Abstract
Various different aspects of the principle of equality are considered with reference to the identification of the applicable law according to the rules of private international law. This principle is relevant, first of all, for the interpretation of connecting factors, the goal of which must be to assess the manner in which these factors operate. Secondly, the principle of equality is also relevant in terms of the results arrived at by the connecting factors, and must be applied when assessing the substantive fairness of the legal system referred to, drawing inspiration from the principle’s capacity to protect fundamental rights.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Kegel 1953, pp. 253 et seq.
- 3.
- 4.
Salerno 2018, pp. 277 et seq; see also Institut de droit international, Online Session – 2021, 4th Commission, Human Rights and Private International Law, Rapporteur Mr Fausto Pocar, available at www.idi-iil.org.
- 5.
ECtHR, Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece, App. No. 56759/08, Judgment of 3 May 2011: in this case Article 8 ECHR was clearly considered to constitute a counterlimit to public policy, which was invoked by the Greek authorities as grounds for refusing to recognise a US adoption order in view of the fact that the adoptive parent was an orthodox monk. The right to personal identity of an adopted child whose ability to continue to use his or her surname is impaired as a result of the failure to recognise the adoption order, of which recognition had been sought following the death of the adoptive parent, was held to prevail over the prohibition on adoption imposed by Greek law on monks. The European Court of Human Rights stressed the significance of the ‘social reality’ of the affective bond established abroad as against national legislative policies seeking to promote the family based on marriage, and asserted that ‘l’interprétation par le juge […] de la notion d’ordre public ne doit pas être faite de manière arbitraire et disproportionnée’. More generally, for rulings of the ECtHR upholding public policy as a limit on the recognition of foreign decisions that violate fundamental principles such as the right to a fair trial, or in accordance with discriminatory rules, see: Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, App. No. 76240/01, 28 June 2007; Mc Donald v. France, App. No. 18648/04, 29 April 2008; see also Bucher 2011, p. 307; Kinsch 2011, pp. 820 et seq.
- 6.
Wengler 1963, p. 525.
- 7.
- 8.
Savigny 1849, p. 28.
- 9.
- 10.
Wengler 1963, p. 204.
- 11.
- 12.
The prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex has constituted a specific manifestation of the principle of equality since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was subsequently reiterated with binding status by Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 2.2. of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which provides, in an analogous manner, that the rights enunciated in the Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 3 ICCPR reiterates the prohibition concerning discrimination on the grounds of sex, stressing the need to guarantee equality between men and women, through an incidental provision implying positive obligations for the States that are obliged to comply with it. See Panella 2020, pp. 367–395.
- 13.
See for example Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 ICCPR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the ECHR. On this point, see Henrard 2008, Section 3.
- 14.
Such as for example Article 14 ECHR; Fredman 2011, pp. 175 et seq.
- 15.
See e.g. paras 18–20 of the Austrian law of 1978; Articles 14, 15 and 17 EGBGB; Articles 29(2) and 31(1) of the Italian law on private international law. See Bucher 2000, pp. 42 et seq.
- 16.
GA Res. 34/180 (18 December 1979).
- 17.
Mancini 1851, pp. 23 et seq.
- 18.
If this is not possible in accordance with codified rules on the conflict of laws, the need to achieve internationally harmonious solutions will guide the recourse to interpretative instruments, such as classification, renvoi, preliminary references, etc. See Tonolo 2011a, pp. 178–192.
- 19.
Mayer 1991, p. 659.
- 20.
So-called ‘freundliche Zulassung’ is inspired by similar principles; see Savigny 1849, p. 28.
- 21.
Tonolo 2011b, p. 176.
- 22.
Court of Cassation, Judgment of 16 January 1861, Ancel and Lequette 2006, pp. 34 et seq.
- 23.
- 24.
See e.g. BVerfG, Judgment of 30 November 1988, in BverfGE, 79, 203209: ‘In der Anwendung seines Heimatrechts kann gerade keine Diskriminierung des Beschwerdeführers gesehen werden’; see generally Juenger 1972, p. 290.
- 25.
Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, Nottebohm Case, second phase, Judgment of 5 April 1955, ICJ Reports 1955, p. 4. Liechtenstein claimed restitution and compensation from the Government of Guatemala on the grounds that the latter had acted towards Friedrich Nottebohm, a citizen of Liechtenstein, in a manner contrary to international law. Guatemala disputed the Court’s jurisdiction but the Court overruled this objection in a judgment of 18 November 1953. In a second judgment, given on 6 April 1955, the Court held that Liechtenstein’s claim was inadmissible on grounds relating to Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality. It was the bond of nationality between a State and an individual which alone conferred upon the State the right to put forward an international claim on his behalf. Mr Nottebohm, who was then a German national, had settled in Guatemala in 1905 and continued to reside there. In October 1939—after the outbreak of the Second World War—while on a visit to Europe, he obtained Liechtenstein nationality and returned to Guatemala in 1940, where he resumed his former business activities until his removal as a result of war measures in 1943. On the international level, the grant of nationality need only be recognised by other States if it represents a genuine connection between the individual and the State granting nationality. However, Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality was not based on any genuine prior link with Liechtenstein and the sole purpose of his naturalisation was to enable him to acquire the status of a neutral national in time of war. For these reasons, Liechtenstein was not entitled to take up his case and to bring an international claim in his behalf against Guatemala.
