The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the general themes regarding the development of European civil procedure, including the EU competence, historical perspectives, the principles of mutual trust and access to justice as foundational principles, the interaction between European and national civil procedure and innovation and the role of digitalisation in civil procedure. Part II deals with key topics of litigation and other means of dispute resolution. It starts with the service of documents as this is usually the first step in initiating litigation, and following the sequence of the procedure discusses the international jurisdiction, taking of evidence and the recognition and enforcement based on the general EU instruments. Two chapters address international jurisdiction and enforcement in family matters, maintenance, matrimonial property and succession. Uniform debt collection procedures, asset preservation, insolvency proceedings and specialised courts are discussed in separate chapters. The last three chapters focus on ADR and ODR as alternative pathways, collective redress and legal aid, costs and funding of civil litigation. Part III is dedicated to general and future outlooks on European civil procedure, including harmonisation through soft law, the EU enlargement process (Albania, Serbia and Ukraine) and perspectives from non-European jurisdictions (China, South Africa, the United States and Brazil) and wider challenges of European civil procedure. A hybrid launch event, organised by the European Civil Justice Centre, will be held at Leuven University on 25-26 June (information to follow). More information available at the publisher’s website here.

Part I: Introduction and General Perspectives on European Civil Procedure
Chapter 1  Xandra Kramer, Stefaan Voet, and Adriani Dori  – Introduction to European Civil Procedure
Chapter 2  Eva Storskrubb – Civil Justice and EU Competence
Chapter 3  Cornelis Hendrik van Rhee – The History of Civil Procedure in Europe
Chapter 4  Matthias Weller – Mutual Trust
Chapter 5  Burkhard Hess – Access to Justice as a Fundamental Principle of European Union Procedural Law
Chapter 6  Alain Ancery and Bart Krans – EU Law and National Civil Procedural Law: A Much Greater Area than at First Glance
Chapter 7  Anna Nylund – Innovation and Digitalisation

Part II: Litigating and Other Means of Dispute Resolution in Europe 
Chapter 8  Wendy Kennett – Getting Started: Service of Documents
Chapter 9  Geert van Calster – International Jurisdiction: Fundamental Issues and ‘Principles’ of EU Private International Law
Chapter 10  Pietro Franzina – International Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters

Chapter 11  Jachin Van Doninck and Wannes Vandenbussche – Taking of Evidence
Chapter 12  Fernando Gascón Inchausti – Recognition and Enforcement: Fundamental Issues
Chapter 13  Wolfgang Hau – Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments
Chapter 14  Apostolos Anthimos – International Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement in Family Matters and Maintenance
Chapter  15  Anna Wysocka-Bar – International Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement in Matters of Property Regimes and Succession
Chapter 16  Elena D’Alessandro – Debt Collection and Special Procedures: Small Claims and Orders for Payment
Chapter 17  Carlos Santaló Goris – Asset Preservation and Provisional Measures
Chapter 18  Vesna Lazic – Insolvency Proceedings
Chapter 19  Georgia Antonopoulou – Specialised Courts: The Unified Patent Court and International Commercial Courts
Chapter 20  Emma van Gelder – Alternative Pathways: ADR/ODR
Chapter 21  Eva Lein – Collective Redress
Chapter 22  John Sorabji – Legal Aid, Costs and Funding

Part III: Outlooks on European Harmonisation and Beyond
Chapter 23  Emmanuel Jeuland – Harmonisation Through Soft Law, Common Standards, and Best Practices
Chapter 24  Monika Canco, Ana Harvey, and Iryna Izarova – European Civil Procedure and the EU Enlargement Process
Chapter 25  Magdalena Tulibacka, Peter C.H. Chan, Mohamed Paleker and Eduardo Silva de Freitas – European Civil Procedure From a Non-European Perspective
Chapter 26  Alan Uzelac – Wider Challenges: The EU, Europe, and the World

We are pleased to announce a forthcoming Transnational Dispute Management (TDM, ISSN 1875-4120, www.transnational-dispute-management.com) special issue on “Project Finance in International Arbitration” This Special Issue will be edited by Seabron Adamson and Tiago Duarte-Silva, both of Charles River Associates.

