Recognition of talaq in European states – in search of a uniform approach

Abstract

The paper aims to answer the question if and under which conditions a talaq performed in an Islamic state may be recognised in European states. The authors provide an analysis of various forms of talaq performed in different Islamic states and reach conclusions on the effects that may be recognised in Europe, with an outlook towards a possible uniform approach. The recognition of talaqs in England and Wales, Germany and Bosnia and Herzegovina are used as examples for different solutions to similar problems before European courts. The EU legislator has not adopted a uniform approach to the application and recognition of talaqs in the EU. The CJEU got it wrong in Sahyouni II and missed the opportunity to contribute to a uniform EU policy but its subsequent decision in TB opens the door for the CJEU to overturn Sahyouni II if another case concerning a non-EU talaq divorce comes before them. The Hague Divorce Convention of 1970 is an international instrument that provides for appropriate solutions. Ratification by more states in which a talaq is a legally effective form of divorce and by more European states would provide the much-needed security for families moving from Islamic states to Europe.

Keywords:

• talaq
• private divorce
• Islamic law
• Brussels IIb Regulation
• Rome III Regulation
• Hague Divorce Convention
• public policy

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Prince Sultan University and the Governance and Policy Design Research Lab (GPDRL) for their support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 D Muydinov, “The Main Problems of Today's Migration Processes in Europe: Migration as a Political Tool” (2020) 11 Revista de Investigacion de la Catedra Internacional conjunta Inocencio 47–60, 48; A Karic, Muslimani u Evropskoj uniji (Dobra knjiga, 2015), 11.

2 Islamic law considers itself to be God given, whereas the people shall only find a way to implement it. It has four sources: Qur'an – the holy book, sunna – tradition of the last prophet, Ijmā – consensus among Islamic scholars and qiyas – analogy. Today we speak of an Islamic legal system, including a recognisable Islamic law; W B Hallaq, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 17.

3 Some authors such as Huntington, state that “that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural”. S P Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” (1993) 72 Foreign Affairs 22–49; K Kreuzer, “Clash of civilizations und Internationales Privatrecht” (2010) 1 Rechtswissenschaft 143–83, 144.

4 Institute of International Law, Krakow Session – 2005, Resolution of the Ninth Commission, Cultural Differences and Ordre Public in Family Private International Law, Rapporteur: Paul Lagarde; https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/2005_kra_02_en.pdf accessed on 12 June 2023.

5 See F C v Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts (Veit, Band 8, 1849).

6 Kreuzer, supra n 3, 146.

7 Th Rauscher, Internationales Privatrecht (Beck, 4th edn, 2012), 143.

8 N Bernard-Maugiron, “Male-Initiated Divorce Before the Egyptian Judiciary”, in E Stiles and A U Yakin (eds), Islamic Divorce in the Twenty-First Century (Rutgers University Press, 2022), 46–64; M I Mehmood, Khula in Pakistani Law (Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, 2015), 21.

9 A Shukri, Muslim Law of Marriage and Divorce (Gorgias Press, 2009), 107.

10 See, eg, Art 100(5) of the UAE Personal Status Law of 2005.

11 Shukri, supra n 9, 20.

12 M Lindbekk, “Implementing the Law of khul’ in Egypt: Tensions and Ambiguities in Muslim Family Law” (2000) 18 Hawwa 265–94.

13 See, eg, Arts 104 and 108 of the Saudi Law on personal status of 2022, Royal Decree No. M/73.

14 The terms “divorce” and “Talaq” are often treated as synonymous which comprise all forms of separation between a wife and a husband; B R Verma, Commentaries of Mohammedan Law in India and Pakistan, Revised under the guidance of Justice S. I. Jafery (Law Publishers, 7th edn, 2000), 225; Furzund Hossain v. Janu Bibee, I.L.R. (1878), Cal, p. 588. Wajid Ali Khan v. Jafar Husain Khan, A.I.R. (1932), Oudh, p. 34; Furzund Hossain v. Janu Bibee, I.L.R. (1878), Cal, p. 588.

15 M Hidayatullah and A Hidayatullah, Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law (N M Tripathi Private Limited, 19th edn, 1990), 259.

16 The individual characteristics depend on the Shariah school of law; V Gärtner, Die Privatscheidung im deutschen und gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 12; See more in A Furqan, “Understanding the Islamic Law of Divorce” (2003) Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 45 (3/4) Family Law Special Issue, 486–508; J J Nasir, The Islamic Law of Personal Status (Graham & Trotman, 2nd edn, 1990), l, 112–14.

17 Shukri, supra n 9, 95.

18 The word “Aḥsan” and “Ḥasan” derived from the root “ḥasuna” which means good. However aḥsan means the best and Ḥasan means good.

19 B A Almarghinani, The Hedaya or Guide a Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, English translation by Ch Hamilton (Premier Book House, 1982), 72.

20 2:228; The word which substitutes menstrual cycles in the Qur’ān is “Qur’”, thus the Qur’ān states, “ … women must keep themselves waiting for three qurū’”. According to the school of Imām Shāfi‘ī, Qur’ means Ṭuhr, the time between two menstrual cycles, but, contradictorily, the jurists of the Ḥanafī school say that the Arabic word Qurū’ is the plural form of Qur’ which means Ḥayḍ (menstrual cycles); Almarghinani, supra n 19, 422.

21 Almarghinani, supra n 19, 422.

22 Ibid.

23 A A Khallāf, Aḥkām al-Aḥwāl al-Shakhṣiyyah fī al-Sharī‘at al-Islāmiyyah ‘alā wafq Madhhab Abī Ḥanīfah (Dār al-Qalam lī al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī‘, 2nd edn, 1990), 168–69.

24 M A Haskafī, Al-Dur al-Mukhtār. English translation by B M Dayal (Kitab Bhavan, 1992), 280.

25 A A A Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law (Oxford University Press, 5th edn, 2005), 102.

26 W Al-Zuḥaylī, Al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa Adillatuhū (Dār al-Fikr, 2nd edn, 1985), V. VII, 426.

27 A Ahmad, Mohammedan Law. Revised by I A Khan (Central Law Agency, 2004), 64.

28 Fyzee, supra n 25, 153; Almarghinani, supra n 19, V. II, 354.

29 Shukri, supra n 9, 99.

30 According to Islamic belief, bid’ah includes any type of religious activities invented beyond those introduced by the Prophet during his lifetime. Such invention is a major sin according to the Shariah because it is viewed as modifying the decrees of God.

31 This talaq is bid’ah because it is not approved by Islamic tradition and is also considered an undesirable act. It is the most disapproved form of talaq; S A Ali, Muhammadan Law with an Epilog of Tahir Mahmood (Himaliya Books, 1985), V. II, 474–75.

32 N B E Baillie, A Digest of Moohummudan Law (Smith, Elder & Co, 1985), 207; If the marriage has not been consummated and there has not even been a valid retirement, under the Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī laws, then such a pronouncement of talaq shall take effect as talaq al-ḥasan. Almarghinani, supra n 19, V. II, 355.

33 N Bernard-Maugiron, “Male-Initiated Divorce Before the Egyptian Judiciary”, in E Stiles and A U Yakin (eds), Islamic Divorce in the Twenty-First Century (Rutgers University Press, 2022), 46–64.

34 Supreme Court of India, Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017] 9 SCC 1.

35 Eg, In Egypt between 1920 and 2000, there were several legislative acts adopted in the field of family law which were then encompassed by the Law no. 10 on family law in 2004. H El Akrat, “Ägypten”, in J Rieck (ed) Ausländisches Familienrecht (Beck, vol 18, 2019), 1.

36 M P Weller, I Hauber and A Schulz, “Gleichstellung im Internationalen Scheidungsrecht – talaq und get im Licht des Art. 10 Rom–III VO” (2016) 36 (2) Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax), 123–32.

37 Kreuzer, supra n 3, 157.

38 In Afghanistan the release of a woman may be performed without stating any reason, without witnesses, any need for registration or involvement of a state authority, Art 135 of the Civil Code. Gärtner, supra n 16.

39 Art 20 of the Egyptian Personal Status Law no. 1 of 2000; M Al-Sharmani, Gender Justice and Legal Reform in Egypt (The American University in Cairo Press, 2017); S Rizkallah, Khul in Egypt (Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, 2014), 37.

