PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.62.2
S. Deuring examines the choice of law for cross-border unjust enrichment through a dispute in which the professional-liability insurer of a German notary sought repayment from a bank established in France. The central question is how the connecting rules in Article 10 of the Rome II Regulation operate in multi-party relationships.
The French Cour de cassation ultimately applied German unjust-enrichment law, although the reasoning supporting that result is criticised as unconvincing. The court rejected accessory connecting under Article 10(1), treated Article 10(3) as referring to the law of the place of enrichment, and left the assessment of the closest connection under Article 10(4) to the lower courts’ evaluation of the individual circumstances.
Determining the law applicable under Article 10 of the Rome II Regulation to the cross-border unjust-enrichment relationship between a German notary’s insurer and a bank established in France.
The analysis provides a concrete judicial approach to applying Article 10 of Rome II in multi-party unjust-enrichment relationships. It does not report a direct Turkish decision or legislative change, but offers a comparative example of determining the applicable law by reference to the place of enrichment and the closest connection.
IPRax · 2026
Publication ID Heft 5/2026 (September 2026) · 483