This call for papers can also be found on the TDM website:
https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=2118

Background

Project finance is used in many of the world’s largest energy, mining, infrastructure, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure projects. Many of the most complex commercial and investor-State arbitrations involve project financed businesses. However, the financial logic of special-purpose vehicle (SPV) structures, lender controls, cashflow waterfalls, and project financeability remains under-examined in arbitration writing. This special issue invites contributions on how project finance shapes jurisdiction, liability, causation, valuation, and remedies across both commercial and treaty disputes.

The sectors in which project finance is predominantly used — energy, mining, infrastructure, and telecommunications — are also the sectors that generate the greatest volume of international arbitration disputes. According to 2024 statistics, energy and construction matters collectively account for a substantial majority of ICC commercial arbitration cases, while energy and mining-related disputes represent nearly half of all ICSID cases. Project finance structures are therefore routinely at the heart of some of the most complex and high-value arbitrations in the world.

Despite this convergence, the specific financial mechanics of project finance remain under-explored in the international arbitration literature. The structural features of project-financed transactions (the SPV architecture, cashflow waterfalls, lender step-in rights, covenant frameworks, and heavily negotiated risk allocations) create a distinct legal and economic context that shapes how disputes arise, how liability is assessed, and how damages are quantified. Even modest disruptions to revenues or operations can trigger cascading contractual consequences that may wipe out equity value entirely, even when the underlying asset continues to function. Quantifying the full extent of such losses increasingly requires a sophisticated understanding of project finance mechanics by arbitration tribunals and practitioners.

Disputes in project-financed transactions frequently arise from governmental actions that may impair project economics or bankability (including permit delays, regulatory changes, and expropriation), counterparty failures (whether by offtakers, EPC or O&M contractors, or co-investors), or unforeseen operational disruptions. In the investor-State context, the interplay between treaty protections and the rights of lenders raises fundamental questions about who has standing to claim, what losses are recoverable, and how reparations should be structured. In commercial arbitration, multi-party, multi-contract disputes are common, involving intricate questions of risk allocation under construction contracts, power purchase agreements (PPAs), concession agreements, and financing documentation.

This special issue seeks to bring together leading practitioners, academics, and experts to examine the intersection of project finance and international arbitration in depth. Contributions from practitioners with experience in the field (whether as counsel, arbitrators, damages experts, or other specialists) are particularly welcome.

Topics

We invite submissions addressing one or more of the following topics, or any other relevant issues at the intersection of project finance and international arbitration:

Project Finance Structure and Arbitration

• The SPV structure and its implications for jurisdiction, standing, and enforcement in arbitration
• Lender rights in arbitration: step-in rights, direct agreements, and the role of lenders as parties or third parties to disputes
• Multi-party arbitration in project finance: aligning disputes across the contractual matrix (EPC, O&M, offtake, financing)
• Confidentiality and disclosure of financing documents in arbitral proceedings
• Arbitration clauses in project finance agreements: drafting considerations, potentially problematic clauses, and interaction between dispute resolution tiers
• The impact of political risk insurance
• Corruption and cronyism in project development

Investor-State Disputes Involving Project Finance

• Bankability and the fair and equitable treatment standard: when do regulatory changes cross the line?
• Stabilization clauses in concession agreements and their interaction with treaty protections
• Standing, nationality and attribution issues in investor-State claims involving SPVs, HoldCos, lending and sponsor syndicates and lender-controlled structures
• Force majeure, necessity, and hardship in project-financed infrastructure and energy disputes
• Government actions affecting project bankability: permit delays, regulatory creep, and currency restrictions
• The role of export credit agencies (ECAs), political risk insurers and multilateral development banks (MDBs) in shaping dispute outcomes
• Managing the risk of conflicting decisions across arbitral and judicial disputes involving separate claimants
• Political risk in project development and operation