40 In Pakistan, the Muslim divorce is regulated in accordance with the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961 in the version of Family Courts Act of 2002 as well as Punjab Muslim Family Ordinance of 1961 – Arts 6, 7 and 8 MFLO. The wife has the possibility, apart from the khul’, to request for a divorce under certain conditions (Art 2 Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939): unknown domicile of the husband for 4 years, non-payment of maintenance in the period of 2 years, prison sentence for a period of 7 years, the marriage with another woman contrary to the law, non-fulfilment of marriage obligations for a period of 3 years, impotence of the husband that existed at the time of marriage conclusion, psychological disease for a period of 2 years, if a woman younger than 16 refuses a marriage agreed upon by her husband, in case of the abuse of the woman. J Rieck, “Pakistan”, in Rieck, supra n 35, 41–43.

41 Part 5. Muhammeden Marriage and Divorce Act of 1941 revised in 1955.

42 Arts 106 and 107 Law on personal status no. 28 of 2005. I Gallala-Arnd, “Vereinigte Arabische Emirate”, in Rieck, supra n 35, 9–11.

43 Art 101 Law on personal status of 1975; Gärtner, supra n 16, 15.

44 Art 7 MFLO.

45 In Iran, the divorce is regulated by the Civil Code and Marriage law. The right to divorce is regulated as the right of the husband (Arts 1133, 1143–1149. Civil Code and Art 1 Marriage Law), but the wife can also file for divorce under certain conditions (Arts 1029–1130. Civil Code and Art 4 Marriage law). E Unger, “Iran”, in Rieck, supra n 35, 11–14.

46 Art 36 (1) Law on personal status of 1976, Gärtner, supra n 16, 15.

47 Arts 90 and 91 Law on personal status of 2022, Royal Decree No. M/73.

48 Art 49 (1) Law no. 84-11 from 9.6.1984 and the Family law of 27.2.2005. Gärtner, supra n 16, 16.

49 Art 36 Law no. 10 on the personal status of 19.4.1984. The registered consensual divorce is provided by Arts 28 and 35.

50 Art 39 (1) of the Family law.

51 The divorce is regulated by the Family law, Arts 78–124. H El Arkat, “Marokko”, in Rieck, supra n 35, 17–19.

52 Talaq is deleted by the Regulation of 13.8.1956, which entered into force on 1.1.1957. The divorce is regulated by Art. 31. 3. (3) Law on personal status. Gärtner, supra n 16, 18.

53 D Stamatiadis and S Tsantinis, “Eherecht in Griechenland”, in G Ring and R Süβ (eds), Eherecht in Europa (Zerb Verlag, 2006), 572.

54 L Papadopoulou, “Trapped in History: Greek Muslim Women under the Sacred Islamic Law”, (2010) 5 Annuaire International des droits de l'homme 397–418, 399.

55 Application no. 20452/14 [2018]; See M Ní Shúilleabháin and J Holliday, “Divorce” in P Beaumont and J Holliday (eds) A Guide to Global Private International Law (Hart, 2022) 451–65.

56 Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction of 17 December 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I, 2586, 2587), last amended by Art 2 of the Act of 22 June 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I 866).

57 R Hausmann, Internationales und Europäisches Familienrecht (Beck, 2018), Ehesachen, para 204.

58 J Antomo, “Reformbedarf bei der Anerkennung von Privatscheidungen” (2018) 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Familienrecht, 243–49.

59 Civil Code in the version promulgated on 2 January 2002 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I 42, 2909; 2003 I 738), last amended by Art 4 para 5 of the Act of 1 October 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I 3719).

60 Introductory Act to the Civil Code in the version promulgated on 21 September 1994, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I 2494, last amended by Art 2 of the Act of 25 June 2021 (Federal Law Gazette I 2133); Art 240 last amended by Art 10 of the Act of 22 December 2020 (Federal Law Gazette I, 3328).

61 1259/2010 EU [2010] OJ L343, 10–16.

62 K Johanssen, D Heinrich and Ch Althammer, Familienrecht (Beck, 7th edn, 2020), § 107 FamFG, para 11.

63 C-281/15 Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch EU:C:2016:343; C-372/16 Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch EU:C:2017:998.

