J. Richter: Expansion and Restriction of the Co-Defendant Jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation

The forthcoming revision of the Brussels Ibis Regulation will need to consider whether certain provisions should be extended to defendants domiciled in third countries. Many commentators particularly advocate extending the co-defendant jurisdiction under Article 8(1), especially as this is seen as a welcome opportunity to establish a single forum for cases of supply-chain liability relating to human-rights abuses or environmental damage. Whether such an extension would be appropriate and beneficial is to be critically examined. In this context, it is essential to assess how the necessary restriction of this jurisdiction can be achieved, placing greater emphasis on the criterion of “expediency” than has been the case to date.

B. Dany: Filing of Claims and the Statute of Limitations in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings

It is generally accepted that, when a claim is filed in insolvency proceedings, time stops running for limitation purposes. However, in cross-border insolvency proceedings, the question arises as to which law governs the effect of the filing (or of insolvency proceedings in general) on the running of limitation periods. The article explores this conflict-of-laws question in light of the recent CEVA case in which the General Court and the ECJ held that, contrary to the prevailing view in legal literature, the applicable law is the lex fori concursus.

M. Michel: Continuance of the Civil Supply Chain Liability Under the CSDDD After Omnibus I and an Analysis of its Synergy with the Common Law Tort of Negligence

The article first interprets the amendments to Art. 29 CSDDD introduced by the Omnibus I-Directive (2026/470), concluding that the EU legislator continues to impose an obligation on Member States to ensure an effective civil liability regime for human rights violations in supply chains caused by breaches of the due diligence obligations. This follows from the legislative materials, the recitals, the systematics of the Directive, its wording, and Primary EU Law. These national liability regimes must also apply in cases of damage occurring in non-member states, which means they can only be implemented using a unilateral conflict-of-laws-rule (working like overriding mandatory provisions) or as genuine overriding mandatory provisions in the sense of Art. 16 Rome II-Regulation. Subsequently, the two principal options for implementation, as a “partial overriding mandatory provision” (minimal harmonisation) or as an “absolute overriding mandatory provision” (excessive harmonisation), are analysed for their compatibility with English tort law. English law is used exemplarily, as it builds the basis of many tort law systems in common law countries of the so-called Global South, which are particularly affected by human rights violations in supply chains. The analysis shows that implementation as a “partial overriding mandatory provision” may give rise to significant systematic problems, whereas implementation as an “absolute overriding mandatory provision” would avoid such issues.

S. Meyers: Admissibility of Choice-of-Law and Jurisdiction Clauses in Distribution Contracts Outside the Scope of the Commercial Agents Directive: Limits of the ECJ’s Ingmar Decision

Around 25 years ago, the ECJ’s Ingmar decision established that the commercial agent’s indemnity claim provided for in the Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC) cannot be waived by a choice-of-law clause. This raised the question of whether the same applies to other types of distribution contracts that fall outside the Directive’s scope. The Directive is limited to commercial agents who negotiate or conclude the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of and in the name of the principal. German commercial agency law, on the other hand, has a broader scope of application and may also apply to other types of distribution contracts. In a decision dated 1 July 2025, the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) held that outside the Commercial Agents Directive’s scope, the German provisions on commercial agents, particularly the indemnity under Section 89b German Commercial Code (HGB), do not constitute overriding mandatory provisions. The court thereby confirmed the admissibility of choice-of-law and jurisdiction clauses in distribution contracts falling outside the scope of the Commercial Agents Directive.

M. Barth: No Security for Costs from Russian Parties – German Federal Court of Justice Chooses Judicial Avoidance When Dealing with International Law – Loose Lips Sink Ships?

In its decision of 15 January 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice dismissed a German petitioner’s application for security for costs from a Russian party. The Court denied the application because Russian nationals were exempt from depositing security for costs in Germany according to a literal understanding of sec. 110(2) No. 1 German Code on Civil Procedure (ZPO) and Art. 17(1) Hague Convention on Civil Procedure (1954). Furthermore, the Court held that the no claims clause of Art. 11(1) Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 did not apply to the present case. This note provides an overview of the decision and criticizes the Court’s reasoning. Considering Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is argued that a teleological reduction of sec. 110(2) ZPO is warranted and justified by the public international law concepts of exceptio non adimpleti contractus and countermeasures. The decision of the Court is characterized as an instance of judicial avoidance that impedes the development of public international law and undermines the protection of legitimate party interests.

R.A. Schütze: Si tacuisses – German Federal Supreme Court on security for costs for Russian company

The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has denied an obligation of a Russian plaintiff to give security for cost under sec. 110 German Code of Civil Procedure applying Art. 17 of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The BGH ruled that sanctions against Russia in connection with the Russia-Ukraine war had no importance on the application of Art. 17 of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure.

A.S. Zimmermann: Immunity from enforcement for state-owned real property – On the burden of pleading and the abuse-of-rights threshold regarding an asserted intention to use property for governmental purposes

Civil proceedings against foreign states pose a challenge to international procedural law. Courts are obligated to grant claimants access to justice while at the same time safeguarding foreign states’ sovereignty and immunity from jurisdiction. State immunity affects not only jurisdiction but also enforcement. In the decision discussed here, the Federal Court of Justice had to decide whether a plot of land may be subject to enforcement even where the debtor state declares its intention to use it as an office for technical cooperation. In the present case, the debtor state did not decide to use the plot of land for this purpose until after the judgment creditor had already applied for enforcement. This article critically assesses the decision. It suggests that the court’s line of reasoning does not provide sufficient protection against abuse of state immunity.

C. Reibetanz: Religious Law before Civil Courts: What limits on freedom of contract follow from Article 3 Rome I Regulation?