Damages and Financial Analysis

• Quantifying losses in project-financed disputes: the role of the cashflow waterfall and financial model
• The “binary” nature of project finance equity losses: implications for damages methodology
• DCF and comparables-based valuation in early-stage, construction-phase, and operational project finance disputes
• Financeability as a damages issue: was the project realistically bankable, and how should that be assessed?
• Mitigation obligations and lender enforcement tools (waivers, cure periods, restructuring) in the damages analysis
• Loss of chance and causation in complex, multi-causal project finance disputes
• The impact of liability limits in project contracts

Sector-Specific Issues

• Renewable energy project finance disputes: PPAs, curtailment, and the energy transition
• Mining and natural resources: concession agreements, offtake disputes, and royalty financing in arbitration
• Infrastructure projects: PPP structures, availability-based payments, and government termination rights
• Oil and Gas project finance: production sharing agreements, joint operating agreements, and contractor disputes
• Digital infrastructure and data centres: emerging project finance disputes in a rapidly growing sector
• Disputes involving Islamic finance structures used in project financing

Procedural and Practical Considerations

• Interim measures and the protection of project assets and revenues pending arbitral proceedings
• Expert evidence in project finance disputes: financial modelling, engineering, and sector expertise
• Enforcement of project finance arbitral awards against States and SPVs
• Third-party funding in project finance arbitrations
• Insolvency, restructuring, and arbitration: managing distressed project finance disputes
• Dispute avoidance and management clauses in project finance documentation

Submissions

We invite all those with an interest in the subject to contribute articles or notes on one of the above topics or any other relevant issue. Proposals for papers (150–200 words) should be submitted to the editors by June 30th publication is expected final quarter 2026/first quarter 2027.

Please address all questions and proposals to the editors at sadamson@crai.com and tduarte@crai.com and CC info@transnational-dispute-management.com when submitting your materials.

Articles accepted for publication before this deadline will also go through TDM’s on-line advance publication process, allowing your work to reach its target audience as soon as the paper completes peer review and the editing process.

Guest Editors

Submission Guidelines

The minimum word count for articles is 5,000 words (excluding footnotes, endnotes, appendices, tables, summary etc.). Articles must include a short summary of the key points addressed and any conclusions drawn (150–200 words).

The layout of the articles should conform to TDM’s submission guidelines, available at: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/contribute.asp (more information available upon request).

For citations, please follow OSCOLA (4th Edition): www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/publications/oscola

This call for papers can also be found on the TDM website:
https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=2118

Bilkent University Faculty of Law is pleased to invite you to an upcoming conference titled “Private International Law and Sustainable Development.”

We are honored to host a panel of world-renowned experts to discuss the evolving role of Private International Law in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Date: 13th April 2026, Monday
Time: 13:30 – 15:30
Venue: FFB 2

Moderator: Prof. Dr. Bilgin Tiryakio?lu

Distinguished Speakers:
Prof. Dr. Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute) – The Place of Private International Law in Sustainable Development
Prof. Dr. Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh) – Sustainable Consumption and Production (SDG 12): Circularity in Fashion
Prof. Van Loon Hans (Former Secretary General of the HCCH) – The Role of the Judge in Climate Cases (SDG 13)
Assoc. Prof. Dr.Gulum Özçelik (Bilkent University) – Recognition of Personal Status Acquired Abroad (SDGs 5, 10, 16)

The conference will be live-streamed on our official YouTube channel: @bilkentuniversitesihukuk.

The event will be held in English.
All interested participants are welcome.

Students who attend the event will be awarded GE 250/251 points.

The conference will take place on 9 and 10 April 2027 at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich under the title ‘Crises in PIL – Crises of PIL’, which the organizers introduce as follows:

We are living in an age of polycrisis: war and environmental destruction are forcing thousands upon thousands to flee; growing social inequality and the concentration of economic power are undermining social cohesion; political polarization and the rise of renationalization threaten the project of European integration and international cooperation. At our conference, we aim to explore the implications of these crises for private international law (PIL). What new questions do the political, social, economic, and ecological crises of our time raise for PIL? How does PIL contribute to crisis management, or, conversely, to the exacerbation of crises? And might the discipline of PIL itself be in crisis?

The keynote speech will be given by Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne).

More information can be found on the conference website.

