Views
The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate
This post is written by Dr. Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM(LSE) PhD(Navarra), Associate Professor School of Law KIMEP
Introduction
In May 2026, the Court of First Instance of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) recognised and enforced a Swiss ICC arbitral award rendered in favour of Naftogaz against Gazprom. The award arose out of the disputes between the parties concerning the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine after the start of the war.
Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which has been enacted by every U.S. state, discourages forum shopping in child custody disputes by assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the court located in the “home state” of the child. In Allen v. Allen, decided on April 21, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court had to determine whether the child’s “home state” was Montana or the Netherlands. This case shines an important spotlight on the importance of timing in international child custody disputes. The left-behind parent’s likelihood of success is strongly correlated with how quickly her or she acts to vindicate their legal rights. Read more
China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition
Written by Jeremy MEI Ziyang
LLM student at Wuhan University
Visiting student at Singapore Management University
I. Background
On 15 May this year, Ministry of Justice (MOJ) of China issued its Official Notice No 5 of 2026 (‘the MOJ Notice’), announcing that the relevant extraterritorial investigation carried out by EU on Chinese entities Nuctech constitutes improper extraterritorial jurisdiction measures under China’s Regulation on Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ROCIFEJ, State Council Decree No 835).[1] This Regulation was promulgated and entered into force on 7 April 2026. As a nationwide regulation promulgated by State Council, although it cannot be called an ‘Act’ that should be passed by the National People’s Congress, its legal hierarchical force directly follows an ‘Act’, higher than the previous Blocking Rules issued by Ministry of Commerce (MOC).[2]
News
European Civil Procedure Seminar, Leuven, 25 and 26 June 2026
The European Civil Justice Centre is pleased to announce a European Civil Procedure Seminar, which will take place on 25 and 26 June 2026 at the Faculty of Law and Criminology of KU Leuven.
The seminar is organised on the occasion of the publication of European Civil Procedure, edited by Xandra Kramer, Stefaan Voet and Adriani Dori, and published by de Gruyter in 2026. The book offers a comprehensive overview of the main developments shaping civil justice, including EU instruments on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement, service of documents, taking of evidence, and collective redress.
The seminar will be held at KU Leuven, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Tiensestraat 41, Leuven, Facultaire Raadzaal. Participation is free. Registration for in-person attendance is available by email at anne-marie.cuypers@kuleuven.be. Registration to attend online is available via Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/online-european-civil-procedure-seminar-tickets-1991345046640
The seminar will bring together a number of the book’s authors to reflect on and discuss various topics within the field of European civil procedure.
Programme
Thursday 25 June 2026
12.45
Welcome
Xandra Kramer, Stefaan Voet, Adriani Dori
13.00
Innovations in EU Civil Procedure: Novel Concepts, Regulatory Mechanisms and Technology
Anna Nylund [online]
13.40
Mariana after Magnitsky: How Global Sanctions and Litigation Funding Politicize Private International Law
Eduardo Silva de Freitas
14.20
Three to Tango: Lawyers Ethics in Collective Litigation with Third Party Funding
Jos Hoevenaars
15.00
Coffee break
15.30
“No Mini-Trials at the Jurisdictional Stage”: Brussels Ia and Engagement with the Merits
Geert Van Calster
16.10
CJEU Case Law on Delineating the Scope of Application Between the Insolvency and Brussels Ibis Regulations: Challenges of Uniform Interpretation
Vesna Lazic
17.00
Taking of Evidence: Cross-Border Aspects and EU Influence
Wannes Vandenbussche and Jachin Van Doninck
17.40
End of day one
Friday 26 June 2026
9.00
Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication
Willem Visser
9.40
Judicial Cooperation in Civil Enforcement
Patrick Gielen
10.20
The Revision of the ADR Directive 2013/11 and the Amendments in the ADR Directive 2025/2647: The use of Evidence
Emma van Gelder
11.00
Coffee break
11.20
EU law and National Civil Procedure: A Slightly Larger Area Than It First Appears.
Bart Krans
12.00
Elusive DigitalJustice@2030: Can the Promise Be Fulfilled?
Alan Uzelac [online]
12.30
Closing
Xandra Kramer, Stefaan Voet, Adriani Dori
End of day two
For further information, please contact kramer@law.eur.nl and stefaan.voet@kuleuven.be.
Enforcing Indian Judgments Abroad: The Hidden Costs of Révision au Fond
A recent article in the latest issue of the Asian Journal of Comparative Law revisits a feature of Indian private international law that often sits in the background of transactional and disputes practice but can decisively shape outcomes: the continued presence of révision au fond in India’s law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ).
Virtual Workshop (in English) on June 2, 2026: Thalia Kruger on „The Problem with Legal Certainty in Private International Law”
On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).
Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp) will speak, in English, about the topic
“The Problem with Legal Certainty in Private International Law”
Legal certainty is often considered foundational in private international law. It is used as justification for some of our connecting factors, and their application in time, as well as for our standards on recognition of foreign authentic instruments and judgments. However, if understood in a positivistic and precise manner, legal certainty can impede or complicate legal changes. The paper investigates where legal certainty has undesired consequences, especially in a context of righting past wrongs.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.