- 26.
Ibid., p. 24.
- 27.
Ballarino 1982, p. 336.
- 28.
See e.g. Article 24 ICCPR.
- 29.
This is however a provision of limited relevance both in terms of its subjective and objective applicability (developing countries and economic rights), and also as regards the ability to derogate from that exception on the basis of rights guaranteed under other international instruments concerning human rights.
- 30.
G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), 21 December 1965.
- 31.
Thanks to this provision, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination has in some cases objected to distinctions based on nationality that de facto entail racial discrimination, which is prohibited under Article 1, for instance in the case of Ziad Ben Ahmed Habassi v. Denmark, Communication no. 10/1997, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/54/D/10/1997 (1997), para 9.3.
- 32.
Article 10(2) of the Constitution: ‘The legal status of foreign nationals shall be regulated by law in accordance with international law and treaties’.
- 33.
Paladin 1965, p. 530.
- 34.
See e.g. in Germany BVerfG, Judgment of 18 July 2006, in BVerfGE, 116, p. 243.
- 35.
Gaygusuz v. Austria, App. No. 16213/90, Judgment of 16 September 1996, in which national legislation that subjected the right to obtain pension benefits to preconditions of reciprocity with the country of citizenship of the individuals concerned was ruled incompatible with Article 14 ECHR; see also for a similar finding Koua Poirrez v. France, App. No. 40892/98, Judgment of 30 September 2003.
- 36.
As was recognised by the Luxembourg Court in its judgment of 5 July 1997 in Case C-64/96 and Case C-65/96, Land Nordrhein—Westfalen v. Uecker and Jacquet, para 16, in relation to the free movement of workers.
- 37.
Judgment of 2 March 2010 in Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern [2010] ECR I-1449 et seq, para 39.
- 38.
Migliazza 1986, p. 360.
- 39.
See Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 71 of 5 March 1987 in Foro it., 1987, I, c. 2316 et seq; Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 477 of 25 November 1987, in Riv. dir. int., 1988, pp. 220 et seq, in which it declared unconstitutional Article 20(1) of the preliminary provisions to the Civil Code ‘insofar as it provides that, where both parents are known and there is no national law common to them, that the national law of the father shall prevail’. Moreover, Italian women were also discriminated against by the Italian rules on citizenship, which provided that an Italian woman who married a foreign national lost her Italian citizenship if she acquired that of the husband through marriage, whereas the same rule did not apply to male Italian citizens; on this point, see Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 87 of 16 April 1975, in Riv. dir. int., 1975, pp. 343 et seq. On this point, see in general Ziccardi 1975, pp. 1313–1332.
- 40.
Similar problems arise under other national conflict of laws systems in which the linking factor of citizenship is relied on in relation to one of the parties to the family relationship. This occurs for example under German law, which moreover imposes a broad limit in order to protect the principle of equality according to Article 3 of the Grundgesetz. See Hattenhauer 1971, p. 230.
- 41.
Bariatti 2011, pp. 1–19.
- 42.
See on this point Davì 1994, pp. 96 et seq.
- 43.
Judgment of 10 June 1999 in Case C-430/97, Jutta Johannes v. Hartmut Johannes [1999] ECR I–3475 et seq. The specific case concerned the conflict of laws provisions laid down by Article 17(3) EGBGB concerning a mechanism provided for under the reform of German family law, the Versorgungsausgleich. This had been introduced by the law on the reform of the law of marriage and family law, the Erstes Gesetz zur Reform des Ehe- und Familienrechts, of 14 June 1976, in force since 1 July 1977, which amended §§ 1587–1587p BGB. These provisions governed the balancing payment relating to occupational invalidity and retirement benefits payable in the event of divorce by the spouse who is or may be entitled to claim a higher benefit, which is subject to the Ausgleich mechanism. According to § 1587(1) BGB, the creditor spouse is entitled to claim an Ausgleich (balancing payment) in the amount of one half of the difference in value. According to Article 17(3) EGBGB, the Versorgungsausgleich is governed by the law applicable to the divorce, provided however that this mechanism is required under the national law of at least one of the spouses; otherwise, the German courts may apply the Versorgungsausgleich mechanism upon request by either of the spouses insofar as any financial relationships have arisen as a result of assets held in Germany. On this issue, see Bucher 2000, pp. 136 et seq.
- 44.
Jutta Johannes, supra n. 43, para 27. For a critical analysis, see Rigaux 2000, p. 287.
- 45.
Regulation No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJEU of 29 December 2010, L 343, pp. 10 et seq. See in general: Bariatti and Ricci 2007; Viarengo 2011, p. 601; Queirolo and Carpaneto 2012, pp. 59 et seq; Röthel 2013, pp. 883 et seq.; Adobati 2017, p. 627.
- 46.
See further the Judgment of 30 April 1996 in Case C-214/94, Ingrid Boukhalfa [1996] ECR I–2253 et seq, para 19: this case concerned the prohibition on discrimination in relation to a German conflict of laws rule on service at diplomatic representations abroad, which distinguished between staff of German nationality and those who were nationals of other countries, applying German law and collective agreements in force in Germany to the former, and the law in force in the host state to the latter. The Court acknowledged that there was a problem of compatibility between the conflict of laws rule and the prohibition on discrimination as the application of Algerian law to the case before it was required under the German conflict of laws rule.
