Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Borders, Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law pp 93–120Cite as

The Pillars of Heracles of European Private International Law: The Frontiers with Third States and Brexit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

As from the Treaty of Amsterdam and the so-called communitarization of private international law (PIL), the European legislator has been very prolific in the area of civil judicial cooperation and considerably reduced the scope of national legislations, in some cases replacing it altogether, toward a gradual unification of PIL at the European level. However, the still predominant Euro-centric character of European PIL is difficult to reconcile with the requirements and objectives of the European Union (EU) civil judicial cooperation and limits excessively the scope of European PIL. Against this background, this chapter investigates the state of EU external action in the area of PIL and the possible approaches to extend the scope of European PIL towards a complete system applicable erga omnes. The relationship between European PIL and the outer world will be tackled by considering pros and cons of two different approaches: multilateralism and unilateralism. The conclusion in favour of unilateralism is eventually put to the test in the Brexit scenario and the future of UK/EU27 civil judicial cooperation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Alighieri (1472) XXVI, 108–109: ‘dov’Ercule segnò li suoi riguardi, acciò che l’uom più oltre non si metta’.

  2. 2.

    Pataut (2008). On the distinction between intra-UE and extra-UE cases, see Franzina (2013).

  3. 3.

    European Council, ‘Hague Pogramme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union’ [2005] OJ C53/14, referring to the ‘the Union’s special relations with third countries, groups of countries and regions’.

  4. 4.

    The EU Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of 23 November 1995, 35 ILM 1223 (1996), which became Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May on insolvency proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1; the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters of 28 May 1998 [1998] OJ C221/2, which became Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses [2000] OJ L160/19; and Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters of 26 May 1997 [1997] OJ C261/2, which became Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [2000] OJ L160/37.

  5. 5.

    Bonomi (2009).

  6. 6.

    On this requirement, see Hess (2016b), stressing that a general policy definition of cross-border implications has never been formulated by the European institutions and that each legislative act has been devised separately. For a recent analysis of when and how such cross-border implications can be assumed, see Magnus (2018). See also Lopes Pegna (2018) with regard to the PIL instruments adopted for the harmonization of civil procedures.

  7. 7.

    The issue has been intensively debated during the preparatory works of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations: see Malatesta (2006).

  8. 8.

    In the sense that EU competence was limited to intra-EU cases, see Kohler (1999), pp. 15–16; in favour of a broad interpretation, instead, see Bonomi (2006), pp. 300–303; Basedow (2000), pp. 701–705. For a general survey, see Dickinson (2005).

  9. 9.

    Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:120.

  10. 10.

    Opinion No 1/03 [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:81, para 144, on which see Pocar (2007). The same reasoning has been adopted by the CJEU also with regard to the Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings in Case C-328/12 Schmid v Hertel [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:6.

  11. 11.

    The current text provides that measures may be adopted ‘particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market ’. See Clerici (2014).

  12. 12.

    The link to the internal market, however, did not disappear altogether: Fallon and Kruger (2012/2013), p. 5.

  13. 13.

    In agreement Domej (2016), pp. 90–91.

  14. 14.

    See, respectively, art 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes [2016] OJ L183/1; and art 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships [2016] OJ L183/30. See also art 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations [2009] OJ L7/1; art 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [2010] OJ L343/10; art 20 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession [2012] OJ L201/107.

  15. 15.

    Very interestingly, Francq (2016), pp. 71–72, observes that ‘there is a sharp contrast between the way in which external relations are dealt with in these two regulations, on the one hand, and in other instances of EU law, on the other hand’.

  16. 16.

    Bonomi (2017) and Pataut (2004). For a detailed analysis of individual instruments, see Mankowski and Knöfel (2014).

  17. 17.

    Art 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1. For a critical appraisal of this criterion, see Pfeiffer (2007), paras 115–165; Pataut (2003). On the Commission’s proposal of extension of the scope of the regulation to third-country defendants, see Luzzatto (2012).

  18. 18.

    As per the Lugano Opinion, the uniform system of jurisdiction rules has a ‘uniform and coherent nature’, so that current Article 6 ‘forms part of the system implemented by that regulation, since it resolves the situation envisaged by reference to the legislation of the Member State before whose court the matter is brought’. Such reference is deemed to have adverse consequences on access to justice and on the functioning of the internal market by Pocar (2008a).

  19. 19.

    Often complained of being discriminatory towards individuals domiciled in third countries: see Juenger (1983).

  20. 20.

    See Vitellino (2016a) and Pesce (2014).

  21. 21.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility [2003] OJ L338/1. This regulation is currently undergoing a recasting process following the Commission’s proposal COM (2016) 411 def released in June 2016. However, contrary to some proposals—e.g. Kruger and Samyn (2016)—the spatial scope of application of the regulation is not under review.

  22. 22.

    Case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECLI:EU:C:2007:740, para 18.

  23. 23.

    Bonomi (2011).

  24. 24.

    Regulation No 650/2012 (n 14).

  25. 25.

