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
Open Online Conference: “Cross-Border Enforcement of Child Support: Pros and Cons of the Different National Systems” on January 28th, 2026 3-5:30pm CET
The Child Support Forum in cooperation with the International Union of Judicial Officers is pleased to invite every interested stakeholders of the cross border child support recovery to an open conference on January 28th, 2026 from 3 to 5:30 pm (CET).
According to Art. 41 of Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 and Art. 32 of the 2007 Child Support Convention, the enforcement procedure shall be governed by the law of the state of enforcement. But in practice, the prospects of successfully initiating cross-border enforcement proceedings are not always easy to assess. In order to enforce successfully, it is necessary to know the specifics of the legal system of the state of enforcement (the Requested state).
Key questions in this context are:
- What does the process of enforcement of child support looks like in different states?
- Are maintenance claims given a degree of priority?
- How do Central Authorities facilitate the ongoing enforcement of maintenance decisions?
- What are the conditions for children to be exempted from costs?
The meeting aims to review the international legal framework and provide an overview of the various national enforcement systems. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems from a legal policy perspective shall be discussed.
The participation is free of charge but registration is required.
To register, click here.
Online Book Launch – Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: Private International Law Considerations
Following the successful release of Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: Private International Law Considerations late last year, as previously announced on this blog, co-editors Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (University of Tasmania) and Dr Sai Ramani Gariimella (South Asian University) are pleased to invite you to an upcoming online book launch.
This virtual event will feature insights from three distinguished contributors:
- Dr Jie (Jeanne) Huang (University of Sydney)
- Dr Nobumichi Teramura (Keio University Law School)
- Professor Beligh Elbalti (The University of Osaka)
Presentations will be followed by a moderated Q & A and discussion session.
This event is open to the public; please refer to the attached flyer to scan the QR Code for Zoom access.
Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Jurisdiction Appeal
Canada’s highest court does not grant leave to appeal in many cases involving private international law. In November 2025 it granted leave to appeal from NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v Cheung, 2024 BCCA 236, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with the court below in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear a price fixing class action. The action is interesting because it involves what could be described as a “foreign” conspiracy that had effects within Canada.
The defendants are Japanese entities and the claim alleges that they conspired to fix the price of “suspension assemblies” which are a component of hard disk drives which are in turn a component of things like computers. The claim alleges that Canadians purchased products that contained these assemblies and because of the price fixing they paid more than they otherwise would have done.