On 4 March 2026, Guatemala deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 93^rd Member of the HCCH. More information is available here.

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 March 2026, the 2019 Judgments Convention entered into force for Albania and Montenegro. At present, 33 HCCH Members are either bound by the 2019 Judgments Convention or a Contracting Party for which the Convention has not entered into force yet (Andorra). More information is available here (for Albania) and here (for Montenegro).

On 1 March 2026, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention entered into force for Monaco. At present, 38 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. More information is available here.

Meetings & Events

From 3 to 6 March 2026, the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH met in The Hague. The meeting was attended by 560 participants joining both in person and online. During the meeting, the Members of the HCCH reviewed progress made to date and agreed on the work programme for the year ahead, taking important decisions on work relating to possible new legislative instruments, post-Convention work, and governance matters. More information is available here.

From 9 to 11 March 2026, the Regional Workshop on Sharing Experiences on the Effective Implementation of the 1993 Adoption Convention in Africa was held in Cape Town, South Africa. More information is available here.

On 24 March 2026, the first meeting for Central Authorities on the operation of the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions was held online, hosted by the PB of the HCCH.

Publications

On 3 March 2026, the Permanent Bureau announced the publication of the HCCH 2025 Annual Report. More information is available here.

Upcoming events

Registration is open for the 14th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme (e-APP), which will take place in hybrid format on 12 and 13 May 2026 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The registration deadline is Friday 1 May 2026, 5.00 p.m. (CEST). More information is available here.

Vacancies

Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships for the period from September 2026 to February 2027. The deadline for the submission of applications is 20 April 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.

Please save the date: 19 November 2026

We are pleased to invite you to an international scientific conference devoted to modern problems of Private International Law, with particular attention to the impact of new technologies.

We hope the event will provide an excellent opportunity for the exchange of views, experiences, and in-depth discussion.

The conference will be held online and will bring together students, PhD candidates, and experienced experts.

The organizers plan a post-conference publication.

We welcome abstracts addressing any aspect of Private International Law, especially those focusing on modern issues and emerging challenges.

Abstracts (in English, max. 1500 characters) should be submitted to:
Aleksandrs.Fillers@rgsl.edu.lv and arycerski@swps.edu.pl

Submission deadline: 31 May 2026

Notification of acceptance: by 30 June 2026

Participation in the conference is free of charge.

We look forward to your contributions!

Aleksandrs Fillers, PhD
Associate Professor at Riga Graduate School of Law

Adrian Rycerski, PhD
Assistant Professor at SWPS University in Poznan

The first call invites participants to register for the Summer School “Consumer and Market Law in the European Circular Economy” to be held at the University of Udine, from 8 to 17 July 2026. This programme offers a unique chance to engage with leading scholars and experts, explore the evolving legal framework surrounding sustainable markets and deepen understanding of how EU law is adapting to support the transition toward a circular economy. The Summer School promises an interdisciplinary and international learning environment, making it especially valuable for those looking to expand both their academic knowledge and professional networks. The organisers have provided the Call for applications – Udine Summer School 2026 and the Brochure – Udine Summer School 2026.

In parallel, a second call has been launched for abstracts for the Workshop “Judicial Protection and Enforcement of ‘Green’ Rights in the EU”. This workshop aims to bring together researchers and practitioners to discuss critical issues related to environmental rights enforcement, judicial protection mechanisms and the role of courts in advancing the EU’s green transition. Contributors are encouraged to submit abstracts that engage with current challenges and emerging developments in this rapidly evolving field. The workshop will be held at the University of Udine, on 14 July 2026. The organisers have provided the Call for Abstracts – Workshop Udine Summer School 2026.

Registration is now open for the Summer School, and interested participants are encouraged to apply promptly. At the same time, those wishing to present at the workshop can submit their abstracts for consideration.

Both initiatives reflect a growing commitment within the European academic and legal community to address sustainability challenges through legal innovation and collaboration. For more information on the programmes, application procedures and deadlines, please visit the official project website.

Activities are co-funded by the EU Erasmus+ Programme.