    On the application of the regulation to successions with links to third States, see Marongiu Buonaiuti (2016), Majer (2011), and Hellner (2010). The residual applicability of national PIL rules is limited to two situations: (1) when the case falls outside the material scope of the regulation; and (2) when the regulation expressly refers to national laws (e.g. art 33 concerning the estate without a claimant). In this sense, Fumagalli (2015).

  26. 26.

    For a critical appraisal of these rules, see Leandro (2013), Davì and Zanobetti (2014), and Feraci (2013). Similar provisions may also be found in Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation 2016/1103 (n 14) and Regulation 2016/1104 (n 14) concerning, respectively, matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships.

  27. 27.

    Droz (1972), pp. 108–110, and more recently Nuyts (2003) and Fallon (2008). For judicial support of the effet réflexe doctrine, see Ferrexpo AG v Gilson Investments Ltd [2012] EWHC 721 (Comm).

  28. 28.

    For an in-depth analysis, also concerning the relationship with forum non conveniens and more broadly the underlying policy reasons, see Vitellino (2016b), Carbone and Tuo (2015), Franzina (2014), and Marongiu Buonaiuti (2013/2014).

  29. 29.

    For example, Italian courts seised as second have to verify that the judgment is recognisable in Italy pursuant to Article 64 of Italian PIL Statute (Law No 218/1995).

  30. 30.

    See notably Vitellino (2008) for family matters.

  31. 31.

    Marongiu Buonaiuti (2016), pp. 556–562.

  32. 32.

    For a proposal of a uniform regime in the context of the extension the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, see Carbone (2012) and Fallon (2010).

  33. 33.

    Mankowski and Knöfel (2014), pp. 1106–1110; Fallon and Kruger (2012/2013), p. 22. See also Case C-129/92 Owens Bank v Bracco [1994] ECLI:EU:C:1994:13, para 25. For a comparative analysis in civil and commercial matters, see Laugwitz (2016).

  34. 34.

    Case C-514/10 Wolf Naturprodukte v SEWAR spol. [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:367, para 25.

  35. 35.

    Recital 27 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (n 17).

  36. 36.

    In this sense, Bellet (1965) and in agreement Gaudemet-Tallon (1996).

  37. 37.

    Virgos and Garcimartín (2004), p. 53.

  38. 38.

    This point is stressed by Franzina (2006), pp. 962–963.

  39. 39.

    Fallon and Kruger (2012/2013), p. 14. Concerning Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings [2015] OJ L141/19, for instance, see Nisi (2017).

  40. 40.

    Pataut (2008), pp. 128–129. On the suitability of erga omnes rules on jurisdiction, see Weber (2011), pp. 623–626; Bonomi (2008).

  41. 41.

    Mills (2016); Franzina (2013), pp. 40–51; Lehmann (2009). Other approaches are envisaged by Weller (2018).

  42. 42.

    Opinion No 1/13 [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303. For a critical appraisal of the Court’s reasoning, see Beaumont (2017a).

  43. 43.

    Franzina (2017), pp. 187–189.

  44. 44.

    Mills (2016), p. 450.

  45. 45.

    On the objectives of forum necessitatis in terms of access to justice, see Biagioni (2012), Rossolillo (2010), and Franzina (2009).

  46. 46.

    European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 23 November 2010 on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’, 2010/2080(INI), para 35; and Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings’ COM (2012) 743 final, 18.

  47. 47.

    Mills (2016), p. 454.

  48. 48.

    Within the EU, a major example of how difficult it may be to use the tool of an international convention is represented by the Rome Convention of 18 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, which took more than ten years to come into force. See Pocar (2008b), p. 6.

  49. 49.

    Franzina (2017), p. 190, stresses that, within the Hague Conference, only few conventions were ratified or accessed to by a significant number of States: of the 38 concluded in total, only nine reached the minimum number of ratification and ten entered into force for less than 15 States. “Cemetery of nascituri” is the expression used by Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca and cited by Thomale (2017), p. 144.

  50. 50.

    The last version of the project (May 2018) is available at www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/judgments/special-commission accessed 24 September 2018. A revised Draft Explanatory Report prepared by Francisco Garcimartín and Geneviève Saumier was released in December 2018. For references on the historical evolution since the first draft delivered in 1992, see Beaumont (2014).

  51. 51.

    For a very recent assessment of the ongoing work of the Hague Conference on the Judgments Convention, including its limits and possible drawbacks, see de Miguel Asensio et al. (2018).

  52. 52.

    Mills (2016), p. 562. In the sense that PIL rules having universal scope are not neutral but pursue substantive objectives and are guided by material considerations, see also Franzina (2017), pp. 189–190.

  53. 53.

    Pretelli et al. (2014), p. 43.

  54. 54.

    On this provision, see Ivaldi (2013), Bogdan (2008), and Kadner Graziano (2007).

  55. 55.

    Mills (2016), pp. 567–568.

  56. 56.

    This would entail, for instance, that the criterion of place of performance of contractual obligation adopted by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, if located in a Member State, would also apply in the case where both parties are domiciled outside the EU.

