The history of private international law is in large part a history of scholars. Many of them wrote in Latin, however, and have not been translated to German – perhaps because German scholars of earlier generations were more fluent in Latin than we are today. Some 25-30 years ago, Christian v. Bar and Peter Dopffel published two volumes of translations of texts by German authors between 1500 and 1700. That meant earlier and non-German authors remained inaccessible – including classics like Bartolus and Huber, who had long been translated to English (some in several versions)

Now that gap has been filled by Kristin Boosfeld, a professor at Freiburg and author of a pathbreaking monograph on theories of statutes, and Konstantin Liebrand, a postdoc at the University of Münster. They have, as editor and translator respectively, published a book with the seminal texts by Bartolus and Baldus, Dumoulin and d’Agrentré, Paul and Johannes Voet, and Huber, in Latin original (in one case Dutch) and German translation.

It is good to recall how important such translations can be. Huber’s text revolutionized private international law in the United States in part when an attorney created an English translation as attachment for his brief, and the judge had published that translation as an appendix to his opinion, helping Huber’s reputation and thus providing the foundation of US thought on conflict of laws, with territoriality and comity and all. Who knows what would have happened in Germany if Boosfeld and Liebrand’s translation had come out 200 years earlier? It may be too late to re-revolutionized private international law on the basis of the sources. But it is fantastic to have these carefully crafted translations now, including a long linguistic introduction on the translations and, for each author, a short biographical and bibliographical introduction. And it is even more fantastic that they are available in open access.

1. Legal Framework of the Bilateral Convention. The Greece–Albania Convention, ratified by Law No. 2311/1995, constitutes the special legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Articles 23 and 24 establish the substantive requirements for recognition and enforcement, while Articles 26 and 27 govern the procedure and related matters concerning the submission and examination of applications. Articles 323 and 905 CCP apply on a supplementary basis, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Convention. Article 323 CCP sets out, inter alia, the conditions for recognising the res judicata effect of foreign judgments, whereas Article 905 CCP provides for the procedure by which foreign instruments may be declared enforceable in Greece.

1.1. Conditions for Recognition and Enforcement, Under Articles 23 and 24 of the Convention, recognition and enforcement are, in principle, subject to the following conditions:

1. The judgment has acquired the force of res judicata and is enforceable under the law of the state in which it was delivered.

1. The courts of the state in which recognition or enforcement is sought do not have exclusive international jurisdiction over the matter.

1. A party who did not participate in the proceedings or against whom judgment was entered in default was duly and timely served with the relevant process or was lawfully represented, where required.

1. The Convention excludes service by affixing the document to the door of the relevant premises (affixation service) as a sufficient method of service for the purposes of this examination.

1. There is no irreconcilable prior judgment between the same parties concerning the same subject matter and cause of action, nor any previously instituted pending action before the courts of the state in which recognition is sought, subject to the conditions laid down in the Convention.

1. Recognition or enforcement is not contrary to the public policy or fundamental principles of the legal order of the requested state.

Recognition additionally requires examination of the international jurisdiction of the court of origin in accordance with the applicable treaty and domestic legal framework. The foreign judgment may not be reviewed as to the substantive correctness of its determination. The examination concerns the legal requirements governing the circulation of the judgment across borders, rather than a retrial of the original dispute.

1.2. Required Documents and Procedure. Article 26(2) of the Convention provides that an application must be accompanied by the judgment or a certified copy thereof, together with a document certifying that the judgment has acquired the force of res judicata and is enforceable, unless these matters are apparent from the judgment itself. A certificate concerning service of process and the lawful representation of a party against whom judgment was entered in default must also be submitted, where applicable, together with certified translations of the documents into a language accepted under the Convention. The production of an Apostille under the Hague Convention may serve to authenticate a public document where the relevant international convention applies. It does not, however, establish, by itself, that a judgment has become final and irrevocable or that all the requirements have been satisfied.

2. Decision No. 3144/2026. Decision No. 3144/2026 concerns an application by a Greek national seeking recognition in Greece of a judgment delivered by the Court of General Jurisdiction of Elbasan, Albania. The Albanian judgment dissolved the applicant’s marriage, awarded custody of the minor child to his former wife, and regulated the father’s right of contact with the child. In addition, the applicant sought a declaration of enforceability in respect of the provision which, according to the terms of his application, required him to pay monthly maintenance. The Albanian judgment had become final and irrevocable, as indicated by an endorsement appearing on the judgment itself.