In February 2026, the French Cour de cassation made a landmark decision concerning the application of religious law by French civil courts. The decision has been subject to harsh criticism in French doctrine. The dispute concerned two Jewish co-owners of a property in Normandy, who had been parties to arbitration proceedings before a rabbinical court in 2010, which ended in an award subjecting the dissolution of the co-ownership to a rule of Talmudic law. Some years later, one of the co-owners seized the French civil courts in order to dissolve the co-ownership. Referring to Article 3 Rome I Regulation, the Cour de cassation decided that the Talmudic rule could not be applied by French national courts and that, instead, the dissolution should be governed by the French Code civil. The article argues that the reasoning of the Cour de cassation is unconvincing. The court passes over relevant questions: whether the res judicata effect of the earlier arbitral award bars a fresh decision, and whether the parties have made any choice of law at all capable of triggering Article 3 Rome I Regulation. The Cour de cassation derives from Article 3 a blanket bar on applying religious law, limiting freedom of contract – a reading unsupported by the wording and telos of the Regulation. Finally, the article highlights the decision’s disruptive potential. By unsettling the contractual incorporation of religious standards, accepted since the 1978 Cours Sainte Marthe ruling, and by suggesting, a minore ad maius, that non-State law is generally non-justiciable, it generates considerable legal uncertainty. Read alongside a comparably doubtful German decision of 2023 on the same provision, it confirms that Article 3 Rome I Regulation continues to trouble the courts on both sides of the Rhine.

J. Rapp: The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery [HEAR] Act 2025

The HEAR Act 2025, effective 13.4.2026, is a federal US law addressing restitution claims of Nazi-looted art. It indefinitely extends claim periods, bars procedural defences including laches and the act of state doctrine, and overrules the US Supreme Court’s judgment in Philipp v. Germany to restore jurisdiction over foreign states and institutions. The legislation forces courts to decide art disputes always on the merits, establishing the US as the epicentre for restitution

litigation with significant implications for American and European museums and the international art market.

O.L. Knöfel: Taking Evidence by Video-Link under the European Evidence Regulation and Austrian Civil Procedure – Do witnesses have to be present in a courtroom?

The article reviews a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria (Case 2 Ob 60/25z). The Court held that an Austrian court seeking to obtain evidence by video link technology from a witness residing in another EU Member State must make sure that the witness appears in a courtroom equipped with video-conferencing facilities. According to the Court, transmission must not be made to and from a room other than a courtroom, because the Austrian law of civil procedure requires witnesses to appear in court. The Court’s decision does not comply with the European Evidence Regulation of 2020.

M. Castendiek: Cross-border liability for medical malpractice in medical tourism

An English patient underwent breast augmentation and thigh liposuction in Poland. She developed severe sepsis and was in a life-threatening condition upon her return. Her successful medical malpractice claim, filed before the English High Court of Justice in 2018, raises characteristic issues of medical tourism in private international law and international civil procedure. Moreover, the case provides an opportunity to consider the legal consequences of Brexit.

The author argues that the consumer jurisdiction rules in Articles 17 (1) (c) and 18 (1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation often provide medical tourists with access to a domestic court, whose jurisdiction in medical treatment cases also extends to tort claims. In addition, a direct action against liability insurers may also be brought pursuant to Articles 13 (2) and 11 (1) (b) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Regarding conflict of laws in medical tourism, Article 6 (4) (a) of the Rome I Regulation regularly provides an exception to the consumer contract regime. Concurrent tort claims are determined in accordance with the law governing the contract pursuant to Article 4 (3), second sentence, of the Rome II Regulation. The relevant medical standard is not necessarily determined by the place of treatment but by the governing law.

19TH RABEL LECTURE, 2025

Susanne Kalss, Unternehmensnachfolge und Erbrecht: Deutschland, Österreich und die Schweiz im Vergleich, [The Transfer of a Business and Succession Law Consequences: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland Compared], pp. 413–464, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2026-0028

Business assets differ from other assets in many ways: Business assets can be difficult to divide, their value changes rapidly, economic benefits are separated from influence and decision-making power, and different stakeholders are ultimately affected. For these reasons, German-based legal systems stipulate a number of special provisions under current or impending law regarding the inheritance of businesses. The special provisions address the valuation of assets, the valuation date, and the deferral options for claims. When the business is transferred, an economic approach must be taken towards its management. This must be recognized as a value-adding, asset-based contribution made by the transferee for the benefit of all, and it therefore has to be taken into account when dividing the inherited assets among the beneficiaries.

ESSAYS

Hannelore Thijs, Contracting on a Future Inheritance: A Comparative Perspective, pp. 465–495, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2026-0029

This article examines the possibilities to contract on a future inheritance from a European comparative perspective. Moving beyond the traditional dichotomy between the prohibition of agreements on a future inheritance in the Roman legal systems and their long-standing recognition in German legal systems, the article develops a refined typology of approaches to the question of whether and to what extent such agreements are permitted, distinguishing between succession agreements, waiver agreements, and agreements concerning the future estate of a third party. The comparative analysis reveals that many European jurisdictions recognise at least one type of such agreements, albeit often subject to significant limitations. Waiver agreements are accepted relatively widely, whereas succession agreements remain more controversial. Agreements concerning the future estate of a third party continue to be largely prohibited. While no uniform approach can be identified across Europe, the findings suggest a gradual shift towards greater acceptance of contractual arrangements to regulate a future inheritance.

Denise Wiedemann, Zeitliche Anknüpfungsgerechtigkeit im Internationalen Ehegüterrecht der Europäischen Union, [Temporal Fairness in Conflict of Laws: The Immutable Connecting Factor under the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation], 496–531, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2026-0023

This article examines the use of a fixed connecting factor in the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation. The instrument covers not only matrimonial property matters in a strict sense but, in principle, all of the property-related relationships existing between spouses. The article begins by demonstrating, from a historical and comparative perspective, that this approach stands as a novelty in European conflict of laws. Consequently, it is not surprising that limits are being considered. The article identifies and examines two possible ways of achieving such a circumscription. First, despite the Regulation’s seemingly broad scope of application, the areas excepted from its sphere could be interpreted so as to create a narrow conception of matrimonial property law. Second, over-riding mandatory provisions could be used as a means of limiting the application of the Regulation. However, as is also explained, such means of restriction are themselves limited as a result of both the wording of the Regulation and the uniform interpretation of instruments advocated by the CJEU – an interpretive approach which is not always convincing.