  57. 57.

    Article 3(2) of Italian PIL Statute (Law No 218/1995).

  58. 58.

    Nuyts (2007), para 18.

  59. 59.

    For a critical appraisal of exorbitant fora, see Fernandez Arroyo (2014).

  60. 60.

    Bonomi (2017), pp. 186–188; Pretelli et al. (2014), pp. 40–42. This approach, already followed in maintenance and succession matters, could be extended also to other areas: for instance, with regard to Regulation 2015/848 (n 39), see Nisi (2017). A similar outcome is also welcomed by Miglio (2018), p. 686, who uses as reference the jurisdictional rules applicable to the Unified Patent Court.

  61. 61.

    See, e.g., Article 45(1)(d) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (n 17) or Article 40(d) of the Succession Regulation (n 14).

  62. 62.

    In this sense, Bonomi (2017), pp. 190–191; Carbone (2012), pp. 301–302; Weber (2011), p. 643. See also Commission, ‘Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters’ COM(2009) 175 final, 4. In the realm of insolvency, see the proposal presented by INSOL Europe (2012), p. 110: ‘a unified approach to insolvency proceedings opened outside the European Union will enhance the proper functioning of the internal market ’.

  63. 63.

    On 28 February 2018, the European Commission published the draft Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK (Draft Withdrawal Agreement), based on the Joint Report from the negotiators of the two parties on the progress achieved during the first phase of negotiations. The latest version of the agreement has been released on 14 November 2018 and is available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2019.

  64. 64.

    On the special status of UK, see Sonnentag (2017), pp. 19–25.

  65. 65.

    HM Government, ‘Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Civil Judicial Cooperation’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279228/civil-judicial-cooperation-report-review-of-balance-of-competences.pdf accessed 24 September 2018, para 1.17.

  66. 66.

    Recital 82 of the Succession Regulation (n 14). See Crawford and Carruthers (2014).

  67. 67.

    Recital 50 of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters [2014] OJ L189/59. For the reasons behind the UK’s opt-out, see Kyriakides (2014).

  68. 68.

    Sandrini (2017), pp. 295–299; Farina (2015), pp. 497–500. More generally, on the privileged position of European creditors, see Franzina (2015), pp. 14–18.

  69. 69.

    Regulation No 1259/2010 (n 14); Regulation No 2016/1103 (n 14); and Regulation No 2016/1104 (n 14). As mentioned supra (Sect. 3), these instruments provide for universal conflict of law rules, so that the courts of a participating Member State apply them also when they designate UK law. In contrast, there is no guarantee that UK courts will apply similar standards to situations with a close connection with the territory of a participating Member State.

  70. 70.

    Regulation No 4/2009 (n 14).

  71. 71.

    On the two-track mechanism of the regulation, see notably Pesce (2013), ch 4.

  72. 72.

    In this sense, Franzina (2011), p. 128.

  73. 73.

    On the difficulties that such an option would raise, see Graver (2016).

  74. 74.

    Vahl and Grolimund (2006). In fact, the UK has entered into a post-Brexit trade agreement with Switzerland on 11 February 2019 in order to preserve trade relations between the two countries even in case the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement.

  75. 75.

    Department for Exiting the European Union, ‘UK government’s preparation for a no deal scenario’ www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-governments-preparations-for-a-no-deal-scenario/uk-governments-preparations-for-a-no-deal-scenario accessed 24 September 2018.

  76. 76.

    From the UK’s side, see in particular the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with a brief comment by Dickinson (2019). In view of such outcome, with no surprise, on 28 December 2018 the UK signed and ratified the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance (in both cases, contingent upon the withdrawal agreement not be signed). From the EU’s side, see the European Commission, ‘Notice to stakeholders. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of civil justice and private international law’. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/notice_to_stakeholders_brexit_civil_justice_rev1_final.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2019.

  77. 77.

    See Ungerer (2019), Danov (2018), Jault-Seseke (2018), Crawford and Carruthers (2018), Rühl (2017, 2018), Bertoli (2017), Cuniberti (2017), Dickinson (2016, 2017), Lehmann (2017), Lein (2016/2017), Masters and McRae (2016), and Hess (2016a).

  78. 78.

    House of Lords, EU Committee, ‘Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?’ (17th Report of Session 2016–2017) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/134/134.pdf accessed 24 September 2018 (House of Lords, ‘Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?’) paras 23, 37–38; House of Commons, Justice Committee, ‘Implications of Brexit for the justice system’ (9th Report of Session 2016–2017), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmjust/750/750.pdf accessed 24 September 2018 (House of Commons, ‘Implications of Brexit for the justice system’), paras 19–32. An EU-UK arrangement of this kind, may take different forms: see Dickinson (2017), p. 542.

  79. 79.