2.1. Application of the Convention. The court held that the Convention ratified by Law No. 2311/1995 took precedence over the general provisions of the CCP. It examined whether the Albanian court possessed international jurisdiction, whether the parties’ right to participate in the proceedings had been safeguarded, and whether any ground existed for refusing recognition on public policy grounds. With regard to international jurisdiction, the court took into account that the spouses’ last common residence had been in the Municipality of Gramsh, Albania. It held that the matrimonial dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Albanian court and that the joinder of the issues of custody and contact with the matrimonial dispute justified their examination by the same court. As regards the right to be heard, the court established that the former wife had been represented by a lawyer authorised to act on her behalf and that the applicant had participated in an earlier hearing at which an attempt at reconciliation had been made. He had been informed of the subsequent hearing date and had stated that he was unable to attend, requesting that the proceedings continue in his absence. Although the applicant was recorded as having been absent from the hearing, the court held that, in light of the specific circumstances, no additional certificate of service was required. This conclusion was based on his knowledge of the proceedings and the fact that he had had a genuine opportunity to participate.

2.2. The Enforcement of Maintenance Provision. The most significant issue arising from the decision concerns the application for a declaration of enforceability in respect of the maintenance provision. The court dismissed this part of the application as inadmissible for lack of standing. The reasoning was that the right to apply for a foreign instrument to be declared enforceable generally belongs to the person entitled to initiate enforcement proceedings, namely the creditor in respect of the relevant claim. In the present case, the applicant was the person liable to pay maintenance, rather than the person entitled to receive it. Accordingly, he could not himself seek to have the obligation to pay maintenance declared enforceable against him. The court’s determination is correct insofar as it distinguishes between creditor and debtor for the purposes of standing. It should be clarified that dismissal of this particular claim does not mean that the maintenance provision was held to be invalid or legally ineffective. Rather, it means that the application was brought by a person who lacked standing to seek the particular procedural relief requested.

2.3. Assessment. Decision No. 3144/2026 correctly applies the fundamental principle that an applicable international convention takes precedence over the general rules of the CCP. It also highlights the importance of the party’s genuine opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings and the distinction between recognition of personal status and enforcement of a monetary claim. A particularly positive aspect of the Court’s approach is its recognition that an application for recognition should not be dismissed solely on account of formal evidentiary deficiencies without first examining whether the relevant facts can be established through other reliable documents. Nevertheless, dispensing with the production of a certificate of service must be approached with caution. The Convention seeks to provide substantive protection for a party who did not participate in the proceedings. The decision promotes effective cross-border protection of family relationships while preserving procedural guarantees required for recognition of foreign judgments.

3; Decision No. 20256/2026. Thessaloniki First Instance Court

3.1. Subject Matter and Facts. Decision No. 20256/2026 concerns an application for recognition in Greece of a judgment delivered by the Court of the Judicial District of Durrës, Albania, dissolving the civil marriage between a Greek national and his former wife, an Albanian national. The marriage had been celebrated in Durrës and registered both with the competent civil registry in Albania and with the Special Registry Office in Athens. According to an endorsement appearing on the judgment itself, the Albanian judgment had become final. The applicant submitted the judgment and documents establishing his participation in the proceedings through a lawyer authorised to represent him.

3.2. The Requirements for Recognition and Public Policy. The court reiterated that the bilateral Convention constituted the principal applicable legal framework, with Articles 323 and 905 CCP operating on a supplementary basis. It held that the Albanian court had international jurisdiction, given that the spouses’ last common residence had been in Albania. It further found that the applicant had not been deprived of his right to defend his interests, since he had been represented by a lawyer authorised to act on his behalf, while his former wife had instituted the proceedings and participated in them. The court also found no conflict with Greek public policy and no irreconcilable Greek judgment concerning the same matter. These circumstances supported recognition. However, the court found that one crucial additional requirement had not been established: whether the judgment had attained the degree of procedural finality necessary for it to produce the legal effect of dissolving the marriage in Greece.