Leonhard Hübner, Die Zweispurigkeit des europäischen IPR. Zur Transformation klassischer Kollisionsrechtsdogmatik durch europäisches Regulierungsrecht, [The Two-Track Nature of European Private International Law. The Transformation of Classic Conflict-of-Law Doctrine by European Regulatory Law], pp. 532–562, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2026-0024

The article diagnoses a structural duality within European private international law. Namely, alongside classical coordination-PIL (Rome I-III), which coordinates legal orders on the premise of their fundamental equality, a distinct regulatory-PIL has emerged (GDPR, DSA, CSDDD) that purposefully extends European standards to third-state actors. Drawing on the concept of Lebenslügen (»life lies«, i.e. necessary acts of self-deception), the article deconstructs six classical doctrines – neutrality, multilateralism, decisional harmony, rule structure, separation from public law, and separation from procedural law. Whereas they remain valid for coordination-PIL, they generate systematic mischaracterizations when applied indiscriminately to regulatory-PIL. The article develops criteria for assigning instruments to either track and argues for a critically constructive engagement with the regulatory instrumentalization of private international law.

BOOK REVIEWS

This issue also contains several reviews of literature in the fields of comparative private and private international law and on related topics (pp. 563–592

On 17 September 2026, Qatar deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 95^th Member of the HCCH. Qatar’s membership is its first formal connection with the HCCH, bringing the total number of States and Parties connected to the HCCH to 160. More information is available here.

Conventions & Instruments

On 16 September 2026, the Republic of Moldova acceded to the 2007 Child Support Convention. With this accession, 56 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. It will enter into force for the Republic of Moldova on 22 September 2027. More information is available here.

On 13 October 2026, Montenegro acceded to the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. With this accession, the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention now has 17 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Montenegro on 1 August 2027. More information is available here.

Meetings & Events

From 1 to 4 September 2026, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its sixth working meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG continued to make progress in its study of the jurisdiction and applicable law issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs, including the desirability and feasibility of a possible future instrument on these issues, with particular attention to their use in payments with a cross-border or international element. More information is available here.

On 24 and 25 September 2026, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH held a training on the HCCH’s core family law Conventions and projects for a group of judges and court officials from 22 EU Member States. The training was organised in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network.

On 15 October 2026, the HCCH-IDLO Joint Dialogue on Accelerating Justice Delivery through Public Access to Legal Information was held online, co-hosted by the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and the HCCH.

Upcoming events

Registration is open for the webinar “The 2005 Choice of Court Convention: Expanding Participation in Asia and the Pacific”, hosted by the HCCH Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. The webinar will be held via Zoom on Monday 9 November 2026 from 4.00 to 5.30 p.m. (Hong Kong time).  Interested persons should register no later than Friday 6 November 2026 at 5.00 p.m. (CET) via the registration form. More information is available here.

Save the date! “Training Tomorrow’s Lawyers”, a conference in sponsorship of INCADAT, the International Child Abduction Database, will be held in London on 14 January 2027. The conference is organised by Dawson Cornwell and Harcourt Chambers with the support of the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH.

Vacancies

Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships for the period from March to September 2027. The deadline for the submission of applications is 9 November 2026. More information is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

It contains the following editorial, articles, and also selected bibliography of Professor David McClean:

Paul Beaumont (FRSE) , Jonathan Harris (KC (Hon.)) , Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm & Hans van Loon, “Editorial”

Lawrence Collins, “Evidence in civil litigation: the role of comity and principles of international law”

This contribution draws together, and where appropriate comments upon, the different contexts in which the concept of comity and the principles of public international law have played a part in cross-border issues relating to the production of evidence.

Alex Mills, “Managing the risk of conflict between private international law treaties”

Private international law is a field replete with numerous treaties, reflecting the continuing influence of an internationalist perspective on its purposes and methods. It is characteristic of this field that there are repeated treaties on the same, related or neighbouring topics, both because older treaties have been updated with new techniques, and because a sectoral approach is generally adopted to deal with particular problems or subject areas. Given the traditional concerns of private international law with reducing the risk of conflicting (national) regulation, this practice, somewhat ironically, gives rise to a risk of conflict between private international law treaties. The treaties, in response, include a variety of clauses which are intended to address this risk in one of two main ways – first, through rules of interpretation or scope which are designed to avoid a conflict arising, and second, through resolving a conflict in favour of one of the treaties. This article provides a taxonomy of these treaty interaction clauses, and an evaluation of the difficulties and complexities – but also insights and innovations – which arise from their design and practical application.

Jonathan Harris, “Law’s future(s) revisited: private international law at the turn of the millennium and now”

At the turn of the millennium, Professor David McClean and I co-authored an essay in a book, Laws Future(s), considering and making predictions as to the evolution of private international law in England and Wales. This article revisits some of those predictions.

Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, “Morris on the Conflict of Laws and the intergenerational cultivation of private international law knowledge”

This contribution offers two interconnected reflections on the role of the legal textbook-treatise in transmitting private international law knowledge across generations, taking Morris on the Conflict of Laws as its focus. First, it situates the textbook-treatise and its accessibility function in private international law – a field persistently perceived as impenetrable – within a democratising tradition of rendering complex legal knowledge accessible, traceable in the common law from Bacon and Blackstone to the present day. Secondly, drawing upon Robert K Merton’s insider–outsider dialectic in the sociology of knowledge, the paper explores how the intergenerational and intercultural construction of the textbook-treatise’s voice, incorporating diverse epistemological perspectives, may deepen the pluralistic character of the work and cultivate private international law knowledge for a wider readership.