    HM Government, ‘Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework. A future partnership paper’, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639271/Providing_a_cross-border_civil_judicial_cooperation_framework.pdf accessed 24 September 2018 (HM Government, ‘Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework. A future partnership paper’) para 22. This solution, for instance, is envisaged in Association Agreement (EU-Georgia) (adopted 17 June 2014, entered into force 1 July 2016) OJ L261/4, art 21 and Association Agreement (EU-Moldova) (adopted 27 June 2014, entered into force 1 July 2016) OJ L260/4, art 20, where the parties manifested a declaration of intent to accede to the core Hague instruments on judicial cooperation.

  80. 80.

    The consequences in the different areas of civil justice are summarily illustrated by European Commission, ‘Notice to stakeholders’ (n 76).

  81. 81.

    In general, on the transitional problems arising out of Brexit, see the in-depth analysis by Fitchen (2017).

  82. 82.

    On the other side, the UK would come back to the default application of common law rules, thus reawakening procedural mechanisms dismantled by the CJEU (i.e. anti-suit injunctions and forum non conveniens). On the problems raised by the prospect of returning to common law rules, see House of Lords, ‘Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?’ (n 78), paras 39–55, 84–93, 114–115.

  83. 83.

    The formal title of this measure is European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and has been introduced to the House of Commons on 13th July 2017. Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the Bill, it received Royal Assent on 26 June 2018 and is now an Act of Parliament.

  84. 84.

    In this regard, the revival of old instruments such as the 1968 Brussels Convention, albeit considered in the literature, seems politically very unlikely and not credible: see the authors cited supra in footnote 77. Arguments have been made in favour and against the revival of old instruments, based on different interpretations of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

  85. 85.

    House of Lords, ‘Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?’ (n 78), paras 56–58 (reporting the opinions of Richard Fentiman and Adrian Briggs) and paras 60, 94–98. In this sense, among many, Ungerer (2019), pp. 7–8 and 12; Crawford and Carruthers (2018), pp. 195–196; Fitchen (2017), p. 417.

  86. 86.

    This is the so-called ‘Danish model’, on which see Nielsen (2016).

  87. 87.

    An amendment of the Lugano Convention to bring it into line with Regulation No 1215/2012 is not on the agenda. However, according to a shared opinion, the Lugano Convention does not represent an appropriate instrument to bridge judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK: see Hess (2018) and Thomale (2017), pp. 141–145.

  88. 88.

    In general terms, concerning bilateral PIL harmonisation, Mills (2016), pp. 557–561.

  89. 89.

    HM Government, ‘Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework. A future partnership paper’, para 19. More recently, see also HM Government, ‘The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725288/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf accessed 24 September 2018, para 148.

  90. 90.

    Doubts are raised by Dickinson (2017), pp. 555–566, as to whether the conditions for continued close cooperation on a Brussels I model will exist in absence of the single market integration. Indeed, the spirit and purpose of the individual regulations could be distorted if considered outside the context of the progressive establishment of a genuine European judicial area.

  91. 91.

    HM Government, ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589191/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf accessed 24 September 2018, para 2.3.

  92. 92.

    House of Commons, ‘Implications of Brexit for the justice system’ (n 78), para 35: ‘a role for the CJEU in respect of procedural legislation […] is a price worth paying to maintain the effective cross-border tools of justice’.

  93. 93.

    House of Lords, ‘Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?’ (n 78), para 4, defines it as ‘a workable but inferior solution’. This is also the recommendation of the Bar Council Brexit Working Group, ‘Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Paper 4’ https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/575175/brexit_paper_4_-_civil_jurisidiction_and_judgements.pdf accessed 24 September 2018, 7. See also Crawford and Carruthers (2018), pp. 198–199.

  94. 94.

    House of Commons, ‘Implications of Brexit for the justice system’ (n 78), para 127.

  95. 95.

    The same formula is used by s. 2(1) of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, where it raised serious doubts as to its correct meaning. According to Lord Slynn’s statement in R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] 2 AC 295, in the absence of some special circumstances, the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) . According to a more nuanced interpretation, there is space for UK courts to decline following Strasbourg only in certain narrowly-defined circumstances, e.g. when a ECtHR’s decision is inconsistent with some fundamental feature of UK domestic law (Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] 3 WLR 1441). For a critical reading of these views, see Lord Irvine of Lairg (2011), who suggest a broad interpretation: ‘Section 2 of the HRA means that it is our Judges’ duty to decide the cases for themselves and explain clearly to the litigants, Parliament and the wider public why they are doing so’.

  96. 96.

    Briggs (2017): ‘[w]hile the demise without replacement of the Brussels I and Lugano II would be a measurable loss, it will not be the United Kingdom which suffers it: its impact will be felt by enterprises established in the other Member States, much more than it will be felt in England’.

  97. 97.

    Danov (2018), pp. 165–166.

  98. 98.

    See the Hague Conventions of 1980 and 1996 on parental responsibility, the Hague Convention of 1970 on divorce, and the Hague Convention of 2007 on maintenance. See Lein (2016/2017), pp. 44–45; Ungerer (2017), pp. 307–308. From the UK’s perspective, this outcome is welcomed by Beaumont (2017b).

  99. 99.

    The same could happen for the opening of territorial proceedings. A general survey is provided by Morris et al. (2018), Carballo Piñeiro (2017), and Espiniella Menéndez (2017). On the peculiarities and differences among national regimes, see Wautelet (2003).

