Views
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.
UK Supreme Court in Jalla v Shell: the claim in Bonga spill is time barred
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance. The Nigerian landowners’ claim against Shell was thus barred by the limitation periods under applicable Nigerian law (Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, on appeal from [2021] EWCA Civ 63).
On 10 May 2023, the UK Supreme Court has ruled in one of the cases in the series of legal battles started against Shell in the English courts in the aftermath of the Bonga spill. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]:
Data on Choice-of-Court Clause Enforcement in US
The United States legal system is immensely complex. There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. When I imagine a foreign lawyer trying to explain this system to a foreign client, my heart fills with pity.
This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States. The law on this subject is complicated. It is, moreover, not easy to determine how it is applied in practice. Are there differences in clause enforcement rates across the states? Across federal circuits? Do state courts enforce these clauses at the same rate as federal courts? Until recently, there was no data that would allow a foreign lawyer – or a U.S. lawyer, for that matter – to answer any of these questions.
Over the past several years, I have authored or co-authored several empirical articles that seek to answer the questions posed above. This post provides a summary of the data gathered for these articles. All of the cases referenced involve outbound choice-of-court clauses, i.e. clauses that select a jurisdiction other than the one where the suit was filed. Readers interested in the data collection process, the caveats to which the data is subject, or other methodological issues should consult the articles and their appendices. This post first describes state court practice. It then describes federal court practice. It concludes with a brief discussion comparing the two.
News
Call for Papers: “Tariffs: Emerging challenges in global trade” by the Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JMLI)
The Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) welcomes submissions for its first issue of 2026.
The Call for Papers for this second issue is devoted to Tariffs: Emerging challenges in global trade.
You can find the call with all the details at this link.
Prospective articles should be submitted in the form of an abstract (around 800 words) or draft articles to submissions.jlmi@iuse.it within 10 July 2025. The publication of the issue is set for the end of March, 2026.
For further information, or for consultation on a potential submission, you can contact us by email at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.
Seminar: Child marriage: root causes and questions of recognition, 5 June
At the occasion on 5 June of the PhD Defence of Leontine Bruijnen on How can Private International Law bridge the Gap between the Recognition of Unknown Family Relations such as Kafala and Child Marriage for Family Law and Migration Law Purposes? , we are organising an expert seminar at the University of Antwerp and online:
Child marriage: root causes and questions of recognition:
11.00: Welcome and introduction by Thalia Kruger, University of Antwerp
11.10: The Role of Customs and Traditions in Addressing Child Marriages in Tanzania: A Human Rights-Based Approach, by Esther Kayamba, Mzumbe University and University of Antwerp
11.25: The link between climate change and child marriage in Tanzania, by Agripina Mbilinyi, Mzumbe University and University of Antwerp
11.40: Socio-cultural factors that Sustain Child Marriage at Quarit Wereda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia by Yitaktu Tibetu, Human Rights Lawyer, Senior Gender Adviser and councillor psychologist
12.00: Perspective from Europe by Bettina Heiderhoff, University of Münster and Trui Daem, PhD researcher Ghent University
12.20: Debate and Q&A
12.50: End
To register, please contact Thalia Kruger
Second Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025
The second issue of LMCLQ was recently published.
It contains the following conflict of laws works,
David Foxton, “The Applicable Law of an Arbitration Agreement: Floating or on the Rocks?”
Marcus Teo and Kah-Wai Tan, “Territoriality over Universalism”
Adrian Briggs, “Submission to a Russian Court”