Hilton v Guyot, is the most influential case in the United States—and perhaps globally—on the use of comity as a basis for recognising and enforcing foreign judgments. In that case, Justice Gray of the United States Supreme Court defined comity as follows:

“No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. The extent of which the law of one nation… shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation, depends upon… the “comity of nations”…”

Comity in the legal sense is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on one hand, nor a mere courtesy and goodwill, on the other; it is the recognition which one allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial act of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under protection of its laws…”

By contrast, under English common law, the dominant basis for recognising and enforcing foreign judgments is the theory of obligation. Blackburn, J in the English case of Schibsy v Westenholz  stated that the true principle is that,

“…the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction over the defendant, imposes a duty or obligation on him to pay the sum for which the judgment is given, which the courts in this country are bound to enforce…”

And further on in his judgment, Blackburn J. makes it plain that the doctrine of “comity” is incorrect. Thus, no question of reciprocity could arise in an action brought upon a foreign judgment.”

The theory of obligation is applied in many Commonwealth and Anglophone African countries. Interestingly, an emerging but underexplored trend is the growing consideration—and in some instances, application—of the principle of comity by courts in these jurisdictions, with several African judges expressly citing Hilton v Guyot.

This blog highlights selected cases illustrating this development, focusing on Liberia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, and Nigeria. The discussion is limited to the common law framework and does not address statutory regimes or international conventions.

Liberia

Liberia is a country that has historical ties of dependence to the United States located in West Africa. In  Turner v Burnette, the Liberian Supreme Court firmly established the principle of comity in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, drawing particular support from Hilton v Guyot. The Court further explained—by reference to another U.S. authority—that:

“The application of comity does not rise [sic] to the effect of establishing an imperative rule of law; it has the power to persuade but not command. Comity being voluntary, and not obligatory, rests in the discretion of the tribunal of the forum and is governed by certain more or widely recognized rules.” Generally, greater force and dignity will be given to judgments of foreign courts when parties have had their day in a court of competent jurisdiction, after due service of process or after an entry of appearance, and have had a full and impartial hearing upon the merits of their case; unless it can be shown that the proceedings were tainted with fraud.”

Andrew Moran and Anthony Kennedy, conclude on the basis of the above Liberian Supreme Court decision that, “It seems, therefore, that any foreign judgment may be enforceable in Liberia at common law as a matter of comity between nations. The procedure appears to be that a suit commenced on the foreign judgment, in the same way as an action is commenced at common law in other jurisdictions.”

Kenya

Kenya is a former colony of the United Kingdom located in East Africa. Nevertheless, Kenyan courts apply both the theory of obligation and the principle of comity in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments at common law.

In ABSA Bank Uganda Limited (Formerly Known as Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited) v Uchumi Supermarkets PLC, the Kenyan High Court held at paragraph 5 that,

In the absence of a reciprocal enforcement arrangement, a foreign judgment was enforceable in Kenya as a claim in common law. Where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction had adjudicated a certain sum to be due to another, a legal obligation arose to pay that sum, on which an action of debt to enforce the judgment could be maintained. In deciding whether a foreign court was one of competent jurisdiction, the courts would apply not the law of the foreign court itself but English rules of private international law. The competence of the foreign court was the competence of the court in an international sense, that was, its territorial competence over the subject matter and the defendant. Its competence or jurisdiction in any other sense was not material.”

However, in a more recent case, the Kenyan Supreme Court in Ingang’a & 6 others v James Finlay (Kenya) Limited, relying on Hilton v Guyot, applied the principle of comity in determining whether to recognise and enforce a locus inspection order from Scotland (see Anam Abdul Majid and Chukwuma Okoli). After quoting the key passage from Hilton v Guyot with approval, the Court stated at paragraph 60 that:

“This approach prioritizes citizen protection while taking into account the legitimate interests of foreign claimants. This approach is consistent with the adaptability of international comity as a principle of informed prioritizing national interests rather than absolute obligation, as well as the practical differences between the international and national contexts.”

Uganda

Uganda is a former colony of the United Kingdom located in East Africa. Nevertheless, Ugandan judges apply both the theory of obligation and the principle of comity in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments at common law.