References

  • Alighieri, D. (1472). Divina Commedia—Inferno. Foligno, Italy: Johann Neumeister and Evangelista Angelini.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow, J. (2000). The communitarization of the conflict of laws under the treaty of Amsterdam. Common Market Law Review, 37, 687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont, P. (2014). The revived judgments project in The Hague. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 4, 532–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont, P. (2017a). A critical analysis of the judicial activism of the court of justice of the European Union in opinion 1/13. In P. Franzina (Ed.), The external dimension of EU private international law after opinion 1/13 (pp. 55–74). Cambridge, England/Antwerp, Belgium/Portland, OR: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont, P. (2017b). Private international law concerning children in the UK after Brexit: comparing Hague treaty law with EU regulations. CPIL Working Paper No 2017/2. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.abdn.ac.uk/law/documents/CPIL%20Working%20Paper%20No%202017_2.pdf

  • Bellet, P. (1965). L’élaboration d’une convention sur la reconnaissance des jugements dans le cadre du Marché commun. Journal du droit international, 92, 833–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoli, P. (2017). La «Brexit» e il diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 53, 599–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioni, G. (2012). Alcuni caratteri generali del forum necessitatis nello spazio giudiziario europeo. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 4, 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, M. (2008). The treatment of environmental damage in regulation Rome II. In J. Ahern & W. Binchy (Eds.), The Rome II regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (pp. 219–230). Leiden, The Netherlands/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (2006). Le droit international privé entre régionalisme et universalisme—quelques considérations sur les compétences européennes en matière de droit international privé et leurs effets pour les Etats tiers. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht, 26, 295–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (2008). The opportunity and the modalities of the introduction of Erga Omnes rules on jurisdiction. In A. Malatesta, S. Bariatti, & F. Pocar (Eds.), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters (pp. 149–160). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (2009). Il diritto internazionale privato dell‘Unione europea: considerazioni generali. In A. Bonomi (Ed.), Diritto internazionale privato e cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile (pp. 1 ff.). Turin, Italy: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (2011). La compétence des juridictions des Etats membres de l’Union européenne dans les relations avec les Etats tiers à l’aune des récentes propositions en matière de droit de la famille et des successions. In F. Lorandi & D. Staehlin (Eds.), Innovatives Recht. Festschrift für Ivo Schwander (pp. 665–681). Zurich, Switzerland: Dike.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (2017). European private international law and third states. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 37, 184–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, A. (2017). Secession from the European Union and private international law: The cloud with a silver lining. COMBAR Lecture, January 24, 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.blackstonechambers.com/news/secession-european-union-and-private-international-law-cloud-silver-lining/

  • Carballo Piñeiro, L. (2017). “Brexit” and international insolvency beyond the realm of mutual trust. International Insolvency Review, 26, 270–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, S. M. (2012). What about the recognition of third States’ foreign judgments? In F. Pocar, I. Viarengo, & F. C. Villata (Eds.), Recasting Brussels I (pp. 299–310). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, S. M., & Tuo, C. (2015). Non-EU states and Brussels I: New rules and some solutions for old problems. Rivista diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 51, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clerici, R. (2014). Articolo 81. In F. Pocar & M. C. Baruffi (Eds.), Commentario breve ai Trattati dell’Unione europea (pp. 500–505). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. B., & Carruthers, J. M. (2014). Speculation on the operation of succession regulation 650/2012: Tales of the unexpected. European Review of Private Law, 22, 847–878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. B., & Carruthers, J. M. (2018). Brexit: The impact on judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications—a British perspective. European Papers, 3, 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti, G. (2017). Brexit et contentieux international des affaires. In C. Bahurel, E. Bernard, & M. Ho-Dac (Eds.), Le Brexit, Enjeux régionaux, nationaux et internationaux (pp. 197–212). Brussels, Belgium: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danov, M. (2018). Cross-border litigation in England and Wales: Pre-Brexit data and post-Brexit implications. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davì, A., & Zanobetti, A. (2014). Il nuovo diritto internazionale privato europeo delle successioni. Turin, Italy: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Miguel Asensio, P., Cuniberti, G., Franzina, P., Heinze, C., & Requejo Isidro, M. (2018). The Hague conference on private international law “judgments convention”. Study for the JURI Committee PE 604.954. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604954/IPOL_STU(2018)604954_EN.pdf

  • Dickinson, A. (2005). European private international law: Embracing new horizons or mourning the past? Journal of Private International Law, 1, 197–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, A. (2016). Back to the future: The UK’s EU exit and the conflict of laws. Journal of Private International Law, 12, 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, A. (2017). Close the door on your way out. Free movement of judgments in civil matters—a Brexit case study. Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht, 25, 539–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, A. (2019). A view from the edge. Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3356549