3.3. Significance of the Judgment’s Final & Irrevocable Character. Under Article 1438 CC, Greek law requires a final and irrevocable judicial decision for a marriage to be dissolved. Accordingly, recognition of a foreign divorce judgment presupposes that the judgment has attained the corresponding degree of procedural finality under the applicable rules. In the present case, the endorsement submitted established that the judgment had become final on 27 December 2022, but did not necessarily establish that it had become irrevocable. No certificate or other sufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the Albanian judgment could no longer be challenged by an ordinary or extraordinary legal remedy, or that it had attained a degree of finality equivalent to that required under Greek law for the legal effects of divorce to arise; the court did not consider that this deficiency necessarily warranted the definitive dismissal of the application. Instead, it relied on Article 254 CCP, which also applies in non-contentious proceedings, and ordered that the hearing be resumed so that the necessary documents could be produced. In particular, the court required the submission of a certificate or legal information establishing the requisite degree of procedural finality, or clarifying the relevant provisions of Albanian law. It also requested updated certificates confirming the absence of any related proceedings or judgment in Greece.

3.4. Assessment of the Decision. This decision is particularly significant because it demonstrates that finality and irrevocability are not necessarily synonymous legal concepts. The mere fact that no appeal has been lodged, or that the time limit for lodging one has expired, does not invariably establish that all available legal remedies have been exhausted or that the degree of finality has been attained. The court was therefore correct to refrain from recognising the foreign judgment immediately, without first clarifying this essential requirement. Equally sound was its decision to resume the hearing rather than dismiss the application. This approach serves procedural economy and permits evidentiary deficiencies to be remedied. It is also consistent with the approach commonly adopted by Greek courts, subject to relatively few exceptions.

4. Comparative Assessment of the Decisions. The two Albanian judgments share a common starting point, as both apply the Greece–Albania Convention as the special legal framework governing the recognition of foreign judgments in family law matters. In both cases, the court examines the international jurisdiction of the Albanian court, the participation of the parties, the absence of an inconsistent Greek judgment, and compatibility with public policy. The principal difference lies in the procedural treatment of the applications. Taken together, the decisions demonstrate that recognition of a foreign judgment is neither automatic nor dependent solely on the production of a certified copy. It requires a comprehensive examination of the applicable treaty and domestic-law requirements, with particular emphasis on international jurisdiction and the protection of the parties’ procedural rights.

5.Conclusion. The bilateral agreement between Greece and Albania is the most active treaty among the rest in Greece. The decisions of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance demonstrate the importance of the Greece–Albania Convention on Judicial Assistance for the effective cross-border protection of family relationships. The precedence of the Convention over the general rules of the Code od Civil Procedure contributes to a clearer framework for recognition and enforcement, while domestic provisions supplement that framework where permitted. The effective application of the Convention requires careful examination of each individual case. Only in this way can foreign judgments be ensured of their appropriate legal effects in Greece and Albania without compromising the fundamental principles of either legal order.

For more information see my article: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Field of Bilateral Conventions of Greece with Balkan States, Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2021, pp. 206 et seq. https://www.academia.edu/67760009/Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Judgments_in_the_Field_of_Bilateral_Conventions_of_Greece_with_Balkan_States,.

An extensive analysis of the Treaty (in Greek) may be found in: https://www.sakkoulas.gr/en/editions/a-anthimos-allodapes-dikastikes-kai-diaititikes-apofaseis-2i-ekd-2024/.

On Thursday 12 November 2026, the Centre de recherche de droit international privé et du commerce international (CRDI) of Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas and the Centre d’études des droits du monde arabe (CEDROMA) of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth will hold a conference in Paris on current developments in the private international law of Arab States. The conference asks how these legal systems balance their own legal traditions against the growing pull of shared solutions.

The first panel, Le poids des particularismes, is chaired by Samuel Fulli-Lemaire. It opens with the Egyptian model of private international law, presented by Karim El Chazli. It then turns to recent changes, with Marie Goré speaking on the private international law of the Emirate of Dubai and Léna Gannagé on the rise of substantive rules in the family private international law of the United Arab Emirates.

