Tatlici v. Tatlici on Appeal: Defendant Wins as Public Policy Confronts the Financialization of Cross-Border Defamation Award

/in /by

Written by Fikri Soral, Independant Lawyer, Turkey; and LL.M. student, Galatasaray University, Turkey

The Tatlici litigation continues to unfold as one of the most noteworthy examples of how national courts in Europe are responding to transnational defamation judgments obtained in the United States. The previous commentary examined Malta’s First Hall Civil Court judgment refusing to enforce the U.S. default award of US$740 million.[1] The Malta Court of Appeal’s judgment of 14 October 2025 builds upon that foundation by upholding non-enforcement while clarifying the legal reasoning behind it.[2] The Malta Court of Appeal’s judgment came as the second major development, following an earlier first-round enforcement attempt in Turkey that had already failed on venue.[3] Read more

‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading as choice of law under Rome I – the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines

/in /by

 

In Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines (7/11/2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1665), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands considered the interpretation of a so-called ‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading. Such clauses commonly signpost which rules govern the international carriage of goods by sea. The Court addressed such clause as a choice of law and held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from agreeing on such clause. Read more

“Without Regard to Principles of Conflict of Laws”

/in /by

It is common to see some variation of the phrase “without regard to conflict of laws principles” appear at the end of a choice-of-law clause. Here are some examples:

“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China, without regard to its principles concerning conflicts of laws.”

“This Agreement and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.”

“This Note is being delivered in and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.”

Although this phrase is common, its purpose and origin are poorly understood. In 2020, I published an article, A Short History of the Choice of Law Clause, that attempted to demystify these issues.

Read more

Court-to-court referrals and reciprocity between Chinese and Singapore courts

/in /by

By Catherine Shen, Asian Business Law Institute

In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Court) recognized and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 under file number HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Court of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Court (Suzhou Judgment) was announced in September 2025 by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as among the fifth batch of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) model cases. Read more

CJEU, Case C-540/24, Cabris Investment: Jurisdiction Clause in Favour of EU Court is Subject to Art. 25 Brussels Ia even if both Parties are Domiciled in the Same Third State

/in /by

By Salih Okur, University of Augsburg

On 9 October 2025, the CJEU, in Case C-540/24 (Cabris Investment), had to decide whether Art. 25 Brussels Ia applies to “an agreement conferring jurisdiction in which the contracting parties, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and therefore (now) in a third State, agree that the courts of a Member State of the European Union are to have jurisdiction over disputes arising under that contract, falls within the scope of that provision, even if the underlying contract has no further connection with that Member State chosen as the place of jurisdiction.“

Unsurprisingly, the Court held that it does.

Read more

Pre-print article on SSRN on “Mirin” and the Future of Cross-Border Gender Recognition

/in /by

I recently published the pre-print version of an article on SSRN that was accepted by the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. The article is called ““Mirin” and Beyond: Gender Identity and Private International Law in the EU“. The article is part of a special issue dealing with questions of gender identity that (probably) will come out at the beginning of 2026.

As it deals with matters of private international law (regarding gender identity) and the CJEU decision “Mirin”, I thought it might be interesting for the readers of this blog to get a short summary of the article. If it sparks your interest, of course, I would be glad if you consider reading the whole text – and to receive feedback and further thoughts on this topic. 🙂

Draft General Law on Private International Law aims to bring Brazil from the 19th into the 21st century

/in /by

Guest post by Gustavo Ferraz de Campos Monaco, Full Professor of Private Internacional Law – University of São Paulo

In Brazilian law, the regulation of conflicts of laws is still based on a legislation from 1942, during a dictatorial regime, which explains its inspiration from the Italian fascist regime. The values prevailing in Brazilian society back then were quite different from those we hold today, especially in matters concerning family relationships. At that time, the family unit was viewed as having a single domicile, and questions related to the definition of parenthood were unthinkable outside traditional presumptions.

On at least two occasions over the past 83 years, attempts to draft new regulations were undertaken by leading figures in the field – Haroldo Valladão, Jacob Dolinger, and João Grandino Rodas – but both initiatives failed during the process, without the Plenary of the Legislative Houses having expressed an opinion on the merits of the projects. Read more

Brazilian Supreme Court on the Hague Child Abduction Convention

/in /by

Guest post by Janaína Albuquerque, International Family Lawyer; Research Associate at the NOVA Centre for the Study of Gender, Family and the Law; Legal Coordinator at Revibra Europa. Janaína represented Revibra, Instituto Maria da Penha and Instituto Superação da Violência Doméstica as amici curiae in the cases discussed below.

The Brazilian Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark judgment in two Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (Ações Diretas de Inconstitucionalidade, or ADIs), namely ADI 4245 and ADI 7686, concerning the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction(1980HC). Despite their denomination, these actions did not aim to invalidate the Convention, but rather to harmonize its interpretation with the principles enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution.[1] Read more

EU modernises consumer dispute resolution: An overview of the new ADR Directive

/in /by

By Alexia Kaztaridou (Linklaters)

On 25 September 2025, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved the text of the political agreement on the Alternative Disputes Resolution for Consumer Disputes Directive. This Directive establishes a framework for resolving through ADR procedures contractual domestic and cross-border consumer disputes arising from the sale of goods or provision of services between consumers and traders within an EU context. The amendments to the prior Directive aim to modernise the existing framework in light of new consumer trends, such as the growth of e-commerce, and bring significant changes across several areas, enhancing the protection for consumers and clarifying obligations for traders and ADR entities. The Directive maintains its minimum harmonisation approach, allowing Member States to provide for stronger consumer protection. Read more

US Supreme Court: Judgment in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) – A few takeaways

/in /by

Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University

In June 2025, the US Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) 605 U.S. 280 (2025). The Opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here,  here and here (on the hearing).

As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers, alleging inter alia negligence, public nuisance and defective condition. The basic theory laid out was that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the trafficking of guns to Mexico causing harm and grievances to this country. In this regard, the complaint focuses on aiding and abetting of gun manufacturers (rather than of independent commission).

In a brilliant judgment written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that PLCAA bars the lawsuit filed by Mexico. Accordingly, PLCAAS’s predicate exception did not apply to this case. Read more