  • Domej, T. (2016). Das Verhältnis nach »außen«: Europäische v. Drittstaatensachverhalt. In J. von Hein & G Rühl (Eds.), Kohärenz im internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union (pp. 90–109). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droz, G. (1972). Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché commun. Etude de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espiniella Menéndez, Á. (2017). Brexit e insolvencia transfronteriza. Anuario español de derecho internacional privado, 17, 91–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon, M. (2008). L’applicabilité du règlement “Bruxelles I” aux situations externes après l’avis 1/03. In T. Azzi et al. (Eds.), Vers de nouveaux équilibres entre ordres juridiques. Liber Amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (pp. 241–264). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon, M. (2010). Commentaire de la proposition intitulée ‘Le règlement Bruxelles I et les décisions judiciaires rendues dans des États non membres de l’Union européenne’. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.gedip-egpil.eu/documents/gedip-documents-20cf.htm

  • Fallon, M., & Kruger, T. (2012/2013). The spatial scope of the EU’s rules on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments: From bilateral modes to unilateral universality. Yearbook of Private International Law, 14, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina, M. (2015). L’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo su conti bancari. Nuove leggi civili e commentate, 38, 495–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feraci, O. (2013). La nuova disciplina europea della competenza giurisdizionale in materia di successioni mortis causa. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 5, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Arroyo, D. P. (2014). Exorbitant and exclusive grounds of jurisdiction in European private international law: Will they ever survive? In H. P. Mansel, T. Pfeiffer, H. Kronke, C. Kohler, & R. Hausmann (Eds.), Festschrift für Erik Jayme (Vol. 1, pp. 169–186). Munich, Germany: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitchen, J. (2017). The PIL consequences of Brexit. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 35, 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francq, S. (2016). The external dimension of Rome I and Rome II: Neutrality of schizophrenia? In M. Cremona & H. W. Micklitz (Eds.), Private law in the external relations of the EU (pp. 71–106). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2006). Le condizioni di applicabilità del regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 alla luce del parere 1/03 della Corte di giustizia. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 89, 948–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2009). Sul forum necessitatis nello spazio giudiziario europeo. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 92, 1121–1129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2011). The law applicable to divorce and legal separation under regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 3, 85–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2013). L’universalisation partielle du régime européen de la compétence en matière civile et commercial dans le règlement Bruxelles I-bis: une mise en perspective. In E. Guinchard (Ed.), Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis (pp. 39–82). Brussels, Belgium: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2014). Litispendenza e connessione tra Stati membri e Stati terzi nel regolamento Bruxelles I bis. Diritto del commercio internazionale, 28, 621–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2015). L’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo dei conti bancari: rilievi generali. In P. Franzina & A. Leandro (Eds.), Il sequestro europeo di conti bancari (pp. 1–28). Milan, Italy: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. (2017). The interplay of EU legislation and international developments in private international law. In P. Franzina (Ed.), The external dimension of EU private international law after opinion 1/13 (pp. 183–209). Cambridge, England/Antwerp, Belgium/Portland, OR: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumagalli, L. (2015). Il sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato e processuale e il regolamento (UE) n. 650/2012 sulle successioni. Spazi residui per la legge interna? Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 51, 779–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudemet-Tallon, H. (1996). Les frontières extérieures de l’espace judiciaire européen: quelques repères. In A. Borras, A. Bucher, A. V. M. Struycken, & M. Verwilghen (Eds.), E Pluribus Unum. Liber amicorum Georges A. L. Droz (pp. 85–104). The Hague, The Netherlands/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhof.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graver, H. P. (2016). Possibilities and challenges of the EEA as an option for the UK after Brexit. European Papers, 1, 803–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellner, M. (2010). El futuro reglamento de la UE sobre sucesiones. La relación con terceros estados. Anuario español de derecho internacional privado, 10, 379–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B. (2016a). Back to the past: Brexit und das europäische Internationale Privat- und Verfahrensrecht. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 36, 409–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B. (2016b). Binnenverhältnisse im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Grenzüberschreitende v. nationale Sachverhalte. In J. von Hein & G. Rühl (Eds.), Kohärenz im internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union (pp. 67–89). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B. (2018). The unsuitability of the Lugano convention (2007) to serve as a bridge between the UK and the EU after Brexit. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series No. 2. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.mpi.lu/fileadmin/mpi/medien/research/MPEiPro/WPS2_2018_Hess_The_Unsuitability_of_the_Lugano_Convention__2007__to_Serve_as_a_Bridge_between_the_UK_and_the_EU_after_Brexit.pdf

