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
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/4
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The fourth and last issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2025 has just been released. It contains four articles, eight case notes, and six book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions). Read more
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: an(other) recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
An Australian, Hannon, wants to book a Southern African safari with his partner, Murti, as a surprise birthday gift. He sees one he likes on an Australian travel website. Hannon fills in the online form.
It turns out that the website is just the agent for a South African company, Drifters Adventours. Drifters emailed Hannon the price and payment details. Attached to the email is a brochure. The brochure says, “Drifters do not accept responsibility for any loss, injury, damage, accident, fatality, delay or inconvenience experienced while on tour.” The brochure also says, “You will be required to complete and sign a full indemnity prior to your tour departure.” Read more
Part 4 of the Juridical Review for 2025
The recently published Part 4 of the Juridical Review for 2025 contains articles based on the International Perspectives on Scots Law seminar series held at the University of Stirling during 2023/2024. Some of these articles will be of interest to private international law aficionados:
‘The Pre-enactment Legislative Review Process in Scotland’ by Robert Brett Taylor and Adelyn L.M. Wilson (University of Strathclyde);
‘Taking the Transnational Nature of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal Seriously: A Private International Law Perspective’ by Mihail Danov (University of Exeter);
‘The Evolution of Business and Human Rights Litigation against Multinational Companies’ by Mukarrum Ahmed (University of Lancaster);
‘Parties’ Intention and the Future Internationalisation of Scottish Arbitration – A Review of Scottish cases post 2010′ by Hong-Lin Yu (University of Stirling);
‘The Art of Persuasion: Embracing the Auld enemy and Beyond’ by Dr Mo Egan (University of Stirling).