Ardavan Arzandeh, “Re-reading “Jurisdiction and Judicial Discretion” ”

In cross-border private disputes which were initiated before the English courts between the late 1920s and the early 1970s, defendants seldom succeeded in obtaining stays of proceedings. During that period, which was long before the formal adoption of the forum non conveniens doctrine, English courts routinely prioritised the plaintiffs’ interest in litigating their claims in England over the defendants’ wish for the disputes to be heard elsewhere. David McClean’s “Jurisdiction and Judicial Discretion”, published in 1969, was among the first academic contributions to challenge this restrictive approach and to argue for a more even-handed treatment of the parties’ competing interests in staying-of-proceedings applications. The present discussion revisits the article, demonstrating that it was both remarkably perceptive in its assessment of the deficiencies in this area in that era, and prescient in offering ways to respond to those shortcomings. As an exemplar of rigorous and innovative scholarship, and for being among the first to argue for the modernisation of the English courts’ approach to staying of proceedings, “Jurisdiction and Judicial Discretion” deserves continued recognition.

Hans Van Loon, “David McClean – a view from THE HAGUE”

For more than thirty years, Professor David McClean participated in nearly thirty meetings of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), primarily as an observer representing the Commonwealth Secretariat and its Member States. During treaty negotiations, he successfully encouraged the HCCH to consider the specific needs of developing Commonwealth States, usefully clarified common law positions on certain issues, and at times even acted as the “conscience of the common law”. He drafted highly useful “accession kits” – educational guides designed to facilitate the accession of Commonwealth (developing) countries to various Hague Conventions. He was fully immersed in, and made an outstanding contribution to, the negotiations on the 2007 Hague Convention on Maintenance Obligations. Thanks to his diplomatic skills and scholarly authority, he was held in very high esteem at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which owes him immense gratitude for his exceptional commitment to its mission and contribution to its work.

Jayne Holliday, “Private international law of family law and the power of a persuasive covering paper”

This short article is an updated version of the presentation at the Symposium to celebrate David McClean’s dedication to private international law, held at the University of Sheffield in September 2024. The remit for the presentation was to assess David’s involvement in the development of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention. The article begins by evidencing David’s clear commitment to global private international law flowing from the Hague Conference on Private International Law, before explaining David’s connection to these HCCH private international law of family law Conventions; and then acknowledging how our discipline can benefit from David’s approach to scholarship going forward.

Abubakri Yekini, “The future of foreign judgment enforcement in the Commonwealth”

This article examines the limits of existing intra-Commonwealth frameworks for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and assesses the significance of the Commonwealth Model Law adopted in 2017. While the Model Law was an important effort to update outdated enforcement regimes and set out common standards across diverse legal systems, it has had limited impact in practice due to the absence of effective implementation at the national level. The article argues that reliance on judicial development is not a realistic substitute for legislative reform and risks producing uncertainty and fragmentation. It, therefore, advances a pragmatic reform agenda that treats the Model Law as a useful starting point rather than a final solution. The article highlights the overlap between the Model Law and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention and argues that meaningful reform is more likely to come from Commonwealth states engaging more fully with the Hague framework, including through coordinated accession to the Judgments Convention. It concludes that leadership by the Commonwealth Secretariat and key common law actors can help translate that engagement into greater certainty, predictability, and the effective circulation of judgments within and beyond the Commonwealth.

Paul R. Beaumont, “David McClean’s role in the negotiation of the Hague Maintenance (Child Support) Convention 2007 at the diplomatic session”

The following is not a typical article in the Journal of Private International Law. It is a comprehensive record of Professor David McClean FBA’s public contribution to the negotiation of the Hague Maintenance Convention 2007 as a representative of the Commonwealth Secretariat at the Diplomatic Session. It demonstrates his major achievement in the Hague Maintenance Convention 2007 of ensuring the Commonwealth Scheme for making maintenance orders effective between Commonwealth countries was respected within the Convention and thereby made more effective. It documents and analyses all his oral contributions (interventions) at the Diplomatic Session that concluded the Hague Maintenance Convention in 2007. This record clearly demonstrates his skill as a negotiator and the high regard he is held in at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Kisch Beevers, “Professor David McClean – a personal view from the School of Law at Sheffield”

This paper is an adapted version of the speech I gave at the symposium for Professor David McClean that took place at the University of Sheffield in September 2024, organised by my former colleague at Sheffield, Professor Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm. Until 2009 I was a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield. As an undergraduate student I studied the Conflict of Laws with Prof David McClean, and then went on to do a research masters under his supervision. David was not only my professor and supervisor but was someone who guided me through my move into research, teaching and administration, opening doors and being forever supportive. This brief contribution is a tribute to his commitment and dedication.

J. D. (David) McClean, “Selected bibliography of Professor J D (David) McClean FBA“

Dr. Sagi Peari

Associate Professor in Private and Commercial Law

Chair, UWA Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Working Group

Deputy Head of School (Students)- UWA Law School

Director, Master of Legal Practice Program and International Students Officer- UWA Law School

UWA Law School

Office 231 Law Link Building

M253, Perth WA 6009 Australia  T: +61 8 64882604   E: sagi.peari@uwa.edu.au

1. Introduction. Decision No. 21257/2026 of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance is of particular interest in the fields of private international law and international civil procedure, as it concerns the recognition in the Greek legal order of a judgment of a foreign court dissolving a marriage, where the state in which that court operates is not officially recognised by Greece as an independent state. The issue assumes additional significance because the judgment originates from Kosovo, whose international legal status continues to be the subject of divergent positions within the international community.

The principal question is whether Greece’s non-recognition of Kosovo automatically precludes recognition of the legal effects of a judicial decision rendered within its territory, or whether such effects may be recognised without prior diplomatic recognition of the entity concerned as a state.