64 17.12.2018 Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I 2573 (Nr. 47); see A Dutta, “Private divorces outside Rome III and Brussels II bis? the ‘Sahyouni’ gap: case C-372/16, Soha Sahyouni v. Raja Mamisch, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017, EU:C:2017:988” (2019) 56 Common Market Law Review 1661–671, 1668.

65 Even before the legislative reform in 2018, courts continued to apply the Rome III Regulation by analogy; A Dutta, “Ausländische Privatscheidungen nach Sahyouni. Viele Fragen nach EuGH, Urt. v. 20.12.2017 – C-372/16” (2018) 22 Forum Familienrecht 60–64.

66 Antomo, supra n 58, 246.

67 The provision was adopted based on a proposal from Spanish representatives based on the Spanish Código Civil, Art 107(2)(c), with the intent to attract also Nordic states which want to protect themselves from Islamic provisions which discriminate against women. P Winkler von Mohrenfels, “Die Rom III-VO, Teilvereinheitlichung des europäischen internationalen Scheidungsrechts” (2013) 21 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 699–724, 713; Weller, Hauber and Schulz, supra n 36, 127.

68 Winkler von Mohrenfels, supra n 67, 713. R Hepting and A Dutta, Familie und Personenstand (Beck, 2019), 306–07.

69 T Helms, “Reform des Internationalen Scheidungsrecht durch die Rom III–Verordnung” (2011) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1765, 1772.

70 Weller, Hauber and Schulz, supra n 36, 128.

71 U P Gruber, “Scheidung auf Europäisch – die Rom III-Verordnung” (2012) 32 IPRax 391; W Hau, “Zur Durchführung der Rom III – Verordnung in Deutschland” (2013) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 249, 254.

72 This clause should be understood as a special ordre public clause applicable to concrete cases, besides the ordre public clause in Art 12 of the Rome III Regulation. C Kohler and W Pintens, “Entwicklung im europäischen Personen- und Familienrecht 2010–2011” (2011) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1434.

73 J Basedow, “Das internationale Scheidungsrecht in der EU, Anmerkungen zur Rom III –Verordnung”, in T Boric, B Lurger, P Schwarzenegger and U Terlitz (eds), Öffnung und Wandel – Die internationale Dimension des Rechts II, FS für Willibald Posch (Lexis Nexis, 2011), 31.

74 L-M Möller, “No Fear of Talaq: A Reconsideration of Muslim Divorce Laws in Light of the Rome III Regulation” (2014) 10 Journal of Private International Law 461, 470; See A Durakovic, J Alihodzic, and Z Meskic, “Europeanization of Public Policy in International Family Law – Overriding National Values or Gradual Harmonization?” (2020) 23 Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 1–13.

75 See, eg, the decision of OLG Zweibrücken on a talaq performed under the law of Lebanon, 16.11.2001 – 2 UF 80/00, NJW-RR 2002, 581.

76 P Hay and T Krätzschmar Internationales Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht (Beck, 4th edn, 2010), 136; This is in line with the general understanding of ordre public in private international law; Z Meskic and S Djordjevic Bosnia and Herzegovina, in B Verschraegen (ed) International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Private International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2018), 63.

77 See, eg, the decision of OLG Frankfurt on a talaq performed under the law of Pakistan, 11.5.2009 – 5 WF 66/09, NJW-Spezial 2009, 758; Further references in U Gruber, in Th Heidel, R Hüßtege, H-P Mansel, and U Noack, BGB Allgemeiner Teil / EGBGB, (Beck, 4. edn, 2021), para 55; M Ferid and Ch Böhmer, Internationales Privatrecht (Metzner, 1986), paras 8–176.

78 See, eg, the decision of OLG Zweibrücken on a talaq performed under the law of Lebanon, 16.11.2001 – 2 UF 80/00, NJW-RR 2002, 581; Further references in Gruber, supra n 77, para 55.

79 OLG Stuttgart, 03.05.2019 – 3465 E – 519/18.

80 P Stone, “The Recognition in England of Talaq Divorces” (1985) 14 Anglo-American Law Review 363–78, 365.

81 M M Freeman, “Marriage and Divorce in England” (1995) 29 Family Law Quarterly 549, 562.

82 I Bantekas, “Transnational Talaq (divorce) in English Courts: Law Meets Culture” (2013) 9 Journal of Islamic State Practices in International Law 40–60.