The second panel, La tentation de l’universalité, is chaired by Louis d’Avout. It looks at where and how universal solutions are emerging:

• international contracts (Marie-Claude Najm)
• the recognition of situations in Lebanese family law (Roula El-Husseini Begdache)
• fundamental rights and public policy in Tunisian private international law (Souhayma Ben Achour)
• the accession of Arab States to the HCCH Conventions, discussed by Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the Hague Conference

Ali Mezghani will deliver the general conclusions.

Practical information

• Date and time: 12 November 2026, 10:00–18:00
• Venue: Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas, 12 place du Panthéon, 75005 Paris, Salle des Conseils (Aile Soufflot, Esc. M, 2nd floor)
• Language: French
• Registration: required by 11 November 2026

Complete program and registration at this link.

]]> https://conflictoflaws.net/2026/conference-in-paris-on-recent-developments-in-the-private-international-law-of-arab-states-12-november-2026/feed/ 0 https://conflictoflaws.net/2026/brazils-superior-court-invokes-forum-non-conveniens-is-that-really-what-they-mean/ https://conflictoflaws.net/2026/brazils-superior-court-invokes-forum-non-conveniens-is-that-really-what-they-mean/#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2026 08:00:49 +0000 https://conflictoflaws.net/?p=51609 This post was written by Luana Matoso, the Head of the Centre of Expertise on Latin America at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg.

On September 1, 2026, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice invoked the doctrine of forum non conveniens in declining jurisdiction to hear a dispute. It is the first time this court has done so in a transnational case. Does the judgment represent the reception of forum non conveniens into Brazilian law? The answer is less straightforward than the terminology used by the court might suggest.

The Dispute

The claim was brought before a local court in São Paulo by a former Argentine professional football player domiciled in Buenos Aires who sought damages for the allegedly unauthorized use of his image in the FIFA Soccer video-game series. The defendants were Electronic Arts Europe Ltd and Electronic Arts Nederland B.V., incorporated in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, respectively.

The claimant relied on the fact that the games were sold in Brazil in order to establish jurisdiction under Art. 21(3) of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which provides for Brazilian jurisdiction where “the basis of the claim is a fact occurring or an act performed in Brazil.” The first-instance court found it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the claim. The decision was upheld on appeal by the São Paulo Court of Appeals and, upon further appeal, by Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice. Both courts invoked forum non conveniens in their decisions.

The approach of these courts to jurisdiction is highly relevant for transnational litigation practice in Brazil. São Paulo is Brazil’s principal economic center, and its courts deal with a substantial volume of litigation involving foreign elements. The Superior Court of Justice, in turn, is Brazil’s highest court for matters of federal law other than constitutional questions and is responsible for ensuring its uniform interpretation throughout the country. The Superior Court’s endorsement of the approach taken in São Paulo could therefore represent a recognition of forum non conveniens not only in one of Brazil’s most prominent centers for transnational disputes, but also as part of Brazilian law.

Forum Non Conveniens Without a Basis for Jurisdiction

The Superior Court’s reasoning began with an approach familiar to the civil law tradition. It first advanced a purposive construction (teleological interpretation) of Article 21(3) of the CCP, identifying the “principles of proximity and state interest” as underlying the requirement of a factual connection with Brazil.

The court emphasized that the claimant was an Argentine citizen domiciled in Argentina who had never played professionally for a Brazilian team; that the defendants were companies incorporated abroad; and that the video games were actually sold by third-party retailers, who were not parties to the proceedings. It added that exercising jurisdiction in this case would unnecessarily burden the Brazilian judicial system, which would be contrary to the purpose of the connection requirement. In light of those circumstances, the court found no basis for jurisdiction in the case.

Doctrinally speaking, this may have been sufficient to dismiss the claim. Yet the court immediately added: “Accordingly, the choice of the Brazilian forum must be regarded as abusive, given the absence of a substantial connection with Brazil, in light of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”

The role of forum non conveniens is unclear here. Under the common law approach, forum non conveniens presupposes that a court has jurisdiction but decides not to exercise it. Having found that jurisdiction does not exist under Article 21(3) of the CCP, nor under any other basis, the court had no occasion to consider whether to decline to exercise jurisdiction. Nor did it explain the doctrine’s requirements, articulate a test, or identify an alternative forum better suited to hear the claim.

A Departure from Earlier Case Law?

