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
Publication of the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions
The Permanent Bureau of the HCCH is pleased to announce that the fifth editions of the Practical Handbooks on the Operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions are now available for purchase in both paper and e-book format.
The 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions establish uniform frameworks of cooperation mechanisms to streamline, respectively, the transmission of documents for service abroad and the taking of evidence abroad. The Service and Evidence Handbooks are intended to assist users of the Conventions, including Central Authorities, government officials, courts, counsel and legal practitioners, by providing practical guidance on their implementation and operation.
The Practical Handbook on the 1965 Service Convention is designed first and foremost to assist users with the operation of the main and alternative channels of transmission and the provisions regarding adequate protection of the defendant. As for the Practical Handbook on the 1970 Evidence Convention, it is designed to assist users with the operation of the two systems of taking evidence that are provided by the Convention, namely (1) Letters of Request and (2) Consuls and Commissioners. The Practical Handbooks also explain how information technology is and may be used to further enhance the operation of the Conventions, including by incorporating, for the 1970 Evidence Convention, relevant information from the HCCH Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link.
Incorporating recent developments, court decisions, and practical examples provided by experts from around the world, as well as updates from the meeting of the Special Commission held in July 2024, the fifth editions of the Handbooks are essential resources for anyone involved in the implementation and operation of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions.
More information on how to purchase hard copies and/or e-book copies is available on the Publications section of the HCCH website (for the general public). Specific instructions for HCCH National and Contact Organs and Member Central Authorities designated under the Service and Evidence Conventions are also provided on the Publications section of the HCCH website.
This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).
Extended Deadline – Call for Papers: “Tariffs: Emerging challenges in global trade” by the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JMLI)
We have recently shared the call for papers by the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) for its first issue of 2026. The deadline has now been moved to 20 July 2025.
For further information, we are again referring to the editors who can be reached at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.
Call for Papers: Special Issue of the Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal in Honor of Peter Hay
Necla Ozturk (Editor of the Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal) has kindly shared the following call for papers with us:
On the occasion of the 90th birthday of distinguished legal scholar Professor Dr. Peter Hay, Akdeniz University Faculty of Law Journal is preparing a special issue to be published in 2025, dedicated to his outstanding contributions to Private International Law and Comparative Law.
Throughout his illustrious academic career, Professor Hay has profoundly influenced the field through his pioneering work on the relationships between American, German, and European Private Law systems. His publications, teaching, and international engagements have left a lasting mark on the legal world.
We would be honored to receive a contribution from you for this commemorative issue. We especially welcome articles that address topics aligned with Professor Hay’s areas of expertise or offer critical reflections inspired by his scholarly legacy.
Suggested Topics Include:
• Private International Law
• Comparative Law
• Convergence/Divergence of Legal Systems
• American And European Private Law
• Critical Assessments of Professor Hay’s WorkSubmission Deadline: November 15, 2025
Languages Accepted: Turkish, English, German, French.
Submission Guidelines: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akdhfd/writing-rulesPlease submit your article via https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akdhfd or hukukdergi@akdeniz.edu.tr by the deadline indicated above.
We look forward to your valuable contribution to this special issue that pays tribute to Professor Peter Hay’s scholarly achievements and influence.