83 Convention of 1 June 1970 on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, entered into force on 24 August 1975. The Hague Divorce Convention will be discussed in more detail later in this article.

84 S Gondal, “Limping Marriages: A Problem Cured or Hidden?” (2021) 51 Family Law 1180–186, 1182.

85 [1979] 3 All ER 897 HL(E), [1979] 3 WLR 833, [1980] AC 744.

86 Stone, supra n 80, 364, with further references.

87 Bantekas, supra n 82, 40–60.

88 M M Pilkington, “Transnational Divorces under the Family Law Act 1986” (1988) 37 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 131–43, 131.

89 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Fatima [1986] 2 FLR 294.

90 Stone, supra n 80, 374.

91 It is not anymore referring to “proceedings instituted”, but to a “divorce obtained”, which opened the door for a possibly more divorce friendly interpretation; Pilkington, supra n 88, 135.

92 A Reed, “Transnational non-judicial divorces: comparative analysis of recognition under English and U.S. jurisprudence” (1996) 18 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 311–38, 326.

93 Berkovits v Grinberg [1995] Fam 142; M Ní Shúilleabháin and J Holliday, “Divorce”, in P Beaumont and J Holliday (eds) A Guide to Global Private International Law (Hart, 2022), 451–65.

94 S Gondal, “Limping Marriages: A Problem Cured or Hidden?” (2021) 51 Family Law, 1180–186, 1182; Reed, supra n 92, 314.

95 J Kwan, “Does the English Approach to Non-Traditional Marriages and Divorces Betray Pluralism” (2009) 3 Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies 137–68, 153.

96 Stone, supra n 80, 375.

97 H v S [2011] EWHC B23 (Fam).

98 Ibid, 61.

99 Pilkington, supra n 88, 138.

100 I Bantekas, “English Courts and Transnational Islamic Divorces: What Role for Personal Liberty of Muslim Women?” (2021) 12 University of Miami Race and Social Justice Law Review 1–23, 3; Only exceptionally have English courts dealt with the question if the talaq obtained in the state of origin violated the rights of women under the public policy exception and even in these rare cases have found no violation, see Bantekas, supra n 82, 40–60, 45.

101 El-Fadl v. El-Fadl [2000] 1 FLR (Fam.) 175.

102 Stone, supra n 80, 371.

103 According to the last census of 2013 in BiH there are 50.7% Muslims, 30.7% Orthodox and 15.9% Catholics.

104 OJ Republika Srpska, BiH, no. 54/2002, 41/2008 and 63/2014.

105 OJ FBIH, BIH, no. 35/05 and 31/14.

106 OJ District Brcko, BiH, no. 23/2007.

107 Arts 52–55 Family Law of Republika Srpska, BiH, Arts 41–44 Family Law of F BiH, BIH and Arts 39–40 Family Law of Brcko District BiH.

108 Art 35 Litigation procedure law of FBiH, Art 35 Litigation procedure law of Republika Srpska, BiH, Art 28 Litigation procedure law of Brcko District BiH.

109 See: I Grbin, Priznanje i izvršenje odluka stranih sudova (Informator, 1980), 20–21.

110 The Yugoslav PIL Code was first taken over in the legal system of BIH by the Regulation with the effect of act no 2 in 1992, which was later confirmed by the Act on the confirmation of the regulations with the effect of act, Official Journal of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, No 13/1994.

111 M Dika, G Kneževic and S Stojanovic, Komentar zakona o međunarodnom privatnom i procesnom pravu (Nomos, 1991), 282.

112 B Bordaš, Porodičnopravni odnosi u međunarodnom privatnom pravu (Forum, 2000), 117.

113 Ibid.

114 Cantonal Court of Zenica, 29.06.2022, Order no. 004-0-SuSpi-22-000055.

115 Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction, [2019] OJ L178, 1–115.

116 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, 1–29. This Regulation was repealed on 1 August 2022 by the Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111.

117 Law no 132 of 12.9.2014; M G Cubeddu Wiedemann and D Henrich, Neue Trennungs- und Scheidungsverfahren in Italien (2015) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1254.

118 Law no 2016-1547 of 18.11.2016; L S Gössl, “Open Issues in European International Family Law: Sahyouni, ‘Private Divorces’ and Islamic Law under the Rome III Regulation” (2017) 17 The European Legal Forum 68.

