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
CoL.net Virtual Roundtable on the Commission’s Brussels Ia Report
In light of the Commission’s report on the Brussels Ia Regulation (first discussed here by Xandra Kramer), ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable
on Tuesday, 8 July 2025, 12pm–1.30pm (CEST).
The conversation will focus on the report published by the Commission on 2 June and its implications for a possible future reform of the Regulation.
The event will feature the following panellists:
Andrew Dickinson
University of Oxford
Stefano Dominelli
University of Genoa
Pietro Franzina
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan
Thalia Kruger
University of Antwerp
Tobias Lutzi
University of Augsburg
Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.
Bridging Legal Systems: A Comparative-Empirical Study on the European Account Preservation Order by Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris
Warmest congratulations to Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris on the publication of his book, The Application of the European Account Preservation Order in Germany, Luxembourg and Spain. A Comparative-Empirical Analysis (Nomos, 2025).
This scholarly work offers a timely and much-needed exploration of the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), the first cross-border civil interim measure at EU level. Conceived to enable the provisional attachment of debtors’ bank accounts across Member States, the EAPO aspires to procedural uniformity. Yet, as this study so lucidly demonstrates, its application remains deeply embedded in national procedural systems, giving rise to significant divergences and legal complexity.
With admirable clarity, analytical depth, and empirical rigour, Dr. Santaló Goris leads the reader through this intricate legal terrain. By examining, in particular, the operation of the EAPO in three distinct jurisdictions – Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain – his manuscript illustrates the practical challenges posed by procedural fragmentation while offering valuable guidance for navigating the instrument across legal systems.
This manuscript stands out as a thoughtful and impactful contribution to the field of European civil procedure. What distinguishes it most is its remarkable ability to bridge legal theory and judicial practice. Through a combination of comparative analysis, stakeholder perspectives, and data-driven insights, it offers a comprehensive and balanced account of how the European Account Preservation Order operates in practice, making it an indispensable resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike.
Congratulations, Carlos, on this well-deserved accomplishment!
More information on this book is available here.
Webinar on the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, 30 June & 1 July
|
This research project examines the legal framework for the cross-border protection of children, focusing on the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (‘the 1996 Hague Convention’).
|