The court also offered no explanation for invoking a doctrine that it had on previous occasions expressly refused to apply. In two prior judgments, the court had highlighted that the common law origins of forum non conveniens are difficult to reconcile with Brazil’s civil law tradition. In 2009, the court concluded that forum non conveniens “finds no support in Brazilian procedural rules”; in 2016, it stated that Brazilian law does not have a “positive rule capable of permitting this practice.”

In 2023, however, the court applied forum non conveniens in a dispute concerning the allocation of domestic competence. The case concerned child custody, involving a parent alleged to have committed a crime against the child. Although the judgment is not publicly available, the court’s official account states that it relied on forum non conveniens to refer the case to another judge better situated to hear it. The court recognized this as an “implicit exception” to the ordinary rules of domestic competence, applicable to cases where a competent court is not “adequate or convenient” for the hearing of the claim.

Now, the court has invoked forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction in a transnational dispute, but without treating it as an exception to its jurisdictional rules.

Forum Non Conveniens as a Response to Forum Shopping

This case reveals a trend in the Brazilian approach to jurisdiction. Namely, Brazilian courts are increasingly seeking to curb forum shopping by invoking their reaffirmed or expanded powers to dismiss claims that do not engage local interests.

The reasoning of the Court of Appeals illustrates this point. It only briefly addresses the interpretation of Article 21(3) of the CCP, while focusing on the motivations of the claimant for bringing the claim in Brazil. Forum shopping is expressly identified as the court’s main ground for dismissing the claim. The court states that the claimant sued in São Paulo for “purely strategic reasons, with the aim of obtaining a swift financial gain, given this Court’s settled case law awarding moral damages against the respondents in favor of Brazilian athletes.” The court even notes that the claimant’s attorney was involved in several other similar cases, including in its ruling a link to an article in a local online newspaper in which the attorney is mentioned. Indeed, this type of claim has become remarkably popular among (Brazilian) football players. Today, there are thousands of disputes on this issue pending in Brazil (see e.g. the Superior Court’s Tema Repetitivo No. 1.289).

This was also not the first time that the Court of Appeals of São Paulo invoked forum non conveniens. In fact, this court has repeatedly invoked the doctrine in recent years, particularly to dismiss claims in domestic disputes where local interests are not concerned. The application of forum non conveniens is generally justified with reference to forum shopping, with courts noting the parties’ wish to benefit from the (perceived) greater efficiency of courts in São Paulo in relation to other local courts in Brazil.

The 2024 Amendment to the Brazilian CCP

This anti-forum shopping trend can also be seen in another development in the Brazilian law of jurisdiction, which I have also reported on here: the 2024 amendment to the Brazilian rules governing (domestic) choice of court agreements.

That amendment restricts the enforcement of choice of court agreements in cases where the court selected by the parties has no connection to the dispute. The law now characterizes the act of bringing a claim before a court which has no connections to the dispute as “abusive” and gives courts the power to dismiss such claims on their own initiative.

Unsurprisingly, both the Superior and the Court of Appeals used the term “abusive” in the present case, which can be seen as a direct reference to the amended Article 63(5) of the CCP. In fact, the Court of Appeals expressly invoked this provision as an additional basis upon which the claim could be dismissed.

Forum Non Conveniens as a Rhetorical Tool

Taking all these considerations into account, what did the Brazilian Superior Court mean when it invoked forum non conveniens?

In this case, it can be concluded that forum non conveniens functioned principally as an oratorical reaction to (undesired) forum shopping. Its significance was more rhetorical than doctrinal. As has been shown, invoking forum non conveniens was doctrinally unnecessary once the court found no basis for jurisdiction. Yet the court wished to emphasize its own role in declining jurisdiction where contacts with the forum are insufficient. From this perspective, forum non conveniens provided the court with an argumentative framework in which public and local interests could stand at the forefront the courts’ reasoning rather than being disguised under certain methods of statutory interpretation.

In terms of a clear reception of forum non conveniens into Brazilian law, the decisive question remains whether the Superior Court will rely on the doctrine to decline jurisdiction in a case where a jurisdictional basis does exist. Until that day arrives, the Superior Court’s use of the term in this case–and its repeated use by regional courts–reflects a growing emphasis by Brazilian courts on their own powers to decline jurisdiction on the basis of public or local interests.

This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.

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.