Views
Standard (and burden) of proof for jurisdiction agreements
Courts are often required to determine the existence or validity of jurisdiction agreements. This can raise the question of the applicable standard of proof. In common law jurisdictions, the question is not free from controversy. In particular, Stephen Pitel has argued on this very blog that jurisdiction clauses should be assessed on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to the “good arguable case” standard that is commonly applied (see, in more detail, Stephen Pitel and Jonathan de Vries “The Standard of Proof for Jurisdiction Clauses” (2008) 46 Canadian Business Law Journal 66). That is because the court’s determination on this question will ordinarily be final – it will not be revisited at trial.
China’s Draft Law on Foreign State Immunity—Part II
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
In December 2022, Chinese lawmakers published a draft law on foreign state immunity, an English translation of which is now available. In a prior post, I looked at the draft law’s provisions on immunity from suit. I explained that the law would adopt the restrictive theory of foreign state immunity, bringing China’s position into alignment with most other countries.
In this post, I examine other important provisions of the draft law, including immunity from attachment and execution, service of process, default judgments, and foreign official immunity. These provisions generally follow the U.N. Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which China signed in 2005 but has not yet ratified.
China’s draft provisions on immunity from attachment and execution, service of process, and default judgments make sense. Applying the draft law to foreign officials, however, may have the effect of limiting the immunity that such officials would otherwise enjoy under customary international law. This is probably not what China intends, and lawmakers may wish to revisit those provisions before the law is finally adopted. Read more
What is a Judgment (in the context of Reg 655/2014)? – CJEU Case C-291/21 Starkinvest
Less than half a year after the CJEU’s decision in Case C-646/20 Senatsverwaltung für Inneres (discussed here by Krzysztof Pacula), the Court had to engage again with the question of what constitutes a “judgment” in the sense of an EU instrument in Case C-291/21 Starkinvest.
This time, the question arose in the context of Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The regulation envisages two kinds of situation:
- The creditor has already obtained a “judgment” (Art. 7(1)): In this case, the creditor only needs to show that there is an urgent need for a protective measure to ensure that the judgment can be effectively enforced against the debtor.
- The creditor has not yet obtained a “judgment” (Art. 7(2)): In this case, the creditor also needs to show “that he is likely to succeed on the substance of his claim against the debtor”.
In Starkinvest, the claimant had obtained a decision from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège, Belgium, that ordered the debtor to cease seeling certain goods, subject to a penalty payment of EUR 2 500 per breach. On the basis of that decision, they later sought payment of EUR 85 000 in penalties, which they requested the referring court to secure through a European Account Preservation Order. Confronted with the question of how to characterise the initial decision in the context of the above dichotomie, the court referred the case to the CJEU.
News
Conference: “The Next 25 Years of Private International Law: What Does the World Need?”, 23 June 2025 in Groningen
The Ulrik Huber Institute for Private International Law is delighted to announce a special one-day conference entitled:
The Next 25 Years of Private International Law: What Does the World Need?
This conference marks a significant occasion: the celebration of Professor Mathijs ten Wolde’s 25-year tenure as a professor and director of the Ulrik Huber Institute. In honour of his contribution to the field and his mentorship of generations of legal scholars, the event will bring together former PhD students and distinguished colleagues from across the globe to reflect on the future direction of private international law.
Key Themes Include:
- The role of private international law in a changing world;
- Evolving cross-border legal frameworks (e.g. EU Regulations and HccH Conventions);
- Regional vs. global harmonisation efforts;
- The impact of digitalisation;
- New frontiers in family, commercial, IP, transport and procedural law.
We warmly invite all scholars, practitioners and students with an interest in private international law to join us for this day of dialogue and celebration. More information, including the conference programme, is available via the following link: https://www.rug.nl/rechten/agenda/2025/the-next-25-years
New Book and Seminar Heroes of the Judicial Periphery
Last month the book The Heroes of the Judicial Periphery: Court Experts, Court Clerks, and Other Actors in the Shadows, edited by Alan Uzelac and Stefaan Voet (Hart/Bloomsbury Publising, 2025) was published. The book highlights the role of perhaps less prominent, but nevertheless important actors in (international) judicial procedures from a national, comparative and/or international perspective.
The European Civil Justice Centre (Erasmus School of Law) hosts a seminar in collaboration with the editors to launch the book on 4th July 2025 from 10-12 CEST.
Discussions on civil justice mostly focus on procedural rules, and the role of courts, parties and lawyers. This book addresses other actors that are often overlooked in academic and policy debates. It assesses the role of court experts, court clerks and court staff, and other actors on the ‘judicial periphery’ who play an important role and often co-determine the pace, outcome, and tone of the judicial process.
The knowledge and skills of experts may be indispensable at times, but it is among the most expensive, complicated and time-consuming means of evidence. The judges adjudicate, but where experts are involved in the process, they have a decisive impact on the outcome of litigation. Therefore, a principal focus of the book is on experts and how they are appointed, managed, and remunerated across Europe and the world.
The editors will discuss topical issues highlighting these ‘actors in the shadows’ and key experts will present their ideas based on the key findings of the book chapters, followed by discussion.
Registration for free here (hosted through Eventbrite)
Speakers & program:
10.00 Opening and welcome: Xandra Kramer
10.05 Alan Uzelac & Stefaan Voet – Heroes of the Judicial Periphery
10.15 Juraj Brozovic – The Case of Judicial Advisors in Croatia
10.30 Camilla Bernt – Expert Evidence in Custody Disputes and Child Protection Cases
10.50 Discussion
11.05 Michael Stürner – Experts on Foreign Law in German Civil Procedure
11.30 Adriani Dori & Xandra Kramer – The Role of Third-Party Funders in the Shadow of the Procedure
11.45 Discussion
Book on The New Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union
A book on The New Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union was recently published. The book is edited by Dr. Emmanuel Guinchard (Liverpool John Moores University) and Prof. Carlo Panara (University of Leicester) and may be accessed here.
Overview
- Covers the whole spectrum of the new relationship between the UK and the EU
- Contains original discussion and evaluations of the impact of Brexit on UK sovereignty
- Includes both topics covered in the recent agreements and topics that have been left in a grey area