Views
Toothless vs. Shark-Teeth: How Anti-Suit Injunctions and Anti-Anti-Suit Orders Collide in the UniCredit Saga
by Faidon Varesis, University of Cambridge
Background
The dispute in the UniCredit v. RusChem saga arose from bonds issued by UniCredit to guarantee performance under contracts for Russian construction projects, where RusChem, after terminating the contracts due to EU sanctions, initiated Russian proceedings for payment in breach of an English-law governed arbitration agreement that mandates resolution in Paris under ICC rules.
UniCredit sought an anti-suit injunction in the UK to stop these Russian proceedings, arguing that the arbitration clause must be enforced under English law. Teare J at first instance held that the English court lacked jurisdiction—finding that the arbitration agreements were governed by French substantive rules and that England was not the appropriate forum—whereas the Court of Appeal reversed this decision by granting a final anti-suit injunction requiring RCA to terminate its Russian proceedings.
CJEU in Albausy on (in)admissibility of questions for a preliminary ruling under Succession Regulation
In a recent ruling, the CJEU adds another layer to the ongoing discussion on which national authorities can submit questions for preliminary rulings under the Succession Regulation, and its nuanced interpretation of what constitutes a ‘court.’
Albausy (Case C-187/23, ECLI:EU:C:2025:34, January 25, 2025) evolves around the question of competence to submit a request for preliminary ruling under the Succession Regulation (Regulation 650/2012 on matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession).
Although the CJEU finds that the request in that case is inadmissible, the decision is noteworthy because it confirms the system of the Succession Regulation. Within the regulation, the competence to submit questions for preliminary ruling is reserved for national courts that act as judicial bodies and are seized with a claim over which they have jurisdiction based on Succession Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction.
The opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona is available here.
A Judgment is a Judgment? How (and Where) to Enforce Third-State Judgments in the EU After Brexit
In the wake of the CJEU’s controversial judgment in H Limited (Case C-568/22), which appeared to open a wide backdoor into the European Area of Justice through an English enforcement judgments (surprisingly considered a ‘judgment’ in the sense of Art. 2(a), 39 Brussels Ia by the Court), international law firms had been quick to celebrate the creation of ‘a new enforcement mechanism‘ for non-EU judgments.
As the UK had already completed its withdrawal from the European Union when the decision was rendered, the specific mechanism that the Court seemed to have sanctioned was, of course, short-lived. But crafty judgment creditors may quickly have started to look elsewhere.
In a paper that has just been published in a special issue of the Journal of Private International Law dedicated to the work of Trevor Hartley, I try to identify the jurisdictions to which they might look. Read more
News
Bridging Legal Systems: A Comparative-Empirical Study on the European Account Preservation Order by Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris
Warmest congratulations to Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris on the publication of his book, The Application of the European Account Preservation Order in Germany, Luxembourg and Spain. A Comparative-Empirical Analysis (Nomos, 2025).
This scholarly work offers a timely and much-needed exploration of the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), the first cross-border civil interim measure at EU level. Conceived to enable the provisional attachment of debtors’ bank accounts across Member States, the EAPO aspires to procedural uniformity. Yet, as this study so lucidly demonstrates, its application remains deeply embedded in national procedural systems, giving rise to significant divergences and legal complexity.
With admirable clarity, analytical depth, and empirical rigour, Dr. Santaló Goris leads the reader through this intricate legal terrain. By examining, in particular, the operation of the EAPO in three distinct jurisdictions – Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain – his manuscript illustrates the practical challenges posed by procedural fragmentation while offering valuable guidance for navigating the instrument across legal systems.
This manuscript stands out as a thoughtful and impactful contribution to the field of European civil procedure. What distinguishes it most is its remarkable ability to bridge legal theory and judicial practice. Through a combination of comparative analysis, stakeholder perspectives, and data-driven insights, it offers a comprehensive and balanced account of how the European Account Preservation Order operates in practice, making it an indispensable resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike.
Congratulations, Carlos, on this well-deserved accomplishment!
More information on this book is available here.
Webinar on the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, 30 June & 1 July
|
This research project examines the legal framework for the cross-border protection of children, focusing on the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (‘the 1996 Hague Convention’).
|
The International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court: A Transnational Appeal Mechanism
Written by Yip Man (Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University)
To bolster Singapore’s position as an international dispute resolution hub, the Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill[1] was introduced in Parliament on 14 October 2024 to establish the International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court (the SICC), a standalone body, to hear prescribed civil appeals and related proceedings from prescribed foreign jurisdictions.[2] The Bill was passed by Parliament on 12 November 2024. The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Act 2024 (the “International Committee Act”) is uncommenced.[3] Read more