- 47.
Bariatti 2011, p. 14.
- 48.
According to Article 19(2) of Law No. 218/95: ‘If an individual is a citizen of more than one country, the applicable law shall be that of the country with which that person has the closest connection. If one of the citizenships is Italian citizenship, Italian law shall prevail’. Similar rules have been enacted in other countries, such as Article 9 of the Spanish Codigo civil, Article 5(1) of the EGBGB, § 9 of the 1978 Austrian law on private international law: see in general Clerici 1997, pp. 101 et seq.
- 49.
On this issue, see in general Pérez Vera 1996, pp. 243–425.
- 50.
Judgment of 7 July 1992 in Case C-369/90, Mario Vicente Micheletti et al v. Delegacion del Gobierno en Cantabria [1992] ECR–I, 4239 et seq.
- 51.
Bariatti 2003, p. 704.
- 52.
Judgment of 2 October 2003 in Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Belgian State [2003] I–11613 et seq, para 45. See Tonolo 2004, p. 957 et seq. On this issue see also the Judgment of 30 March 1993 in Case C-168/91, Konstantinidis [1993] I-1191. The significance of a person’s name as the object of a fundamental right was subsequently reiterated in the Judgment of 9 October 1997 in Case C-291/96, Grado and Bashir [1997] ECR-I 5531, para 15, in which the Court held that the allocation of non-discriminatory names is strictly necessary in order to protect human dignity. On the same point see the Judgment of 14 October 2008 in Case C-353/06, Grunkin Paul [2008] I-7639 et seq, regarding which see Lehmann 2008, pp. 135 et seq; Honorati 2009a, pp. 392 et seq; Lipp 2009, pp. 1 et seq. See on this issue in general Honorati 2009b, pp. 476 et seq.
- 53.
As in the case decided by the Court of Novara in its judgment of 14 July 2011, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2012, pp. 958 et seq, in which Romanian law was applied to a case involving a Romanian-Italian dual national due to the greater scope for identification under the former legal system. On the need to retain one’s name as an attendant feature to the fundamental right laid down by Article 8 ECHR, see also Kismoun v. France, App. No. 32265/10, Judgment of 5 December 2013, in which the position taken by the French State in relation to a French-Algerian citizen who had initially used a French surname, and then subsequently opted to use an Algerian surname, which was used in the country of residence, i.e. Algeria, according to which the Algerian surname could only be used in addition to the French surname, was held to violate Article 8 ECHR.
- 54.
As suggested by Judgment No. 23291 of the Court of Cassation of 13 November 2015, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2016, pp. 1090 et seq, where however the preference in favour of effective citizenship was asserted in relation to a case concerning the maintenance by a dual-nationality wife of her married name following divorce.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
ECtHR, Johnston v. Ireland, App No. 9697/82, Judgment of 18 December 1986, para 60.
- 58.
In particular as regards the prohibition on discrimination enshrined within EU law, see Mansel 2010, p. 298.
- 59.
Such as for example the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. See regarding this point the observations in Lagarde 2000.
- 60.
On the difficulties associated with defining the criterion, see Lamont 2007, pp. 261 et seq; Rogerson 2000, pp. 86 et seq. Consider e.g. Article 23 of Regulation (EC) no. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), in OJEU L 199 of 31 July 2007, pp. 40 et seq, under which for companies, associations and legal persons it is regarded as the place at which their central administration is situated. It is also possible to take account of the location of a branch office, agency or any other place of business where the relationship pertains to those entities, and for natural persons acting in the course of business the location of their principal activity and not the place chosen for their private life. On this point see: Franzina 2008, pp. 971 et seq; Symeonides 2008, pp. 173 et seq; Siehr 2010, pp. 139 et seq.
- 61.
Bucher 2000, pp. 39 et seq.
- 62.
See e.g. Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 3798 of 16 February 2008, in Fam. dir., 2008, pp. 885 et seq, with comments by Liuzzi. See also Court of Cassation, Judgments No. 6197 of 15 March 2010; No. 397 of 11 January 2006; No. 2093 of 2 February 2005; No. 13167 of 16 July 2004, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2005, pp. 147 et seq.
- 63.
See for example Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, Judgments No. 16112 of 13 June 2008, and No. 2171 of 31 January 2006, in Dir. e giust., 2006, pp. 20 et seq; Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 1058 of 23 January 2003, in Fam Dir., 2003, pp. 273 et seq.
- 64.
Under French law, see e.g. Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 14 December 2005, in Droit de la famille, 2006, p. 19, with comments by Fargé. On this point, see also Ancel and Muir Watt 2005, p. 578.
- 65.
Judgment of 2 April 2009 in Case C-523/07, A [2009] ECR I-2805 et seq.
- 66.
- 67.
Regulation (EU) no. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 was published in OJEU L 201 of 27 July 2012, pp. 107 et seq. Regarding it see: Davì and Zanobetti 2014; Bonomi and Wautelet 2015; Damascelli 2019.
- 68.
This reference must be deemed to apply to EU law following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon of 12 December 2007, OJEU C115 of 9 May 2008.
- 69.
9 March 1999 in Case C-212/97, Centros; 5 November 2002 in Case C-208/00, Überseering; Judgment of 30 September 2003 in Case C-167/01, Inspire Art; 13 December 2005 in Case C-411/03, SEVIC; 16 December 2008 in Case C-210/06, Cartesio; 25 October 2017 in Case C-106/16, Polbud-Wykonawstwo sp.z.o.o.
- 70.
- 71.
Überseering, supra n. 69, para 92.
- 72.
- 73.
De Cesari 2005, p. 433.
- 74.
De Cesari 2005, pp. 416 et seq.
- 75.
Marino 2010, pp. 13 et seq.
- 76.
- 77.
That provision was introduced in order to amend the Commission proposal, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), COM (2005) 650 def., presented by the Commission on 15 December 2005, www.europa.eu.int., which provided for habitual residence as a linking criterion, unless chosen otherwise, thus establishing a solution that did not necessarily protect the weaker party. On this issue, see Franzina 2006; Lagarde 2006, pp. 331 et seq; Mankowski 2006, pp. 101 et seq.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
Bucher 2000, pp. 71 et seq. See also the case law of the German Constitutional Court, which ruled in favour of the reference to the principle of equality as a limit on the applicability of citizenship as a linking criterion in cases in which its operation gave rise to discrimination against foreign citizens. BVerfG, Judgment of 18 July 2006, supra n. 34, pp. 266 et seq, which ruled unconstitutional a provision limiting access to the court with competence over changes to civil status records to German citizens only (or to stateless persons and refugees resident in Germany), with the result that it did not allow transsexual foreign nationals resident in Germany to alter civil status records concerning them.
- 82.
- 83.
Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 3 January 2006, Revue critique de dr. int. privé, 2006, p. 627; Cour de Cassation Judgment of 4 November 2009, Recueil Dalloz, 2010, p. 543.
- 84.
Dahir No. 1.04.22, 3 February 2004, Bulletin Officiel du Royaume du Maroc, no. 5184, 5 February 2004, p. 418.
- 85.
For some critical remarks regarding the French decisions, see: Zaher 2010, pp. 313 et seq.
- 86.
This problem was addressed within the French case law by the judgment of the Cour de Cassation, Civil Division, of 24 February 1998, in Clunet 1998, pp. 730 et seq, with comments by Kerchove.
- 87.
See regarding this issue the approach developed in France following the ruling in the Rivière case, Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 17 April 1953, in Revue critique, 1953, p. 412: this case concerned exequatur proceedings for a decree of divorce issued in Ecuador involving a couple resident in that country. The wife was a French citizen whilst the husband was a Russian-Ecuadorian dual national. The Court accepted that the divorce should be regulated by the law of their common domicile, which in this case coincided with the national law of the husband and the lex fori; other cases have applied the law of common domicile in order to ensure equal treatment for spouses of different nationality: Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 15 March 1955, in Revue critique, 1955, pp. 320 et seq; Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 15 May 1961, ibid., 1961, p. 547. On this development, which subsequently resulted in the incorporation into French law of the unilateral provision laid down by Article 310 of the Code civil (which provides for the applicability of French law to divorces involving couples comprised of French citizens or persons domiciled in France, even if they are both foreign citizens), see Bucher 2000, pp. 42 et seq.
- 88.
A case of this type was addressed the Court of Brussels in the Judgment of 16 December 1992, in Rev. trim. dr. fam., 1993, pp. 444 et seq, in which it considered whether it was possible to give effect to a recognition of paternity in relation to a Belgian citizen, whose father was Moroccan, where the father’s national law, which was applicable to him, prohibited the recognition of children born through adultery (as moreover Belgium did until the 1987 reform). The court held that it was possible to give effect to that declaration in accordance with Belgian international public policy, which ran contrary to the application of Moroccan law in the light of the principle of equality between children.
- 89.
Burghartz v. Switzerland, App. No. 16213/9, Judgment of 22 February 1994.
- 90.
Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy, App. No. 77/07, Judgment of 7 January 2014.
- 91.
Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, App. No. 29865/96, Judgment of 16 November 2004; Leventoğlu Abdulkadiroğlu v. Turkey, App. No. 7971/07, Judgment of 28 March 2013.
- 92.
However, the Court held that a refusal by the national authorities to act on an application to register children under the mother’s surname rather than that of the father, where the latter had been previously chosen by the couple as their family surname, did not violate Article 8 ECHR (Bijleveld v. Netherlands, App. No. 42973/98, Judgment of 27 April 2000; G.M.B. and K.M. v. Switzerland, App. No. 36797/97, Judgment of 27 September 2001). It also held that a refusal to allow the registration of children under a composite surname comprised of elements of the surname of both spouses also did not violate Article 8 (Von Rehlingen v. Germany, App. No. 33572/02, Judgment of 6 May 2008).
- 93.
These interpretations are proposed within the German literature on the basis of general arguments to the effect that it is preferable to replace foreign law with other provisions from the same system by adapting them to the circumstances of the individual case. See: Lewald 1939, pp. 142 et seq; Dölle 1950, pp. 397 et seq, and in particular pp. 408–409; Lagarde 1959, p. 237.
- 94.