The Court adopted the latter approach. It granted the application and recognised that the judgment of the Kosovo court dissolving the applicant’s civil marriage had acquired the force of res judicata within Greek territory.

2. Facts and Reasoning of the Court. According to the facts of the case, the Greek applicant entered into a civil marriage with K. on 20 October 2020 before the civil registry authority in Kosovo. The marital relationship irretrievably broke down, and the marriage was dissolved by a judgment of a Kosovo court following divorce proceedings instituted by the husband against the applicant. The foreign judgment contained no statement of reasons because, according to the evidence accepted by the Greek Court, the parties had not requested that reasons be included and had waived their rights to appeal, pursuant to Article 161 of Kosovo’s law governing dispute resolution proceedings. The Court therefore considered that the judgment had become final and irrevocable upon its publication.
3. Recognition. The starting point for a critical analysis is the fact that Greece does not officially recognise Kosovo’s independence. This position continues to be reflected in the policy of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which maintains a reservation regarding Kosovo’s status and supports dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Such non-recognition primarily concerns Kosovo’s international legal and political status as an independent state. It does not, however, necessarily entail that every legal relationship, administrative act or judicial decision connected with that territory must be deprived of legal effect within the Greek legal order. Recognition of a state is a matter of public international law and foreign policy, whereas recognition of a foreign judicial decision is an institution of private international law and international civil procedure. Although the two issues may be factually connected, they are not legally identical.

More specifically, recognition of a state concerns acceptance of its international legal personality and its capacity to participate in international relations as a state. By contrast, recognition of a judicial decision concerns acceptance, within a different legal order, of the specific legal effects of an adjudication, subject to the requirements imposed by the law of the recognising state. Accordingly, accepting the dissolution of a marriage ordered by a Kosovo court does not, in itself, amount to recognition by Greece of Kosovo’s statehood. The Greek court is not called upon to determine the question of Kosovo’s independence, but rather to decide whether a particular judgment may produce legal effects in Greece.

4. Autonomous Nature of the Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This distinction is essential to understanding the decision. Recognition of a foreign decision does not necessarily constitute an act of political or diplomatic recognition; rather, it is a judicial determination as to whether the effects of that decision may be incorporated into the domestic legal order. In the present case, the subject matter of the application was neither recognition of Kosovo as a state nor general acceptance of its judicial system for every conceivable legal purpose. It was the recognition of a specific judgment dissolving the applicant’s marriage. This approach serves legal certainty and the protection of the personal status of natural persons. If Kosovo’s non-recognition automatically resulted in the refusal to recognise every judicial act issued there, a situation could arise in which a marriage was regarded as dissolved in Kosovo but continued to be regarded as subsisting in Greece. Such a discrepancy could give rise to serious practical difficulties concerning remarriage, civil status and civil registration.

Furthermore, international cooperation practice itself acknowledges the need to process documents and acts originating in Kosovo, including in states that do not recognise its independence. By way of example, UNMIK provides document-certification services for use in United Nations Member States that do not recognise Kosovo, including documents relating to personal and family status. This practice does not, in itself, establish that every judicial decision originating in Kosovo is recognisable in Greece. It does, however, demonstrate that non-recognition of Kosovo’s statehood does not necessarily preclude all institutional cooperation or acceptance of documents originating from the territory.

5. The Significance of the Distinction for the Decision. In this respect, the reasoning of the Thessaloniki Court is, in principle, persuasive. The Court did not proceed on the basis that Greece recognises Kosovo as an independent state. Instead, it treated the divorce judgment as a foreign judicial act whose legal effect had to be assessed independently. This approach avoids conflating a matter of international politics with an issue of private international law. At the same time, it does not mean that recognition of statehood is legally irrelevant in every circumstance. Non-recognition may give rise to specific difficulties concerning proof of the authenticity of documents, certification of the court’s jurisdiction, and verification of the judgment’s finality. These matters, however, must be examined on a case-specific basis rather than treated as grounds for automatically dismissing the application.
6. The International Jurisdiction of the Kosovo Court. The Greek Court considered a certificate issued by UNMIK and authenticated by the Greek consular office in Pristina, certifying the competence of the court that delivered the judgment. This evidence is particularly significant because Greece’s non-recognition of Kosovo gives rise to practical difficulties in authenticating documents originating from its judicial authorities. Recourse to the UNMIK certification mechanism enables relevant matters to be verified without requiring prior diplomatic recognition of Kosovo. This practice is consistent with UNMIK’s institutional role in certifying documents for use in states that do not recognise Kosovo’s independence. Nevertheless, a distinction must be drawn between authentication of a document and proof of the international jurisdiction of the court that issued it. The former concerns the document’s authenticity and provenance, whereas the latter concerns the legal authority of the court to adjudicate the particular case.
7. Public Policy. Under Article 780 CCP, recognition must not be contrary to Greek public policy or good morals. In this context, public policy operates as a safeguard for the fundamental principles of the Greek legal order, rather than as a means of generally rejecting every foreign rule or institution that differs from Greek law. The Thessaloniki Court held that the dissolution of the marriage did not offend public policy because divorce by mutual consent is also recognised in Greece pursuant to Article 1441 CC. This conclusion is, in principle, correct. Greek public policy does not require refusal of recognition merely because a judgment was delivered by a court of a state that Greece does not recognise. The decisive consideration is whether the effects of the particular judgment are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Greek legal order.
8. Conclusion

The decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between recognition of a state as a subject of international law, and recognition of the legal effects of a judicial decision delivered within its territory.

Greece’s non-recognition of Kosovo does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for excluding recognition of a divorce judgment delivered by a court in that territory. The issue must be determined independently, in accordance with the applicable rules of Greek private international law and international civil procedure.

Accordingly, the decision may be assessed positively insofar as it distinguishes between recognition of a state and recognition of a judicial decision, without implying that every aspect of its reasoning is equally persuasive. Its principal contribution lies in treating the recognition of a foreign decision as an autonomous legal issue, to be determined by reference to specific procedural safeguards and applicable legal requirements, rather than exclusively on the basis of Greece’s diplomatic position towards the territory in which the decision was delivered.

We are pleased to announce the programme for the upcoming virtual book launch of Choice of Law for Consumer Contracts in Theory and Practice (Edward Elgar Publishing). Building upon research conducted during Dr. Benedikt Schmitz’s doctoral studies at the University of Groningen, Schmitz updated his work to turn it into an essential reference for both practitioners and academics. The event is hosted by the WEAKER PIL research line (weakerparties.eu).

• Date & Time: 4 November 2026, 15:00 – 17:00 CET, online
• Topic: The event will examine cross-border consumer protection and the complex conflict-of-laws frameworks regulating the global surge in online shopping. Panelists will discuss many aspects of Article 6 Rome I Regulation, including the historical dimensions of consumer protection in applicable law, the targeting test and consumer definition, the restriction to party autonomy, its ex officio application, and the US American approach to cross-border consumer contracts.
• Discount: Readers of this blog can purchase the book with a 50% discount, using the discount code ROME50 on the official Edward Elgar website.
• Registration: Please register by clicking this link. You will then receive an invitation to join the video conferencing environment two days before the event.

Programme

15:00 – 15:05 | WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

• Speaker: Dr. Benedikt Schmitz, Assistant Professor of Private International Law and Comparative Contract Law, University of Groningen

15:05 – 16:10 | SESSION I: FOUNDATIONS & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

• 15:05 – 15:20 | The History of Consumer Protection in Private International Law
  Speaker: Prof. Dr. Beatriz Añoveros Terradas, Professor of Private International Law, University of Barcelona
• 15:20 – 15:35 | The Definition of Consumers and the Targeting Test
  Speaker: Prof. Dr. Elisabetta Bergamini, Full Professor of European Union Law and Private International Law, University of Udine
• 15:35 – 15:50 | The Restriction to Party Autonomy
  Speaker: Dr. Benedikt Schmitz, Assistant Professor of Private International Law and Comparative Contract Law, University of Groningen
• 15:50 – 16:10 | Audience Q&A

16:10 – 16:55 | SESSION II: ENFORCEMENT & GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

• 16:10 – 16:25 | The Ex Officio Application of EU Private International Law
  Speaker: Prof. Dr. Jerca Kramberger Škerl, Professor of Private International Law, University of Ljubljana
• 16:25 – 16:40 | Consumer PIL in the United States
  Speaker: Prof. Stephen Ware, J.D., Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas
• 16:40 – 16:55 | Audience Q&A

16:55 – 17:00 | CONCLUDING REMARKS

• Final takeaways and closing of the event.

Should there be any questions about the event, please do not hesitate to contact Benedikt Schmitz through email at b.schmitz@rug.nl. For queries related to technical difficulties during the event, please contact Josephine Götze at j.m.gotze@rug.nl.

On 13 November 2026, the Netherlands Commercial Court is organizing a seminar on the commonalities and differences between interim remedies available under common and civil law. The speakers will be Mr Andrew Henshaw (Justice at the London Commercial Court), and professors Xandra Kramer and Gerard Meijer (Erasmus University Rotterdam).

This seminar may be joined online or in the courtroom. Registration is free of charge. For more information and registration, see Seminar: Interim Remedies ­– Commonalities and Differences in Common Law and Civil Law | NCC.

At this seminar also the book ‘Private International Law: a Step-by-Step Approach‘, authored by Willem Visser (Boom, 2026), will be presented.

The Conflict of Laws/Private International Law academic team at the University of Oxford invites applications from students interested in pursuing a doctorate (DPhil, corresponding to a PhD) in the field. The Oxford Conflict of Laws team is one of the largest at any academic institution in the UK. It comprises four full-time faculty members (Associate Professor Roxana Banu, Professor Andrew Dickinson, Associate Professor Brooke Marshall and Dr Johannes Ungerer).

We are committed to supporting the next generation of Conflict of Laws scholars and welcome proposals, from prospective applicants in any country, that align with our various research interests, which are briefly outlined below. More information about the application process, the entry requirements, and the resources available to DPhil candidates can be found at https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/dphil-law. A range of financial support is available, including University and Faculty scholarships and need-based Faculty bursaries, with approximately 30 per cent of postgraduate research offer-holders receiving need-based Faculty funding and eligible offer-holders being considered automatically for many scholarships. Prospective applicants are welcome to contact any member of the Conflict of Laws team with any questions about potential supervision. For questions about the application process, please contact: geraldine.malloy@law.ox.ac.uk at the Law Faculty.

Pursuing a DPhil in Law at Oxford offers the opportunity to join an outstanding and diverse academic community. DPhil candidates benefit from membership of an Oxford college and participation in the Faculty’s extensive offering of lectures, seminars, and a wide range of discussion groups, which provide regular opportunities to engage with Oxford researchers and distinguished visitors from around the world, such as in the dedicated Conflict of Laws discussion group. Research is supported by the Bodleian Law Library with more than 550,000 volumes and extensive print and electronic collections covering numerous jurisdictions, including particularly strong holdings in public and private international law. The Institute of European and Comparative Law (IECL) further enriches this environment through exchange opportunities for postgraduate researchers with leading partner institutions.

Roxana Banu

Roxana’s research focuses on the history and theory of the? conflict of laws. She is the author of Nineteenth Century Perspectives on Private International Law (OUP, 2018) and the co-editor of Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law (OUP, 2024). She has written various accounts of the field’s intellectual history in the late 19^th and early 20^th century and of the development of the field during the interwar period. She is also interested in feminist history and theory, having written on relational feminist theories in private international law and on the role of female actors in the field’s history. On the philosophical front, she has developed a moral contractualist account of private international law and has written on theories of justice.

