Views
Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski
Earlier today, the Court of Justice rendered its decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski, essentially confirming its previous case law, combined with a restrictive reading of its infamous decision in Joint Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate.
The facts of the case (which was given the entirely fictitious name Idzinski) are eerily similar to those of the Court’s 2021 decision in Case C-800/19 Mittelbayrischer Verlag. Just like in that earlier case, they involved a claim by Polish claimants against a German media outlet regarding the correction of, and damages for, the publication of content that allegedly violated their personality rights, including their national dignity. Only two elements of the facts were different: first, the content complained of was broadcasted on television, in addition to being published online; second, the claimants were (1) a private person who was part of a Polish military unit during World War II, which the German broadcaster had allegedly portrayed as ‘anti-Semitic and nationalistic and as having collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust’, and (2) an association bringing together members of that unit.
After two decisions against the defendants (to varying degrees), the Polish Supreme Court had submitted two questions relating to the international jurisdiction of the Polish courts.
Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court?
I. Introduction
Sometimes, reading court decisions leaves a strange sense of confusion, especially when the decision rendered not only contradicts a well-established line of case law, but also when the court, in the very same decision, reveals internal contradictions. Several months ago, I critically discussed on this blog a rather unusual decision of the Egyptian Supreme Court (محكمة النقض/maḥkamat an-naqḍ), in which the enforcement of a Canadian judgment was denied on the ground that reciprocity had not been established with Canada. In my comments on that decision, I expressed “significant concerns” regarding the incoherent manner in which reciprocity was addressed by the Supreme Court.
PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments
This post was kindly prepared by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.
[ABSTRACT]
Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter ‘PRC’) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025), and Shanghai Chenggong Industrial Co Ltd v Zhihua Chen [2025] NSWSC 1112 (27 October 2025).
News
Crossing Dialogues, Disciplines and Borders: How far can Private International Law go? (Call for papers)
International Symposium | 9–10 October 2026 | Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra (Portugal)
The University of Coimbra Institute for Legal Research (UCILeR), in collaboration with the Associação de Estudos Europeus de Coimbra (AEEC – Coimbra Association of European Studies), is organizing the International Symposium “Crossing Dialogues, Disciplines and Borders: How far can Private International Law go?”, to be held on 9 and 10 October 2026 at the Colégio da Trindade, Coimbra, Portugal.
Organised by Dulce Lopes and Afonso Patrão , the event brings together leading scholars, early-career researchers, and practitioners to debate the evolving role and limits of Private International Law (PIL) in novel situations that increasingly challenge its traditional scope.
Call for Papers: Annual Courts and Justice Conference 2026 (4 Dec 2026, University of Nicosia)
This Call for Papers was shared with us by Procedural Law Unit of the University of Nicosia, Cyprus.
SLAPP-Directive implemented in Belgium
The SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Directive of the EU (2024/1069 of 11 April 2024) is transposed in Belgian law by the Act of 30 May 2026. The Act was published in the Belgian Official Journal on 12 June 2026 (see the French version and the Dutch version), and will enter into force on 22 June 2026.
The main features of the Act are: