Views
English Court Judgment refused (again) enforcement by Dubai Courts
In a recent decision, the Dubai Supreme Court (DSC) confirmed that enforcing foreign judgments in the Emirate could be particularly challenging. In this case, the DSC ruled against the enforcement of an English judgment on the ground that the case had already been decided by Dubai courts by a judgment that became final and conclusive (DSC, Appeal No. 419/2023 of 17 May 2023). The case presents many peculiarities and deserves a closer look as it reinforces the general sentiment that enforcing foreign judgments – especially those rendered in non-treaty jurisdictions – is fraught with many challenges that render the enforcement process very long … and uncertain. One needs also to consider whether some of the recent legal developments are likely to have an impact on the enforcement practice in Dubai and the UAE in general.
The case
1) Facts
The case’s underlying facts show that a dispute arose out of a contractual relationship concerning the investment and subscription of shares in the purchase of a site located in London for development and resale. The original English decision shows that the parties were, on the one hand, two Saudi nationals (defendants in the UAE proceedings; hereinafter, “Y1 and 2”), and, on the other hand, six companies incorporated in Saudi Arabia, Anguilla, and England (plaintiffs in the UAE proceedings, hereinafter “X et al.”). The English decision also indicates that it was Y1 and 2 who brought the action against X et al. but lost the case. According to the Emirati records, in 2013, X et al. were successful in obtaining (1) a judgment from the English High Court ordering Y1 and 2 to pay a certain amount of money, including interests and litigation costs, and, in 2015, (2) an order from the same court ordering the payment of the some additional accumulated interests (hereinafter collectively “English judgment”). In 2017, X et al. sought the enforcement of the English judgment in Dubai.
Montenegro’s legislative implementation of the EAPO Regulation: setting the stage in civil judicial cooperation
Carlos Santaló Goris, Lecturer at the European Institute of Public Administration in Luxembourg, offers an analysis of an upcoming legislative reform in Montenegro concerning the European Account Preservation Order
In 2010, Montenegro formally became a candidate country to join the European Union. To reach that objective, Montenegro has been adopting several reforms to incorporate within its national legal system the acquis communautaire. These legislative reforms have also addressed civil judicial cooperation on civil matters within the EU. The Montenegrin Code of Civil Procedure (Zakon o parni?nom postupku) now includes specific provisions on the 2007 Service Regulation, the 2001 Evidence Regulation, the European Payment Order (‘EPO’), and the European Small Claims Procedure (‘ESCP’). Furthermore, the Act on Enforcement and Securing of Claims (Zakon o izvršenju I obezbe?enju) also contains provisions on the EPO, the ESCP, and the European Enforcement Order (‘EEO’). While none of the referred EU instruments require formal transposition into national law, the fact that it is now embedded within national legislation can facilitate its application and understanding in the context of the national civil procedural system.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria’s final decision in the Pancharevo case: Bulgaria is not obliged to issue identity documents for baby S.D.K.A. as she is not Bulgarian (but presumably Spanish)
This post was written bij Helga Luku, PhD researcher at the University of Antwerp.
On 1 March 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria issued its final decision no. 2185, 01.03.2023 (see here an English translation by Nadia Rusinova) in the Pancharevo case. After an appeal from the mayor of the Pancharevo district, the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria ruled that the decision of the court of first instance, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in this case, is “valid and admissible, but incorrect”. It stated that the child is not Bulgarian due to the lack of maternal ties between the child and the Bulgarian mother, and thus there is no obligation for the Bulgarian authorities to issue a birth certificate. Hereafter, I will examine the legal reasoning behind its ruling.
News
Virtual Workshop (in English) on January 7: Joseph William Singer on “Conflict of Abortion Laws”
On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic
“Conflict of Abortion Laws”
With the abolition of the constitutional abortion right in the United States come huge differences among the laws of the states, and that leads to questions about which state law applies when a person from an anti-abortion state travels to a pro-choice state to get an abortion. Can anti-abortion states apply their regulatory and tort regimes to their own residents who leave the state to obtain an abortion? Can they empower residents to sue abortion providers in other states to protect what they view as the “unborn child”? Can pro-choice states confer immunity from suit on abortion providers and on people who get abortions from suits filed in anti-abortion states? Does the United States Constitution limit the power of anti-abortion states to apply their laws in an extraterritorial manner, and, if not, how should courts revolve conflicts of law (private international law) questions about abortion?
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1/2025: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:
Announcement – Save the Date: Online Workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.
Tentative Programme
Keynote Speakers
•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow
•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law
Speakers and Presentations
•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law
Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow
•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)
Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde
•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims
Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law
•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation
Maggie Fleming Cacot
•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law
Yehya Badr, Yamamah University
•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye
Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University
•Evolving Models of Restitution
Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam
•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland
Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,
We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.