With the generous support of a Leverhulme Research Fellowship, Roxana is currently writing a book on the history of private international law in the British Empire and would be happy to supervise DPhil projects on any topics on the history and theory of private international law.

Andrew Dickinson

Andrew works on a range of topics in the conflict of laws and adjacent fields. He is one of the specialist editors of Dicey, Morris & Collins on The Conflict of Laws (16^th edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2022) with responsibility for chapters on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations. His recent publications include a commentary on The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025), with Alexander Thompson, and Natural Justice in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Brill, 2025), a special course of lectures for the Hague Academy.

Brooke Marshall

Brooke’s research examines intersections both within the field of private international law and between the field and other areas of law and legal practice. Her work has a doctrinal foundation in international commercial dispute resolution and engages with normative and comparative questions raised by cross-border relationships, particularly under English, EU and French law. She is the author of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (OUP 2023) and a co-author of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary (Elgar Commentaries in Private International Law 2025). Brooke has written on jurisdiction and choice of law, and on their relationship with contract law and international uniform law. She would be pleased to supervise DPhil projects in these areas, as well as projects that bring private international law into dialogue with other fields. Her current research explores aspects of the relationship between private international law and international arbitration, and between private international law and employment law.

Johannes Ungerer

Johannes, a Deputy Director of the IECL, examines private international law from comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives, drawing on his expertise across Common Law and Civil Law traditions. He explores how legislators and courts design and employ legal rules to balance competing interests and implement policy choices in cross-border civil and commercial relationships, including through insights from law & economics and behavioural science. His work addresses both choice of law as well as international jurisdiction in England (especially post-Brexit) and in the EU. In addition to books on private international law in German and Default Rules in Private Law (Hart 2025), he recently co-edited Characterisation in the Conflict of Laws (Hart, forthcoming) and is co-authoring an implicitly comparative monograph on German Private International Law (OUP). Johannes currently supervises three doctoral researchers and would be pleased to consider further DPhil projects in private international law.

1 Introduction

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the African Development Bank finance large-scale public projects globally and regionally to promote sustainable development and reduce poverty. MDBs require the adherence to environmental and social standards to mitigate harm. However, during project implementation these standards are not always respected and communities may be harmed.  Without timely access to justice for affected individuals, basic rights would be compromised, severely undermining the accountability of MDBs as public international organizations (IOs).

IO accountability has been a significant international legal challenge. Fundamentally, due to IO immunities, national courts are not a viable forum for victims to seek justice against IOs. And international or institutional mechanisms are often unavailable or deficient. To give credit where it is due, MDBs have taken important steps to enhance their accountability. In a landmark development, in 1993, the World Bank Inspection Panel was established and is intended to constitute “an independent complaints mechanism for people and communities who believe that they have been, or are likely to be, adversely affected by a World Bank-funded project.” The Inspection Panel exercises its mandate in the context of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), both World Bank institutions.

In 1999, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), also World Bank organizations, created the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) as its accountability mechanism. Most other MDBs as well as bilateral development institutions followed suit and there are currently more than 20 such independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) in place (August Reinisch, Third report on the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, paras. 48-58). However, as is demonstrated by the example of the Cambodia micro-finance case examined by the CAO, there remain serious challenges in the effectiveness of such bodies.

2 The Cambodia micro-finance case and the CAO’s findings

In February 2022, two Cambodian human rights organizations (LICADHO and Equitable Cambodia) filed a complaint with the CAO, on behalf of a group of individual microfinance borrowers who took loans with one or more IFC client/sub-client. The complaint concerned IFC’s investments in six Cambodian microfinance lenders and alleged that their lending and debt-collection practices had caused over-indebtedness, forced sale of Indigenous lands used as collateral, food insecurity, and intimidation of borrowers.

IFC Management purported that impact on micro-finance borrowers and financial consumer protection fell outside its Environmental and Social (E&S) Sustainability Framework, and therefore outside the CAO’s mandate. In June 2023, following its preliminary compliance appraisal in which the CAO decided to initiate a compliance review into the case, IFC submitted a request asking the IFC Board of Directors to overturn the CAO’s decision to investigate, arguing that CAO’s interpretation that all E&S issues fall within IFC’s Sustainability Framework is “expansionary and unwarranted.” However, IFC Management withdrew the request a month later, and the investigation went ahead without a formal challenge at that stage.

In October 2025, the CAO published its investigation report. CAO found no basis for excluding sub-borrowers from the Sustainability Framework, which applies to a project’s full range of E&S risks “unless specifically excluded.” The CAO determined that the social risks of microfinance lending fall within the scope of IFC’s E&S requirements. It found that IFC had failed to meet its obligations under Performance Standard 1 in lacking adequate E&S oversight of client lending practices and impacts on vulnerable groups, and under Performance Standard 7 by allowing the use of Indigenous communal land as collateral without community consent and in lacking culturally appropriate products and communication by IFC’s clients. CAO further found that IFC had not ensured that vulnerable people are not disproportionately affected by project impacts.

3 The actions of the IFC Board

As background, it is worth noting that IFC activities are guided by a Board of Governors and a Board of 25 Directors (the “Board”), with the former  delegating most of their powers to the latter. The CAO’s Policy, which governs the mandate and procedures of the CAO and the relationship to the Board, was adopted by the Boards of IFC and MIGA, establishing CAO as an independent recourse and accountability mechanism.

According to the CAO Policy, once CAO’s investigation report has been finalized following its consideration of comments from both IFC/MIGA Management and the Complainants, the final investigation report is “submitted to Management and circulated to the Board for information” (emphasis added). The Policy then provides that, within 50 business days of receiving CAO’s compliance investigation report and findings, Management will be required to submit a report to the Board, stating proposed actions in response to the CAO’s findings. The resulting Management Action Plan is then subject to Board approval.

