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
Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration
The Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye and Bilkent University Faculty of Law cordially invite you for the next Migration Talk by Professor Paul James Cardwell (King’s College London) on “Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration”.
The talk shall be held online. For the Zoom link please contact migration@bilkent.edu.tr.
Rethinking Family Law Through a European Human Rights Lens: A New Collective Volume
What does it mean to respect family life in modern Europe? With families increasingly diverse and cross-border by nature, the concept of family law is undergoing profound legal, cultural, and institutional changes. A newly published academic volume — El Derecho de Familia a la Luz del Derecho Fundamental Europeo al Respeto a la Vida Familiar — offers a rich and timely exploration of this transformation.
Edited by María Victoria Cuartero Rubio and José Manuel Velasco Retamosa, this book brings together leading voices in European family law, private international law, and human rights to examine how the fundamental right to respect for family life (Article 8 ECHR, Article 7 EU Charter) is reshaping family law across jurisdictions. Read more
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/3
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The third issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2025 has been released last month. It gathers four articles, six case notes and seven book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).
The issue opens with Prof. Thibaut Fleury Graff’s (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas) and Dr. Inès Giauffret’s (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) survey of Le droit des étrangers et ses temporalités. Retours choisis sur la jurisprudence 2024 en matière de migrations (Immigration law and its temporalities. Selected reviews of 2024 case law on migration). A valuable addition to the dossier that the Revue critique recently devoted to the reform of French immigration law, its abstract reads as follows:
The adoption of the Law of 26 January 2024 “on controlling immigration and improving integration” marked the beginning of 2024 in the field of migration. Supplemented by its implementing decrees, the law has already given rise to initial litigation, discussed in this paper, alongside the more traditional case law interpreting the rules governing the rights and status of foreigners in France, as well as the conditions of their detention. These rulings reflect the current period, caught between legislative facilitation of detention and removal on the one hand, and judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of non-nationals on the other.
In the second article, Prof. Étienne Farnoux (Université de Strasbourg) elucidates the subtle connections between Les droits fondamentaux, l’exception d’ordre public et la prohibition de la révision au fond dans le système de Bruxelles I (Fundamental rights, public policy exception and the prohibition of review on the merits in the Brussels I system) from the Real Madrid case. At the crossroads of private international law and European integration, the contribution answers fundamental questions raised by this now notorious judicial saga. Its abstract reads as follows:
The case, which arose when recognition was sought in France of a Spanish court’s ruling against a French newspaper ordering it to pay heavy damages, highlights the conflict between the European objective of mutual trust and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of the press. In a decision dated October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice (on a preliminary reference by the Cour de cassation) outlined the general methodology for controlling the proportionality of a financial penalty imposed abroad, on the basis of international public policy, a mechanism strongly influenced by European law. This control, which was subsequently implemented by the Court de cassation in a ruling dated May 28, 2025, is severely limited by the European principle of prohibition of the review on the merits.
In the third article, Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) points out Les non-dits du droit européen du numérique en matière de droit international privé : l’exemple du règlement sur les services numériques (DSA) (The unspoken private international law aspects of European digital law: the example of the Digital Services Act (DSA)). In light of cyberspace’s peculiarity, the study paves the way for a clearly articulated policy of private international law in the digital sphere. Its abstract reads as follows:
The Digital Services Act (DSA) addresses issues of private international law in a very limited way. It mainly defines its territorial scope using a unilateral rule : it applies to any intermediary service provider that targets users in the European Union, regardless of its place of establishment. It is largely silent on other aspects of the private international law, such as determining the law applicable to illegal content or to actions for injunctions and damages. In terms of jurisdiction, it refers to the Brussels I bis Regulation, whose provisions are poorly adapted to the specificities of the digital world. The preference that the DSA seems to give to public enforcement rather than private enforcement cannot justify its silence on most questions of PIL, which are essential if we are to ensure effective protection of rights in the digital environment, which is almost always cross-border.
The doctrinal part wraps up with Dr. Marcel Zernikow (Université d’Orléans) study of Le renouvellement des méthodes de la coopération judiciaire au service du droit au procès équitable : l’instrument du certificat et la numérisation (Renewing judicial cooperation methods to uphold the right to a fair trial: the instrument of the certificate and digitalisation). The growing importance of international cooperation in cross-border proceedings indeed requires a modernized approach, which the author proposes to pursue as follows:
Judicial cooperation is an object of study in private international law that is justified by the need to make the State’s jurisdictional activity effective in a foreign territory. Since it describes the connection between State or judicial authorities of two different States, it is governed by their respective territorial procedural laws. This field is nevertheless undergoing a renewal of its methods, which will be studied through the prism of the introduction of a new instrument: the certificate. The latter is gradually being used to accompany public documents or judicial decisions or for evidentiary purposes. How has this development become the basis for digitalization, which relies on the interconnection of legal systems and individuals via the internet? The renewal of methods is universal insofar as it is based on the guarantee of the right to a fair trial in international civil proceedings.
The full table of contents is available here.
Previous issues of the Revue critique (from 2010 to 2024) are available on Cairn.