At common law, the principle of comity, with key reference to Hilton v Guyot, also formed the sole basis of recognising and enforcing a US judgment in the earlier Ugandan case of  Christopher Sales v Attorney General.

More recently, Ugandan courts have justified the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by reference to the theories of obligation, comity, and reciprocity. In the very recent case of Brianna v Mugisha, Justice Nagawa, after a careful consideration of Ugandan case law authorities and Hilton v Guyot, stated that:

“5.4 However, I have observed that despite the absence of a statutory
reciprocal arrangement, Ugandan courts have recognized and
enforced foreign judgments under the common law principles of
obligation, reciprocity, and comity.

5.5. These doctrines provide a legal foundation for cross-border judicial
cooperation, particularly in the absence of a formal treaty or statutory
framework, such as in the case of Uganda and the United States.

5.6. The doctrine of comity is based on mutual respect between sovereign
states. It allows a court to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment
not as a matter of strict legal obligation, but out of respect to the
foreign court’s authority and fairness in its proceedings. Courts apply
comity where: the foreign court had competent jurisdiction over the matter and the parties, the proceedings were conducted fairly, with
due process observed and enforcing the judgment would not be
contrary to public policy in the recognizing jurisdiction.

5.7. The obligation theory treats a valid foreign judgment as creating a legal
duty on the judgment debtor to comply, similar to a contractual
obligation. This approach holds that once a court of competent
jurisdiction has determined a party’s liability, that decision should be
respected and enforced in other jurisdictions unless there is a
compelling reason not to do so, such as: Fraud in obtaining the
judgment, Violation of natural justice, or a fundamental defect in
jurisdiction.

5.8. Under reciprocity, a foreign judgment will only be enforced if courts in
the originating country would likewise enforce judgments from the
enforcing country. This principle ensures mutual legal cooperation
between jurisdictions.”

Tanzania

In Tanzania, a significant number of recent cases have used foreign judgments to preclude new actions on grounds of res judicata, obligation, and comity (Exim Bank (COMORES) SA vs Costa Sari;  Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited & Another vs Independent Power Tanzania Limited & Others)

South Africa

South Africa, located in Southern Africa and formerly colonised by both Britain and the Netherlands, is a mixed legal system drawing from Roman Dutch law and the common law. The theory of obligation remains the dominant basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Jones v Krok, where the Court endorsed the English authority of  Nouvion v Freeman as support for applying the obligation theory in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments

However, in Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick,, the Constitutional Court referred to the principle of comity to justify the development of the common law framework for recognising and enforcing judgments from international courts, signalling a limited but notable openness to comity based reasoning.

Nigeria  

Nigeria is a former colony of the United Kingdom and is located in West Africa. Under the common law regime, it applies the theory of obligation in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (Alfred C Toepfer Inc v Edokpolor).

However, some Nigerian judges at the Supreme Court have proposed comity, jurisdictional reciprocity, and the facilitation of international trade and commerce as additional bases for enforcing foreign judgments (Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v Ghassan Halaoui (2009) 10 NWLR 309, 338–39 (Oguntade JSC)), but there has been no reported case where these proposals have been implemented in practice.

Conclusion

The purpose of this post is to highlight how selected Commonwealth and Anglophone African courts have received and applied the principle of comity in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the common law, particularly as articulated in Hilton v Guyot.

At present, Liberia is the only jurisdiction that fully applies the principle of comity as advanced in Hilton v Guyot, arguably influenced by its historical ties to the United States.

Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania apply the doctrine of obligation alongside the principle of comity.

South Africa primarily follows the doctrine of obligation, although a few cases have considered comity in the context of recognising and enforcing foreign judgments, albeit without concrete application.

In Nigeria, courts continue to rely principally on the doctrine of obligation at common law. Although some Supreme Court justices have proposed comity as a possible basis for enforcement, this has not been implemented in practice.

Overall, the doctrine of obligation remains the dominant common law basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments across Anglophone and Commonwealth Africa. Nonetheless, the principle of comity, as developed in Hilton v Guyot, continues to play an important role in shaping the jurisprudence of a limited number of African jurisdictions.