Nevertheless, in the present instance, the IFC Board’s response to CAO’s investigation report departed from the procedure as set out in the CAO Policy. On 24 June 2026, the IFC Board issued a public statement, noting that the IFC Board approved Management’s report including a “Special Management Action Plan”, and that in approving the plan, the Board “recognized that there has been no policy noncompliance under IFC’s Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability.”On 6 July 2026, the IFC Board further instructed CAO to suspend processing of ongoing CAO cases relating to financial consumer protection in microfinance and to not accept any new such cases, pending discussion on the policy issues. This decision affected 10 ongoing CAO cases in various stages of processing, from initial assessment, compliance appraisal and dispute resolution. These Board decisions contradict the CAO policy which lays out that it is in the sole authority of the CAO to admit complaints and no interruption of ongoing cases through a Board intervention is provided for in the policy.

4 Accountability undermined – independence challenged

The Board’s actions have caused strong reactions. The CAO’s Director General resigned from her role. Civil society organizations and experts responded with an open letter signed by 91 organizations and eight renowned experts in the field of IAMs, warning that the decision “sets a dangerous precedent for accountability at the World Bank Group.”

The Cambodia case brings out a structural tension in the design of IAMs and their relationship with the Board of the MDB. If IAMs are to be effective, they must be independent from both Management and the Board. A critical aspect of independence requires that the IAMs determinations are respected and not undermined by the executive organ of an IO. IAMs are designed to provide impartial, professional and evidence-based compliance oversight, insulated from political considerations, whereas the Board performs a dual function: overseeing Management while also serving as representative bodies of the member states. The IAMs provide the Board with credible compliance findings, to serve their oversight over Management. In fact, an effective IAM improves project outcomes.

In the present circumstances, it is immediately apparent that first, the Board departed from the CAO Policy, which it must not do. Such non-compliance manifestly violates the internal law of the organization.  Second, it is suggested that the Board’s actions undermine the very reasons for which the CAO was created, as well as its functions and mandate. Amongst other things, the CAO was created to facilitate the resolution of complaints related to IFC/MIGA projects, carry out investigations, facilitate “access to remedy for Project-affected people” in “a manner that is fair, objective, and constructive”, and foster public accountability (see especially, CAO Policy, paras. 4, 5 and 7). The Board does not have the authority to arbitrarily ignore or substitute the CAO’s findings; on the contrary, it may strengthen implementation of remedial measures (CAO Policy, paras. 128, 137 and 144). The Board’s response in the Cambodia micro-finance cases does not comply with the letter and spirit of IFC’s own internal legal framework.

Ensuring an effective IAM is not only important for project effectiveness, necessary to ensure compliance with institutional E&S commitments, but also to reduce external legal risk for an MDB. As the Jam et al. v. IFC litigation has demonstrated, MDBs’ immunities are starting to be restricted domestically.

Moreover, recent jurisprudence from the United Nations Human Rights Committee in MLD v Philippines, Communication No 3581/2019 (18 September 2024) has globalised the European Court of Human Rights’ Waite And Kenedy jurisprudence by saying that IOs must provide “reasonable alternative means” of resolving disputes to private persons they have allegedly harm. This jurisprudence is in the labour context, but it can readily be applied to claims by other third parties as well. While an IO has “discretion as to the reasonable alternative means of dispute resolution”, such means must be  independent, impartial, and not amount to “arbitrariness or denial of justice” (MLD v Philippines, para. 9.7). If such “reasonable alternative means” of dispute resolution are not provided, then there is a real risk that IO immunities will be breached.

In fact, in its project on the “settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, the International Law Commission is placing a central emphasis on independence and impartiality as constituting key features of procedural justice and the rule of law (see especially, August Reinisch, para. 223). I have argued elsewhere that access to justice requires that the dispute resolution forum created by IOs is able to deliver justice independently, impartially and fairly, and that, amongst other things, this requires that the mechanism be able to issue binding decisions. A frequent criticism of IAMs is that their decisions are not binding, unlike other review mechanisms which issue binding decisions towards the same institutions, such as administrative tribunal for personnel-related claims, or anti-corruption investigations and sanctions.

5 Concluding comments

Ultimately, an IAM’s legitimacy depends on its independence from Management, as well as on the credibility and predictability of its procedures. IAMs are designed to serve as impartial, evidence- and fact-driven arbiters between Management and external affected parties. MDB Boards are not equipped to perform this function and their intervention in an IAM’s findings or procedures may cause mistrust and undermine the IAM’s credibility, and by extension the credibility of the institution’s E&S commitments.

The lack of acceptance of the independent findings of an IAM such as the CAO does not only undermine its effectiveness and contradict internal regulatory frameworks, but it also raises legal risks that immunities could be breached. This would be a highly undesirable outcome for IOs as well as their member states. Accordingly, regardless of their origin, if they are to be considered a “reasonable alternative means” to resolve disputes between the institution and external parties, IAMs must be able to deliver justice independently and impartially, with an ability to make final compliance determinations which are not open for reconsideration on the merits at the Board level.

The World Bank Group is currently engaged in a restructuring process integrating its three independent accountability mechanisms comprised of the Inspection Panel and the Dispute Resolution Service, as well as the CAO. The aim is to create a single IAM and avoid fragmentation. On its face, creating a streamlined mechanism may seem to be a positive development. However, given the geopolitical circumstances, and the weakening of the rule of law internationally, it is crucial to remain vigilant that this restructuring process does not weaken the existing legal infrastructure in place. As I have argued in this post, MDBs should create IAMs whose decisions are final and binding, where such mechanisms are of a judicial character. Realistically, at the very least, it would be a great disservice to the cause of MDB accountability if existing IAMs are undermined by diluting or ignoring their policies and procedures.

]]> https://conflictoflaws.net/2026/international-accountability-mechanisms-of-multilateral-development-banks-lessons-drawn-from-the-cambodia-micro-finance-cases/feed/ 0