Topics of 2023 Cofola International
Topic 1: Three I’s of European Private International Law –
Interpretation, Interaction, Inspiration
Almost concurrently with the culmination of the American conflicts revolution, the European continental approach found itself at the outset of its own (r)evolution. With the gradual evolution of the powers vested in the EU, a massive Europeanization of private international law has begun to unfold. This consisted not only in the introduction of a new category of sources but also manifested itself in a series of legislative-technical changes piercing the veil of the Savignian approach, leading to the instrumentalization of private international law.
This development led to the introduction of more than a dozen core regulations ranging across various fields of law. Such a multitude of regulations, however, raises several interpretative and applicative ambiguities and problems, either standing alone or arising from disharmonious interaction between them. Generally, it is for the Court of Justice of the European Union to overcome these via the preliminary reference procedure. However, this mechanism is not a panacea. On the one hand, it is often hampered by the reluctance of national courts which do not resort to referring a question for preliminary ruling. On the other hand, even the case law of the Court of Justice is sometimes criticized for its arbitrary reasoning, reflecting politically desirable objectives of the EU while omitting its practical and doctrinal implications.
However, the technique and approaches of European Private International Law are not confined to the European Union. In certain scenarios, the EU legislator has positioned itself as a pioneer and dominant player in an attempt to influence developments in third countries as well. National codifications of today are often guided by the desire to keep pace with the development of the discipline, which is manifested by consensus across the spectrum of countries on international and supranational level.
Prospective participants are cordially welcome to present any topic that reflect persisting interpretative issues, as well as implications of the recent case law of the Court of Justice for the application of "European Private International Law" regulations. We also welcome papers reflecting recent case law of national courts on intepretation and application of these regulations. Moreover, we welcome any contributions reflecting on the impact of "European Private International Law" rules on the national laws of non-EU countries.
Topic 2: Quo Vadis, EU Citizenship?
EU citizenship yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Certain hopes and goals were associated with the introduction of EU citizenship. This subsection therefore welcomes contributions both retrospectively charting their (non-)fulfilment, as well as contributions focusing on current issues (for example Brexit and its ongoing consequences), as well as the possible future development of this institute. The focus of the conference is on the field of law. Given the specifics of the topic, we also welcome papers with overlaps into political science.
EU Citizenship and the Rights of Family Members: Through its case law (Zhu and Chen, Metock, Zambrano, Coman, etc.), the Court of Justice of the European Union has imprinted EU citizenship with a unique character. Where primary law has been silent, the Court has been able to find solutions to the problems of ordinary people. The Court has often done so in a legally controversial way, but quite understandably from a human perspective. Lets explore the rights of family members, both EU and non-EU citizens, in this ssubsection.
EU citizenship and the experience of national legal orders: U citizenship has also influenced the content of national administrative law, often even beyond the limited scope of EU competences. This subsection therefore focuses on the impact of EU citizenship on national law and its answer on the EU citizenship and the Court of Justice case law.
Please note that papers solely describing the present state of legal regulation or summarizing the development of legal regulation will not be accepted.