TFEU where they arise from a bilateral investment treaty between two member states and where the seat of the arbitration is located in the European Union. The court did not concur with the Opinion of the Advocate General dated September 19, 2017. Although the judgment will promote legal certainty as far as intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are concerned, it creates new questions for the Energy Charta Treaty as well as bilateral investment treaties with third countries. Where an arbitration’s seat is located outside the EU or where the ICSID Arbitration Rules apply, the judgment can create a divergent execution practice.

D. Looschelders: International jurisdiction for the termination of co-ownership in cases regarding matrimonial property regimes

The ECJ has recently decided over the international jurisdiction for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares in two cases. In the Komu case, which concerned a legal dispute between the co-owners of two immovable properties located in Spain with regard to the termination of the co-ownership, the ECJ affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the immovable properties are situated. In the Iliev case, however, the ECJ concluded that a dispute between former spouses relating to the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage concerns „matrimonial property regimes“ and therefore, according to Art. 1(2)(a) Brussels Ibis Regulation, does not fall within the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The article analyses the decisions and outlines the tension between the law of immovable property and the law of matrimonial property. The future legal situation according to the European Regulation on Matrimonial Property Regimes and the parallel problem under the European Succession Regulation are discussed, too. Overall, the author notes a tendency of the European conflict of laws Regulations to give precedence to the law applicable to matrimonial property regimes and succession over the application of the law of the Member State in which the property is located.

A. Wolf: Arbitration clauses and actions for cartel damages before German courts

The German District Court Dortmund dismissed an action for damages caused by an infringement of Art. 101 TFEU in the context of the so-called „Schienenkartell“. The Court found that the arbitration agreements which the parties had agreed on during their contractual relationship covered such actions so that German courts had no jurisdiction on this matter. Therefore, the Court interpreted the arbitration agreements under German law in a broad sense. Furthermore, it denied to apply the EU principle of effectiveness relating to the exercise of claims for damages in national procedures. With regard to arbitration clauses it also rejected to follow the Court of Justice in its CDC-judgment on a narrow interpretation of jurisdiction clauses in terms of Art. 25 Brussels I recast.

L. Rademacher: Procedural Consumer Protection Against Attorneys

In a world of open societies, legal advice in cross-border cases is in constantly increasing demand by both businesses and consumers. Skilful counselling on foreign law, however, can prove difficult to obtain from domestic attorneys, especially for consumers. In consequence, consumers may decide to retain a lawyer educated and located in the relevant foreign legal system. When problems arise in the relationship between the domestic consumer client and the attorney situated abroad, the internationally competent court has to be determined. In favour of the consumer client, the consumer protection rules of international procedural law apply under the territorial-situational requirements of Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels I Regulation 2001 / Art. 17 sec. 1 lit. c Brussels Ibis Regulation 2015 / Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c Lugano Convention 2007. This case note reviews two judicial rulings – one by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, the other by the Federal Court of Justice – dealing with these requirements in light of the guidelines provided by the European Court of Justice. The pivotal issues concern an attorney’s activities in the state of the consumer client’s domicile falling within the scope of a contract between the attorney and a client as well as an attorney’s direction of activities to the state of the client’s domicile.

H. Roth: Accumulative basic requirements of the recognition of foreign decisions according to § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG are an orderly notification and the possibility to arrange an effective defense of the defendant

The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart interprets § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG (= Act on the Procedure in Family Matters and the Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction) in accordance with § 328 sec. 1 no. 2 ZPO (= German Civil Procedure Code) and therefore in conscious deviation to the basic assumptions of the European secondary law (e.g. Art. 45 sec. 1 lit. b Brussels Ia Reg.). Accumulative basic requirement of the recognition of foreign decisions according to § 109 sec. 1 no. 2 FamFG are an orderly notification and the possibility to arrange an effective defense of the defendant.

P. Ostendorf: Requirements for a genuine international element in the event of a choice of law in accordance with European Private International Law

In accordance with Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention (respectively its successor instrument, the Rome I Regulation), the parties can, in case of a purely domestic contract, not escape the mandatory provisions of their home jurisdiction by way of either the choice of a foreign law and/or a foreign forum. English courts recently had to determine whether interest rate swaps concluded by an Italian bank and an Italian municipality (providing for the application of English law and an English forum) might fall outside the ambit of Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention due to sufficient international elements of the transaction. Contrary to the High Court, the Court of Appeal (by now confirmed by the UK Supreme Court) has answered this question in the affirmative, given that the bank had utilized a standard form contract drafted by a private international association not linked to any particular country and had also entered into a back to back transaction with a foreign bank. This understanding appears misconceived against the background of a contextual and teleological interpretation of Art. 3 (3) Rome Convention.

Z. Meškic/A. Durakovic/J. Alihodžic: Bosnia and Herzegovina as a Multi-unit State
Bosnia and Herzegovina comprises two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, and the District Br?ko, which have almost comprehensive competences in private law. Therefore, in addition to rare legislation in private law on the national level, there are three partial legal orders in private law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The following paper presents some of the differences between the partial legal orders and explains the development of interlocal conflict rules in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which took place independently of private international law. For family, status and succession matters there is a uniform act on interlocal conflicts of laws, whereas in other areas of private law no uniform regulation exists. The solutions on interlocal conflicts of laws in the most relevant areas of private law have been analysed critically.