Interns work with our legal teams in the Family and Child Protection Law Division, the Transnational Litigation and Apostille Division, and the Commercial, Digital and Financial Law Division.

Duties may include carrying out research on particular points of private international law and/or comparative law, taking part in the preparation of HCCH meetings, and contributing to the promotion of the HCCH and its work.

Applications should be submitted by Monday, 20 April 2026 at 18.00 (CEST). For more information, please visit the Internships Section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

Following a significant hiatus, the public policy defense has re-emerged prominently in discussions surrounding the enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly in the context of a judgment issued by the Panama Maritime Court in 2024. The primary issue addressed by the Greek court was whether a foreign judgment could be recognized and enforced when the foreign court denied appellate proceedings due to the failure to post a security deposit that was both substantial and necessary for the appeal process.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The case involved a claim for damages between a company based in Hong Kong and another company registered in the Marshall Islands. This dispute was adjudicated under Panama’s maritime law, established by Law 8 of 1982 and updated by Law 55 of 2008, which governs maritime-related disputes through a specialized and efficient legal framework. The Panamanian maritime courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over in rem actions, enabling prompt vessel arrests and maritime liens within both Panamanian territorial waters and the Panama Canal for claims related to damages, cargo issues, and collisions.

The Panamanian court ruled in favor of the claimant, mandating the defendant to either return the vessel or pay approximately 45 million USD, i.e., the valuation of the vessel along with associated legal costs, as ordered by the court.

Subsequently, the judgment creditor sought recognition and enforcement of the Panamanian judgment in Greece, as the vessel was docked within Greek territorial waters.

The opposing party contended that the ruling from the Panamanian Naval Court of First Instance contravened Greek public policy and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), primarily because the appellate process was effectively obstructed. According to Article 490 of Panama’s Maritime Courts and Disputes Law, the appellant was required to deposit a security of nearly 45 million USD (equivalent to the judgment amount and associated legal fees) within ten days to have its appeal considered.

The original text from Article 490 reads:

“Artículo 490. Para cursar la apelación se requerirá la consignación, ante la secretaría del Tribunal Marítimo de primera instancia, de una caución que garantice el pago del monto de la condena más las costas. Para determinar el monto de la caución se considerará la caución consignada para levantar el secuestro o el valor del bien secuestrado. Dicha caución será consignada dentro de los diez días siguientes a la notificación de la providencia que admita el recurso. Si el apelante no consigna la caución de que trata este artículo, el juez declarará desierto el recurso.”

In light of the above, the excessive requirement for a security deposit resulted in the judgment debtor’s appeal being dismissed, thereby forfeiting its right to be heard.

FINDINGS OF THE GREEK COURT.

The Greek court recognized that while imposing a financial guarantee as a prerequisite for appeal can have legitimate justifications, such as discouraging vexatious litigation and promoting judicial efficacy, the circumstances in this case revealed that the requirement was manifestly disproportionate and unduly burdensome. The court articulated the following concerns:

– The required guarantee matched the total amount of the initial judgment plus costs.

– There was no cap, no exceptions, and no discretion for reduction based on the specifics of the case.

– It effectively forced the appellant to comply with the first-instance judgment in full just to access the appeal process.

The court referenced Article 323(5) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, which encompasses the public policy clause, confirming that the security requirement violated the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, limiting access to the court and undermining judicial protection directly contravened Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Greek Constitution.

Consequently, the obligation to deposit an amount of USD 44,397,715.97, which constitutes the awarded sum of the initial judgment (USD 41,248,107.88) plus legal costs (USD 3,149,608.09), was viewed as an untenable financial burden that contradicts the right to judicial protection.

More specifically, the imposition of a security deposit that equaled the judgment amount plus legal fees, with no statutory limits, exceptions, or discretionary reduction possibilities, violated public policy. This requirement substantially infringed upon the appellant’s right to access judicial remedies against an enforceable ruling.

Finally, the court noted that while Greek law allows for provisional enforceability of first-instance judgments under certain conditions, including the possibility of appeal suspension without a guarantee if there is a likelihood of success, such provisions were absent in Panamanian law.