119 Law no 15/2015 of 2.7.2015; D Henrich, “Privatscheidung in Spanien” (2015) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1572.

120 Family law of Slovenia, Uradni list RS, št. 15/17 of 31.3.2017; S Kraljic, Družinski zakon s komentarjem (Poslovna zalozba, 2018), 280–85.

121 Art 1491 of the Greek Civil Code; R Hausmann, Internationales und Europäisches Familienrecht (Beck, 2018), Ehesachen, para 207.

122 R Hausmann, Internationales und Europäisches Familienrecht (Beck, 2018), 6, 7; W Pintens, in U Magnus and P Mankowski (ed), ECPIL – Brussels IIbis Commentary (Dr. Otto Schmidt, 2017), 85.

123 C-372/16 Sahyouni II EU:C:2017:998.

124 C-646/20 TB EU:C:2022:879.

125 In Sahyouni I the CJEU rejected the preliminary questions in an order because the recognition of divorces from third states falls outside of the Brussels IIa Regulation and it was not clear to the CJEU how the Rome III Regulation could be of relevance for recognition of divorces, as it only regulates the applicable law; C-281/15 EU:C:2016:343.

126 Sahyouni II, supra n 123.

127 See more on the applicability of the Regulation in marital matters in A Durakovic, Međunarodno privatno pravo razvoda braka u Europskoj uniji i Bosni i Hercegovini (Mostar, 2016), 80–84 and 109–13; J Alihodžic, Razvoj evropskog međunarodnog privatnog prava: pravci reforme zakonodavstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (Tuzla, 2012), 123–27 and 213–14.

128 Antomo, supra n 58, 243–49.

129 Winkler von Mohrenfels, supra n 67, 704; C Rudolf, “Europäisches Kollisionsrecht für Ehescheidungen – Rom III-VO” (2012) 7 Zeitschrift für Familien- und Erbrecht 101–05, 102.

130 Sahyouni II, supra n 123, para 40.

131 Sahyouni II, supra n 123, para 45.

132 Such as Arts 1(2), 5(2) and (3), 8, 13, and 18(2) of the Rome III Regulation.

133 Sahyouni II, supra n 123, para 39.

134 Law No 59 of 1953, translation to English available at: https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/syria/3370708/law-59-of-1953-personal-status-law.html.

135 Higher Regional Court Munich, Order from 13.03.2018 – 34 Wx 146/14.

136 TB, supra n 124.

137 TB, supra n 124, para 48.

138 TB, supra n 124, para 50.

139 Sahyouni II, supra n 123, para 45.

140 Sahyouni II, supra n 123, para 47.

141 TB, supra n 124, para 61.

142 TB, supra n 124, para 61.

143 E Bargelli, “Reshaping the Boundaries Between ‘Decision’ and Party Autonomy. The CJEU on the Extrajudicial Italian Divorce” (2023) 8 European Papers 43–53, 46 (available at https://www.europeanpapers.eu/es/system/files/pdf_version/EP_EF_2023_I_003_Elena_Bargelli_00633.pdf last accessed on 12 June 2023).

144 A Dutta, Mitgliedstaatliche Privatscheidungen vor dem EuGH: Was bleibt nach TB vom neuen Art. 65 Abs. 1 Brüssel IIb-VO? (2023) 70 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 16–18.

145 C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH v Emilio Boch EU:C:1994:221.

146 TB, supra n 124, para 57.

147 P Bellet and B Goldman, Explanatory Report to the Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separation (HCCH, 1971) 7.

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid, 6.

150 Arts 2–5 of the Hague Divorce Convention; H van Loon, “The Accommodation of Religious Laws in Cross-Border Situations: The Contribution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law” (2010) 2 Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 261–67, 263.

151 Art 11of the Hague Divorce Convention. See S Shakargy, “Marriage by the State or Married to the State on Choice of Law in Marriage and Divorce” (2013) 9 Journal of Private International Law 499–534, 521.

152 T Waerstad, “Harmonising Human Rights Law and Private International Law through the Ordre Public Reservation: The Example of the Norwegian Regulation of the Recognition of Foreign Divorces” (2016) 3 Oslo Law Review 51–71, 67.