See further Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 27592 of 28 December 2006: this case concerned the recognition of a biological child born through adultery to an Egyptian father and a Peruvian mother, which was disputed by the mother on the grounds that it contrasted with Egyptian public policy, which was applicable in accordance with Article 35(2), 2 of Law No. 218/95, which public policy stipulated that children born through adultery were ineligible for recognition. In the end, the Court applied Italian law, after having found that Egyptian law did not apply due to the breach of public policy. However, the conclusion would not have been any different had the problem been framed under Article 35(1), thus assessing the child’s eligibility for recognition in accordance with her national law (Peruvian law), which operated renvoi in favour of Italian law through its stipulation of domicile as linking criterion. Thus, a consideration of the principle of equality when choosing the linking criterion would have precluded any need to afford relevance to it as part of the review carried out upon the application of that principle for the purposes of establishing compatibility with public policy.
- 95.
Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 19599 of 30 September 2016, in Riv. dir. int . priv. proc., 2016, pp. 813 et seq; Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 14878 of 15 June 2017, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2018, pp. 408 et seq.
- 96.
Judgment No. 14878, supra n. 95, pp. 408 et seq.
- 97.
Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, Judgment No. 12193 of 8 May 2019, which resolved, not entirely without any critical aspects, a question raised by two judgments concerning different issues (Judgment No. 19599, supra n. 95, on filiation, and Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, Judgment No. 16601 of 5 July 2017, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2017, pp. 1049 et seq, on the recognition of civil convictions and punitive damages).
- 98.
Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 221 of 23 October 2019, in Corriere Giuridico, 2019, 1460, with comments by Recinto.
- 99.
ECtHR, Gas and Dubois v. France, App. No. 25951/07, Judgment of 15 March 2012. The European Court held that the Convention provisions referred to above had not been violated, finding that French legislation did not provide that cohabitees—such as the applicants in the case before it—have identical rights to married couples, whereby married couples were permitted to adopt children but civil partners who had entered into pacs were not. See further on this issue Johnson 2012, pp. 1136 et seq.
- 100.
ECtHR, Mennesson v. France, App. No. 65192/11, Judgment of 26 June 2014; Labassee v. France, App. No. 65941/11, Judgment of 26 June 2014, paras 100–101; Foulon e Bouvet v. France, App. No. 9063/14, Judgment of 21 July 2016; Laborie v. France, App. No. 44024/13, Judgment of 19 January 2017; Paradiso e Campanelli v. Italia, App. No. 25358/12, Judgment of 24 January 2017, para 195; C. and E. v. France, App. No. 1462/18 and 17348/18, Judgment of 12 December 2019; D. v. France, App. No. 11288/18, Judgment of 16 July 2020, para 64.
- 101.
ECtHR, Advisory Opinion of 10 April 2019 concerning the recognition under national law of a parent-child relationship between a minor born abroad through surrogacy and the putative mother, request no. P16-2018-001. The Opinion was issued under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which has not been ratified Italy (to date it has been ratified by Albania, Armenia, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Ukraine).
- 102.
Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 237 of 15 November 2019, in Fam. e dir., 2020, pp. 325 et seq, with comments by Sesta.
- 103.
Di Biase 2018, p. 841.
- 104.
Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 33 of 27 January 2021, para 5.6, conclusions on points of law.
- 105.
- 106.
Kinsch 2005, pp. 153 et seq.
- 107.
In Riv. dir. int., 2005, pp. 1189 et seq. On this point, see Campiglio 2008, pp. 62 et seq.
- 108.
- 109.
This is the case for Islamic reputations, which were assessed differently by the Cassation in Judgment No. 16804 of 7 August 2020 and Judgment No. 17170 of 14 August 2020, https://www.questionegiustizia.it/data/doc/2727/ripudio-16804_09_2020_oscurata_no-index.pdf. This was due to the different citizenships of the appellants, as in one case the appellant was also an Italian citizen.
- 110.
- 111.
Judgment of 1 June 1999 in Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss, para 36. On this point see Biagioni 2009, pp. 911 et seq.
- 112.
Court of Justice, Judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-36/02, Omega, para 33; Court of Justice, Judgment of 5 December 2017 in Case C-42/17, Taricco, on which see Barbieri 2018, p. 256.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
Kinsch 2005, pp. 153 et seq.
- 116.
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, in OJ no. L 18 of 21 January 1997, p. 1.
- 117.
These are the provisions concerning maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; minimum paid annual holidays; the minimum rates of pay; the conditions of hiring-out of workers; health, safety and hygiene at work; protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant women or women who have recently given birth, of children and of young people; equality of treatment between men and women.
- 118.
Judgment of 23 November 1999 in Joined Cases C-369 and C-376/96, Arblade [2001] ECR I-8453; Judgment of 15 March 2001 in Case C-165/98, Mazzoleni [2008] ECR I-2189; Judgment of 19 June 2008 in Case C-319/06, Commission v. Luxembourg [2008] ECR I-4323.
- 119.
For a discussion of this hypothesis, see De Cesari 2005, p. 401.
- 120.
Decision No. 2011-159 QPC of 5 August 2011, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/.
- 121.
Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 27 April 1868, Sirey, 1868, I, p. 257; Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 10 May 1937, Revue critique de dr. int. privé, 1937, p. 677; Cour de Cassation, Judgment of 7 December 2005, Recueil Dalloz, 2006, p. 1217.
- 122.
As mentioned above, Article 1 itself or the Law of 14 July 1819 recognises foreign citizens’ right to acquire assets comprising the estate situated in France under conditions of equality with other French citizens. On this issue, see Tonolo 2012, pp. 1056 et seq.
- 123.
Wengler 1963, p. 527.
References
Adobati E (2017) Il Regolamento (UE) No. 1259/2010 non trova applicazione in caso di divorzi privati. Diritto Comunitario e degli Scambi Internazionali:627–628
Ancel B, Lequette Y (2006) Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé. Pédone, Paris
Ancel B, Muir Watt H (2005) L’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant: le Règlement Bruxelles II bis. Revue critique de droit international privé:569–605
Ballarino T (1974) Costituzione e diritto internazionale privato. Cedam, Padova
Ballarino T (1982) Diritto internazionale privato. Cedam, Padova
Ballarino T (2009) Dalla Convenzione di Roma al regolamento Roma I. Rivista di diritto internazionale:40–64
Barbieri E M (2018) La Grande Sezione della Corte di Giustizia riesamina i problemi posti dal caso Taricco. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario:256–273
Bariatti S (2003) Prime considerazioni sugli effetti dei principi generali e delle norme materiali del Trattato CE sul diritto internazionale privato comunitario. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale: 671–706
Bariatti S (2011) Multiple Nationalities and EU Private International Law – Many Questions and Some Tentative Answers. Yearbook of Private International Law, 13:1–19
Bariatti S, Ricci C (2007) Lo scioglimento del matrimonio nei regolamenti europei: da Bruxelles II a Roma III. Cedam, Padova
Benedettelli M (2001) Libertà comunitarie di circolazione e diritto internazionale privato delle società. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale: 569–620
Bertoli P (2005) Corte di giustizia, integrazione comunitaria e diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Giuffrè, Milan
Biagioni G (2009) Article 21, Ordine pubblico del foro. In: Salerno F, Franzina P (eds) Regolamento (CE) n. 593/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 17 giugno 2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (“Roma I”). Nuove leggi civ. comm., 3–4, pp. 911–919
Bogdan M (2007) The EC Treaty and the Use of Nationality and Habitual Residence as Connecting Factor in International Family Law. In: Meeusen J (ed) International Family Law for the European Union. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp. 303–317
Bonomi A (1998) Le norme imperative nel diritto internazionale privato. Schultess, Zürich
Bonomi A (2008) The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. Some General Remarks. Yearbook of Private International Law, 10:165–185
Bonomi A (2009) Prime considerazioni sul regime delle norme di applicazione necessaria nel nuovo regolamento Roma I sulla legge applicabile ai contratti. In: Venturini G, Bariatti S (ed) Nuovi strumenti del diritto internazionale privato. Liber Fausto Pocar. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 107–124
Bonomi A, Wautelet P (2015) Il regolamento europeo sulle successioni. Giuffrè, Milan
Boschiero N (2009) La nuova disciplina comunitaria della legge applicabile ai contratti. Giappichelli, Turin
Bucher A (1993) L’ordre public et le but social des lois en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 239:9–116
Bucher A (2000) La famille en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 283:9–186
Bucher A (2011) La dimension sociale du droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 341:1–552
Campiglio C (2008) Il diritto di famiglia islamico nella prassi italiana. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:343–376
Cansacchi G (1939) Scelta e adattamento della norma straniera richiamata. Giappichelli, Turin
Carbone S M (2003) La riforma societaria fra conflitti di leggi e principi di diritto comunitario. Diritto del commercio internazionale:89–100
Cavers D F (1972) ‘Habitual Residence’: A Useful Concept? The American University Law Review, 21:475–493
Clerici R (1997) Recenti orientamenti di alcuni Stati europei nei confronti della doppia cittadinanza. In: Collisio legum, Studi di diritto internazionale privato per G. Broggini. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 101–118
Conetti G (1977) L’arrêt Martini: considerazioni sulla scelta del criterio di collegamento. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:257–283
Damascelli D (2019) Due proposte di riforma del sistema di conflitto italiano in materia di donazioni e successioni. In: Campiglio C (ed) Un nuovo diritto internazionale privato. Cedam, Padova, pp 227–249
Davì A (1994) Le questioni generali di diritto internazionale privato nel progetto di riforma. In: Gaja G (ed) La riforma del diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Raccolta in ricordo di E. Vitta. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 45–149
Davì A, Zanobetti A (2014) Il nuovo diritto internazionale privato delle successioni. Giappichelli, Turin
De Cesari P (2005) Diritto internazionale privato e processuale comunitario. Atti in vigore e in formazione nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia. Giappichelli, Turin
De Cesari P (2009) «Disposizioni alle quali non è permesso derogare convenzionalmente» e «norme di applicazione necessaria» nel regolamento Roma I. In: Venturini G, Bariatti S (eds) Nuovi strumenti del diritto internazionale privato. Liber Fausto Pocar. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 257–272
de Winter L I (1969) Nationality or Domicile? The Present State of Affairs. Recueil des Cours, 128:347–503
Di Biase A (2018) Procreazione medicalmente assistita: ordine pubblico internazionale ed interesse preminente del minore al riconoscimento della filiazione. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:839–869
Dölle H (1950) Der ordre public im internationalen Privatrecht. In: Wolff E (ed) Beiträge zum bürgerlichen Recht. De Gruyter, Tubingen
Feraci O (2012) L’ordine pubblico nel diritto dell’Unione europea. Giuffrè, Milan
Francescakis P (1966) Quelques précisions sur les “lois d’application immédiate” et leurs rapports avec les règles de conflits de lois. Revue critique de droit international privé:1–18
Francescakis P (1974) Lois d’application immédiate et droit du travail. L’affaire du comité d’entreprise de la “Compagnie des Wagon – lits”. Revue critique de droit international privé:273–296
Franzina P (2008) Il regolamento n. 864/2007 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni extracontrattuali. NLCC:991–1202
Franzina P (2019) The Purpose and Operation of the Public Policy Defence as Applied to Punitive Damages. In: Bariatti S, Fumagalli M, Crespi Reghizzi Z (eds) Punitive Damages and Private International Law: State of the Art and Future Developments. Cedam, Padova, pp 43–74
Franzina P (ed) (2006) La legge applicabile ai contratti nella proposta di regolamento “Roma I”. Cedam, Padova
Fredman S (2011) Discrimination Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fulchiron H (2006) “Ne répudiez point…” pour une interprétation raisonnée des arrêts du 17 février 2004. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 1: 7–26
Gaudemet-Tallon H (2005) Le pluralisme en droit international privé: richesses et faiblesses (Le funambule et l’arc-en-ciel), Cours general. Recueil des Cours, 312:9–488
Hammje P (1997) Droits fondamentaux et ordre public. Revue critique de droit international privé:1–31
Hattenhauer H (1971) Rechtsgeschichte. Zwischen Hierarchie und Demokratie. Eine Einführung in die geistesgechtlichen Grundlagen des geltenden deutschen Rechts. C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe
Henrard K (2008) Equality of Individuals. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/ https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e788
Honorati C (2009a) Free Circulation of Names for EU Citizens. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea:379–402
Honorati C (2009b) La legge applicabile al nome tra diritto internazionale privato e diritto comunitario nelle conclusioni degli avvocati generali. In: Venturini G, Bariatti S (eds) Nuovi strumenti del diritto internazionale privato. Liber Fausto Pocar. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 473–487
Hunter-Henin M (2006) Droit des personnes et droits de l’homme: combination ou confrontation? Revue critique de droit international privé:743–775
Johnson P (2012) Adoption, Homosexuality and the European Convention on Human Rights: Gas and Dubois v. France. Modern Law Review:1136–1149
Juenger F K (1972) The German Constitutional Court and the Conflict of Laws. AJCL:290–298
Kegel G (1953) Begriffs-und Interessenjurisprudenz im internationalen Privatrecht. In: Festschrift Lewald. Topos-Verlag, Basel, pp 259–288
Kiestra L R (2014) The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. Springer, Maastricht
Kinsch P (2005) Droits de l’homme, droits fondamentaux et droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 318:19–331
Kinsch P (2011) La non-conformité du jugement étranger à l’ordre public mise au diapason de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Revue critique de droit international privé: 817–823
Kisch I (1959) La loi plus favorable. In: Juristische Fakultät der Universität Freiburg (Schweiz) (ed) Jus et Lex, Festgabe Gutzwiller. Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel, pp 373–393
Lagarde P (1959) Recherches sur l’ordre public en droit international privé. LGDJ, Paris
Lagarde P (2000) Rapport explicatif de la Convention de La Haye du 13 janvier 2000 sur la protection internationale des adultes. Actes et documents de la Conférence de La Haye, n. 49
Lagarde P (2006) Remarques sur la proposition de règlement de la Commission européenne sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles (Rome I). Revue critique: 331–347
Lamont R (2007) Habitual Residence and Bruxelles II bis: Developing Concepts for European Private International Family Law. Journal of Private International Law:261–281
Leclerc F (1996) La protection de la partie faible dans les contrats internationaux. Bruylant, Brussels
Lehmann M (2008) What’s in a name? Grunkin–Paul and Beyond. Yearbook of Private International Law, 10:135–164
Lewald H (1939) Règles générales des conflits de lois, Contribution à la technique du droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 69:77–206
Lipp V (2009) Namensrecht und Europarecht – Die Entscheidung Grunkin-Paul II und ihre Folgen für das deutsche Namensrecht. Das Standesamt:1–8
Lorenz E (1977) Zur Struktur des internationalen Privatrechts. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Mancini P S (1851) Della nazionalità come fondamento del diritto delle genti, Prelezione al corso di diritto internazionale e marittimo dell’Università di Torino, 22 gennaio 1851, Jayme E (ed). Giappichelli, Turin, 2000
Mankowski P (2006) Der Vorschlag für die Rom I Verordnung. IPRax:101–113
Mansel H P (2010) The Impact of the European Union’s Prohibition of Discrimination and the Right of Free Movement of Persons on the Private International Law Rules of Member States – with Comments on the Sayn–Wittgenstein Case before the European Court of Justice. In: Boele-Woelki K, Einhorn T, Girsberger D, Symeonides S (eds) Liber amicorum Kurt Siehr. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 291–309
Marino S (2010) Metodi di diritto internazionale privato e tutela del contraente debole nel diritto comunitario. Giuffrè, Milan
Mayer P (1991) La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et l’application des normes étrangères. Revue critique de droit international privé: 651–665
Migliazza A (1986) Problemi generali di una nuova codificazione del diritto internazionale privato. In: Problemi di riforma del diritto internazionale privato italiano, Atti del Convegno del Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato. Milan, pp 358–382
Niboyet M L (2006) Regard français sur la reconnaissance en France des répudiations musulmanes. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 2006: 27–46
Paladin L (1965) Il principio costituzionale d’eguaglianza. Giuffrè, Milan
Panella L (2020) La Dichiarazione Universale dei diritti umani e i diritti delle donne. In: Tonolo S, Pascale G (eds) La Dichiarazione universale dei diritti umani nel diritto internazionale contemporaneo.Giappichelli, Turin, pp 367–395
Patocchi P M (1985) Règles de rattachement localisatrices et règles de rattachement à caractère substantial. Georg, Geneva
Pérez Vera E (1996) Citoyenneté de l’Union européenne, nationalité et condition des étrangers. Recueil des Cours 261: 243–425
Perlingieri G, Zarra G (2019) Ordine pubblico interno e internazionale tra caso concreto e sistema ordinamentale. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples
Pocar F (1984) La protection de la partie faible en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 188:339–417
Queirolo I, Carpaneto L (2012) Considerazioni critiche sull’estensione dell’autonomia privata a separazione e divorzio nel regolamento Roma III. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:59–86
Rigaux F (2000) “Versorgungsausgleich” and Art. 12 EC: Discriminations based on the Nationality and German Private International Law. IPRax: 287–288
Rogerson P (2000) Habitual Residence: The New Domicile? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49:86–107
Röthel A (2013) Il regolamento Roma III: spunti per una materializzazione dell’autonomia delle parti. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:883–898
Salerno F (2014) Il vincolo al rispetto dei diritti dell’uomo nel sistema delle fonti di diritto internazionale privato. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale:249–266
Salerno F (2018) La costituzionalizzazione dell’ordine pubblico internazionale. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:259–291
Salerno F, Franzina P (eds) (2009) Regolamento (CE) n. 593/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 17 giugno 2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (“Roma I”). Nuove leggi civili commentate
Savigny F C (1849) System des heutigen Römischen Rechts. Veit, Berlin
Siehr K (2010) The Rome II regulation and specific maritime torts: products liability, environmental damage, industrial action. RabelsZ, 1:139–153
Symeonides S (2008) Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity. American Journal of Comparative Law, 56:173–222
Tonolo S (2004) La legge applicabile al diritto al nome dei bipolidi nell’ordinamento comunitario. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:957–976
Tonolo S (2011a) L’Italia e il resto del mondo nel pensiero di Pasquale Stanislao Mancini. Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 3:178–192
Tonolo S (2011b) Il principio di uguaglianza nei conflitti di leggi e di giurisdizioni. Giuffrè, Milan
Tonolo S (2012) Principio di uguaglianza e operatività delle norme di conflitto in tema di successione. Rivista di diritto internazionale:1056–1073
Vanin O (2017) L’incidenza dei diritti fondamentali in materia penale sulla ricostruzione dell’ordine pubblico internazionale: il caso del riconoscimento delle decisioni straniere attributive di punitive damages. Rivista di diritto internazionale:1190–1200
Viarengo I (2011) Il regolamento UE sulla legge applicabile alla separazione e al divorzio e il ruolo della volontà delle parti. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale:601–609
Villata F C (2018) Determinazione del ‘COMI’ e libertà di stabilimento delle società nell’Unione europea. In: Leandro A, Meo G, Nuzzo A (eds) Crisi transfrontaliera di impresa: orizzonti internazionali ed europei. Cacucci, Bari, pp 83–100
Villata F C (2019) “Materia societaria” e riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato tra (improcrastinabili) esigenze di coordinamento e di modernizzazione. In: Campiglio C (ed) Il nuovo diritto internazionale privato. Cedam, Padova, pp 79–114
Vitta E (1972) Diritto internazionale privato, Vol. I. Utet, Turin
Vitta E (1979) Cours général de droit international privé. Recueil des Cours, 162:9–244
Wengler W (1963) Les conflits de lois et le principe d’égalité. Revue critique de droit international privé:203–231
Zaher K (2010) Plaidoyer pour la reconnaissance des divorces marocains. Revue critique:313–332
Zarra G (2017) L’ordine pubblico attraverso la lente del giudice di legittimità: in margine a Sezioni Unite 16601/2017. Diritto del commercio internazionale:722–749
Ziccardi P (1975) Motivi della illegittimità costituzionale dell’art. 10, 1° e 3° co. della legge italiana sulla cittadinanza. In: Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Trieste (ed) Studi in onore di M. Udina, Vol. II. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 1313–1332
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tonolo, S. (2023). Equality, Conflict of Laws and Human Rights. In: Amoroso, D., Marotti, L., Rossi, P., Spagnolo, A., Zarra, G. (eds) More Equal than Others?. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-539-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-539-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-538-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-539-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)