  • INSOL Europe. (2012). Revision of the European insolvency regulation. Nottingham, England: INSOL Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivaldi, P. (2013). European Union, environmental protection and private international law: Article 7 of Rome II Regulation. European Legal Forum, 13, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jault-Seseke, F. (2018). Brexit et espace judiciaire européen. European Papers, 3, 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger, F. K. (1983). La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 et la courtoisie internationale: réflexions d’un Américain. Revue critique de droit international privé, 72, 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadner Graziano, T. (2007). The law applicable to cross-border damage to the environment: A commentary on Article 7 of the Rome II regulation. Yearbook of Private International Law, 9, 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, C. (1999). Interrogations sur les sources du droit international privé européen après le traité d’Amsterdam. Revue critique du droit international privé, 88, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, T., & Samyn, L. (2016). Brussels II bis: Successes and suggested improvements. Journal of Private International Law, 12, 132–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, N. (2014). The United Kingdom’s stance to the recently introduced European account preservation order. Civil Justice Quarterly, 33, 375–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugwitz, H. C. (2016). Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung drittstaatlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leandro, A. (2013). La giurisdizione nel regolamento dell’Unione europea sulle successioni mortis causa. In P. Franzina & A. Leandro (Eds.), Il diritto internazionale privato europeo delle successioni mortis causa (pp. 59–85). Milan, Italy: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, M. (2009). La distinction entre Etats membres de l’Union européenne et Etat tiers en droit international privé des affaires. In S. Sana-Chaille De Nere (Ed.), Droit international privé états membres de l’Union Européenne et états tiers (pp. 7–20). Paris: LexisNexis Litec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, M. (2017). Die Auswirkungen des Brexit auf das Zivil- und Wirtschaftsrecht. JuristenZeitung, 72, 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lein, E. (2016/2017). Unchartered territory? A few thoughts on private international law post Brexit. Yearbook of Private International Law, 17, 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes Pegna, O. (2018). La nozione di controversia «transfrontaliera» nel processo di armonizzazione delle norme di procedura civile degli Stati membri dell'Unione europea. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 54, 922–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Irvine of Lairg. (2011). A British interpretation of convention rights. Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, December 12, 2011. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.biicl.org/files/5786_lord_irvine_convention_rights.pdf

  • Luzzatto, R. (2012). On the proposed application of jurisdictional criteria of Brussels I regulation to non-domiciled defendants. In F. Pocar, I. Viarengo, & F. C. Villata (Eds.), Recasting Brussels I (pp. 111–116). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, R. (2018). Der grenzüberschreitende Bezug als Anwendungsvoraussetzung im europäischen. Zuständigkeits- und Kollisionsrecht. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 26, 507–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer, C. F. (2011). Die Geltung der EU-Erbrechtsverordnung für reine Drittstaatensachverhälte. Zeitschrift für Erbrecht und Vermögensnachfolge, 18, 445–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malatesta, A. (Ed.). (2006). The unification of choice of law rules on torts and other non-contractual obligations in Europe: The Rome II proposal. Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski, P., & Knöfel, O. (2014). Verhältnis zu Drittstaaten (§ 29). In S. Leible & J. P. Terhechte (Eds.), Enzyklopädie des Europarechts, Band III: Europäisches Rechtsschutz- und Verfahrensrecht (pp. 1085–1133). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marongiu Buonaiuti, F. (2013/2014). Lis Alibi Pendens and related actions in the relationships with the courts of third countries in the recast of the Brussels I regulation. Yearbook of Private International Law, 15, 87–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marongiu Buonaiuti, F. (2016). The EU succession regulation and third country courts. Journal of Private International Law, 12, 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, S., & McRae, B. (2016). What does Brexit mean for the Brussels regime? Journal of International Arbitration, 33, 483–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miglio, A. (2018). La giurisdizione del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti, tra incertezze sul futuro del sistema brevettuale e prove di universalizzazione del regolamento Bruxelles I bis. Il diritto dell Unione europea, 3, 657–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. (2016). Private international law and EU external relations: Think local act global, or think global act local. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65, 541–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, H. P., Moss, G., & Mucciarelli, F. M. (2018). Cross-border insolvencies after Brexit: Views from the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Brexit Paper No. 17—March 2018. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Brexit%20Series%20Paper%20no.17.pdf

  • Nielsen, P. A. (2016). Denmark and EU civil cooperation. Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht, 24, 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisi, N. (2017). The recast of the insolvency regulation: A third country perspective. Journal of Private International Law, 13, 324–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts, A. (2003). La théorie de l’effet réflexe. In G. de Laval & M. Storme (Eds.), Le droit processuel et judiciaire européen (pp. 73–89). Brussels, Belgium: La Charte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts, A. (2007). Study on residual jurisdiction. General Report, September 3, 2007. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf

  • Pataut, E. (2003). Qu’est-ce qu’un litige intracommunautaire? Réflexions autour de l’art. 4 du règlement Bruxelles I. In Justice et droits fondamentaux. Études offerts à Jacques Normand (pp. 365–385). Paris: Litec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataut, E. (2004). L’espace judiciaire européen: un espace coherent. In E. Leroyer & A. Jeuland (Eds.), Quelle cohérence pour l’espace judiciaire européen (pp. 31–49). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataut, E. (2008). International jurisdiction and third states: A view from the EC in family matters. In A. Malatesta, S. Bariatti, & F. Pocar (Eds.), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters (pp. 123–148). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesce, F. (2013). Le obbligazioni alimentari tra diritto internazionale e diritto dell’Unione europea. Rome, Italy: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesce, F. (2014). La tutela dei cd. contraenti deboli nel nuovo regolamento UE n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis). Diritto del commercio internazionale, 28, 579–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, T. (2007). In B. Hess, T. Pfeiffer, & P. Schlosse, Report on the application of regulation Brussels I in the member states. General Report Study JLS/C4/2005/03. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf

  • Pocar, F. (2008a). Faut-il remplacer le renvoi au droit national par des règles uniformes dans l’article 4 du règlement n. 44/2001? In T. Azzi et al. (Eds.), Vers de nouveaux équilibres entre ordres juridiques. Liber Amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (pp. 573–580). Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocar, F. (2008b). The “communitarization” of private international law and its impact on the external relations of the European Union. In A. Malatesta, S. Bariatti, & F. Pocar (Eds.), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters (pp. 3–15). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocar, F. (Ed.). (2007). The external competence of the European Union and private international law. Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretelli, I., Urscheler, L. H., Bonomi, A., Mari, L., Romano, G. P., Di Orio, R., et al. (2014). Possibility and terms for applying Brussels I regulation (recast) to extra-European disputes. Study for the JURI Committee PE 493.024. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/493024/IPOL-JURI_ET(2014)493024_EN.pdf

  • Rossolillo, G. (2010). Forum necessitatis e flessibilità dei criteri di giurisdizione nel diritto internazionale privato nazionale e dell’Unione europea. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 2, 403–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühl, G. (2017). Die Wahl englischen Rechts und englischer Gerichte nach dem Brexit. JuristenZeitung, 72, 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rühl, R. (2018). Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters after Brexit: Which way forward? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67, 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandrini, L. (2017). Nuove prospettive per una più efficace cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile: il regolamento (UE) n. 655/2014. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 53, 283–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, M. (2017). Die Konsequenzen des Brexits für das Internationale Privat- und Zvilverfahrensrecht. Tübingen, Germany: Morh Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomale, C. (2017). The Lugano model—cooperative enhancement over enhanced cooperation. In P. Franzina (Ed.), The external dimension of EU private international law after opinion 1/13 (pp. 131–148). Cambridge, England/Antwerp, Belgium/Portland, OR: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungerer, J. (2017). Brexit von Brüssel und den anderen EU -Verordnungen zum Internationalen Zivilverfahrens - und Privatrecht. In M. Kramme, C. Baldus, & M. Schmidt-Kessel (Eds.), Brexit und die juristischen Folgen (pp. 297–320). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungerer, J. (2019). Consequences of Brexit for European private international law. European Papers, pp. 1–13, February 27, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahl, M., & Grolimund, N. (2006). Integration without membership: Switzerland’s bilateral agreements with the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Center for European Policy Studies. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/1304.pdf

  • Virgos, M., & Garcimartín, F. (2004). The European insolvency regulation: Law and practice. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitellino, G. (2008). European private international law and parallel proceedings in third states in family matters. In A. Malatesta, S. Bariatti, & F. Pocar (Eds.), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters (pp. 221–248). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitellino, G. (2016a). Le novità in materia di fori protettivi della parte debole. In A. Malatesta (Ed.), La riforma del regolamento Bruxelles I (pp. 47–62). Milan, Italy: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitellino, G. (2016b). Le novità in materia di litispendenza e connessione. In A. Malatesta (Ed.), La riforma del regolamento Bruxelles I (pp. 91–115). Milan, Italy: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wautelet, P. (2003). Reconnaissance et exécution des décisions en Europe: l’exemple de la faillite internationale. In G. de Laval & M. Storme (Eds.), Le droit processuel et judiciaire européen (pp. 419–450). Brussels, Belgium: La Charte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (2011). Universal jurisdiction and third states in the reform of the Brussels I regulation. Rabels Zeitschrift fuer auslaendisches und internationales Privatrecht, 75, 619–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2018). Judicial cooperation of the EU in civil matters in its relations with non-EU states—a blind sport. In A. Uzelac & R. van Rhee (Eds.), The transformation of civil justice. Unity and diversity (pp. 63–80). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Bonomi, A. (2017). European private international law and third states. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 37, 184–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej, T. (2016). Das Verhältnis nach »außen«: Europäische v. Drittstaatensachverhalt. In J. von Hein & G. Rühl (Eds.), Kohärenz im internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Europäischen Union (pp. 90–109). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. (2016). Private international law and EU external relations: think local act global, or think global act local. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65, 541–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pataut, E. (2008). International jurisdiction and third states: A view from the EC in family matters. In A. Malatesta, S. Bariatti, & F. Pocar (Eds.), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters (pp. 123–148). Padua, Italy: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühl, R. (2018). Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters after Brexit: Which way forward? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67, 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Nicolò Nisi

Authors
  1. Nicolò Nisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolò Nisi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Tommaso Natoli

  2. Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy

    Alice Riccardi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nisi, N. (2019). The Pillars of Heracles of European Private International Law: The Frontiers with Third States and Brexit. In: Natoli, T., Riccardi, A. (eds) Borders, Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20929-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20929-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20928-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20929-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation