Views
Opinion of AG de la Tour in C-713/23, Trojan: A step forward in the cross-border recognition of same-sex marriages in the EU?
Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris, Postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of the Opinion of Advocate General de la Tour in CJEU, Case C-713/23, Trojan
From Coman to Trojan
On 5 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered its judgment in the case C-673/16, Coman. In this landmark ruling, the CJEU decided that Member States are required to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in another Member Stated to grant a residence permit to the non-EU citizen spouse of an EU citizen under the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. The pending case C-713/23, Trojan goes a step further than C-673/16, Coman. On this occasion, the CJEU was asked whether EU law requires a civil registry of Poland, a Member State that does not provide any form of recognition to same-sex couples, to transcribe the certificate of same-sex marriage validly contracted in another Member State. A positive answer would imply that the same-sex marriage established under German law would be able to deploy the same effects as a validly contracted marriage under Polish law. While the CJEU has not yet rendered a judgment, on 3 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour issued his Opinion on the case. While the CJEU might decide differently from AG de la Tour, the Opinion already gives an idea of the solution that might potentially be reached by the CJEU. This post aims to analyse the case and explore its implications should the CJEU side with AG de la Tour. Read more
A New Precedent in Contract Conflicts: Decoding the Tyson v. GIC Ruling on Hierarchy Clauses
By Ryan Joseph, final-year BBA LLB (Hons) student, Jindal Global Law School, India.
Introduction
The recent decision of the UK High Court (“Court”) in Tyson International Company Limited (“Tyson”) v. General Insurance Corporation of India (“GIC”) sets a critical precedent for cases that lie at the intersection of arbitration, contractual hierarchy, and judicial intervention through anti-suit injunctions. The principal issue in the case revolved around the harmonious application of two conflicting dispute resolution clauses contained in two separate agreements pertaining to the same transaction. While one provided for dispute settlement through arbitration seated in New York, the other was an exclusive jurisdiction clause that provided for dispute settlement by England and Wales courts. To resolve this apparent conflict between the two clauses, the Court relied on a confusion clause (also known as a hierarchy clause) in the parties’ agreement to rule that the exclusive jurisdiction clause, in favour of England and Wales courts, prevails over the arbitration clause. Based on this conclusion, the Court issued an anti-suit injunction against GIC from arbitrating the dispute in New York. Read more
Australian Federal Court Backs India on Sovereign Immunity: Another Twist in the Devas v. India Saga
by Shantanu Kanade, Assistant Professor, Dispute Resolution, Jindal Global Law School, India
The Federal Court of Australia (“Federal Court”), in its recent judgement in the Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC[1] (“Judgement”), held that the Republic of India (“India”) was entitled to jurisdictional immunity from Australian Courts in proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards dealing with disputes arising from ‘non-commercial’ legal relationships. The Court’s judgment was rendered with respect to an appeal filed by India against an interlocutory judgement of a primary judge of the same court, rejecting India’s sovereign immunity claim.
Background of the Dispute
Three Mauritian entities of the Devas group (“Original Applicants”) had commenced arbitration proceedings in 2012 under the 1998 India-Mauritius BIT, impugning India’s actions with respect to an agreement for leasing of space spectrum capacity entered between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (an Indian company in which the Original Applicants held shares) and Antrix Corporation Limited (an Indian state-owned entity). In 2011, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to annul the said agreement, citing an increased demand for allocation of spectrum towards meeting various military and public utility needs (“Annulment”). The arbitration proceedings that followed culminated in a jurisdiction and merits award in 2016[2] and a quantum award in 2020 (“Quantum Award”)[3]. The Original Applicants have since sought to enforce the Quantum Award against India in different jurisdictions, discussed here.[4]
News
Chair for Comparative and Private International Law, University of Vienna
The following information was kindly shared with us by Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna).
At the University of Vienna, a Chair for Comparative Law and Private International Law will become vacant in 2026 (current holder: Professor Helmut Ofner).
The role will be to teach and research private international law and comparative law. Knowledge of the German language and the Austrian legal system is not a prerequisite; however, applicants should be willing to learn German and familiarise themselves with Austrian law. Familiarity with several legal systems is highly desirable. A specialisation in a particular area, such as international family law or international commercial law, is welcome; publications in the field of uniform law and European law are an advantage.
The successful candidate is expected to relocate to Vienna, which is consistently ranked as the most or second-most liveable city in the world (see Global Liveability Index). Initial appointments to a first professorship may be limited to six years, with the possibility of extending it to a permanent position.
More information on the position is available here. The application deadline is 17 September 2025.
[Out Now] Lopez on Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia
The Hart Series “Studies in Private International Law – Asia” continues to deliver outstanding volumes, the latest being authored by Lemuel D. Lopez (lecturer of Law at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University), and titled “Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia”.
This marks the 13th volume in the series, which was launched only a few years ago in 2019, with many more volumes expected to follow.
The topic is of great significance, and this book provides a much-needed Asian perspective, shedding light on how forum selection clauses function within the region’s unique legal environment.
The book’s description reads as follows:
This book compares and explains the approaches taken by Asian courts when choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts are challenged in litigation.
It examines key common law jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia), civil law jurisdictions (China, Japan, and Indonesia), and hybrid jurisdictions (the Philippines).
With Asia’s ascent in cross-border trade and investment, alongside a corresponding increase in cross-border litigation, understanding how Asian courts address choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts has never been more critical. Employing a comparative law method, the book identifies and explains the relief and remedies used by Asian courts in enforcing choice of forum clauses, analysing how their classification as either contractual or procedural in nature shapes judicial approaches. It further distinguishes choice of forum clauses from arbitration agreements and explores their interaction with other contractual provisions. Party autonomy – as the parties’ freedom to determine the contents of the choice of forum clause and the freedom to control the flow of litigation – is also critically scrutinised.Furthermore, the book investigates the factors courts consider in resolving key choice of forum clause issues (ie, enforceability; specific relief to be granted; existence, validity, interpretation of choice of forum clauses; role of mandatory rules, public policy, and international interests) and explores the prospects for future development of this area of law in Asia.
Crucially, the book highlights the unique approaches of Asian courts, while underscoring the differences and similarities among common law, civil law, and hybrid jurisdictions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Nature of Choice-of-Forum Clauses
3. Party Autonomy and Choice-of-Forum Clauses
4. The Enforcement of Choice-of-Forum Clauses: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
5. The Factors Considered in Granting Relief: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
6. Existence, Validity and Interpretation: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
7. Mandatory Rules, Public Policy and International Interests: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
8. Choice of Forum Clauses in Asian Civil Law Countries: China, Indonesia and Japan
9. Conclusions
2026 applications for a 6-month internship in The Hague, Netherlands
The Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Branch of the International Law Association call for applications for the 2026 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship.