You specialise in a specific branch of law that connects legal norms with personal relationships. What motivated you to choose this area, and what milestones would you highlight in your scientific career?
My interest in the subjects I research and teach (Private International Law and Family and Succession Law) stems primarily from a particular fondness, which dates back to my undergraduate days, for private law that links, as mentioned in the question, legal norms with inter-individual relationships, whether strictly personal or predominantly patrimonial. Looking back over my professional and academic path, I can conclude that nothing went exactly as planned, including the areas that interested me and those in which I eventually worked. First of all, the choice of degree: I hesitated between History (my favourite subject), Fine Arts (drawing, for which I had some aptitude, and painting and architecture, as a spectator, remain contexts where I feel truly happy), and Law, which I ultimately chose, influenced by the cinematic imagination of the courtroom and the general external opinion predicting a particular talent for oral communication. At the time, I knew little or nothing about Law, except the political aspects I imagined I would enjoy. A double mistake, because I neither enjoyed studying public law (constitutional, administrative, etc.) nor felt comfortable in the courtroom. On the other hand, what truly drew me was civil law: applying legal solutions to everyday life – the contracts we all enter into, the legal implications of family relationships we are part of, the property rights we acquire. My particular interest in Private International Law grew from privileged classes at the Catholic University, taught by Professor Rui Moura Ramos – with whom I later studied for my Master’s at the University of Coimbra and who supervised my doctoral thesis at the University of Porto – and from the intellectual challenge the subject presented, a field widely recognised as complex but highly logical, which paradoxically motivates somewhat lazy people like myself. Then came the happy accident: at the Faculty of Law of the University of Porto, I had the opportunity to teach Private International Law and Family and Succession Law, and I ultimately focused my research on these areas.
In your view, how should the law approach the tension between private autonomy, limits imposed by public order, and the need to protect collective and third-party interests?
Modern Private International Law, particularly that applied by Portuguese courts today and largely of European origin, attempts, and partly succeeds, in achieving this balance. On one hand, it allows parties a choice of law and jurisdiction even in matters traditionally removed from conflict-of-law autonomy, such as family relations: this results from European regulations that, over the last decade, have standardised conflict-of-law and jurisdiction rules across Europe in areas such as divorce, property regimes, and inheritance, as was already the case in contractual and non-contractual obligations. But even granting parties this autonomy and free arrangement of their interests through typically conflictual mechanisms, the choice of law and jurisdiction rules exist to protect third-party interests, which might otherwise be affected by such autonomy, altering the conflictual and material framework they expected. At the same time, the possibility for a forum to apply mandatory rules, bypassing the conflict-of-law system in matters of clear public, organisational, or economic interest, even within private law, has been established, particularly through enabling provisions in European regulations. The concept of international public order today also extends beyond the territorial limits of the forum, asserting a European public order and values, which is often applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union in interpreting European-source Private International Law.
What role do you attribute today to Comparative Law in relation to patrimonial issues and Private Law?
In the specific case of Private International Law, especially the Law of Conflicts, one can even assert that it has always thrived on the comparison of foreign legal figures and institutions; such comparison is part of its DNA. The hypothesis or provision of bilateral conflict rules, recognising the competence of substantive rules from different legal systems in contact with cross-border situations, is open to solutions different from domestic law or even unknown to it, as long as they share the same essential socio-legal function. The role of Comparative Law, in both patrimonial and personal matters, is even foundational to the construction of uniform Private International Law, of European or conventional origin: every European regulation in these areas begins its legislative process by consulting Member States on the “state” and content of their substantive and conflict-of-law rules to find the necessary compromises for approval of the proposals.
Would you say that international mobility and the diversity of family models have significantly impacted the analysis and reconfiguration of Family and Succession Law?
Clearly, yes, and on two distinct levels, depending on whether one looks at the matter from the perspective of substantive law or conflict-of-law rules. The latter, first, because it depends on this mobility and diversity; that is, a Private International Law issue only arises when a family or succession relationship spans multiple locations, such as when parties have different nationalities, live abroad, or acquire property or enter contracts in different states. Even if no strict conflict-of-law issue arises, it remains important to recognise in the forum certain legal situations formed abroad, especially personal and family status, which is a Private International Law concern in a broad sense. From a conflict perspective, these issues only gain social and practical relevance when it matters whether law A or law B applies, which occurs when these laws recognise and regulate family organisation differently. From a strictly substantive perspective, in terms of legislative policy or legal interpretation, international mobility opens the door to new values, lifestyles, and social organisation, which, in the medium term, contribute to the development of a (new) Family and Succession Law.
Which aspects of the patrimonial effects of marriage and unions in international contexts do you consider still insufficiently debated, either in doctrine or in practice?
Analysis and commentary of the (new) European regulations that have reconfigured Private International Law on the patrimonial effects of marriage and cohabitation have already revealed gaps and practical issues. Firstly, the limitation of new private international legislation on patrimonial effects to registered partnerships, leaving similar unregistered relationships in the shadows, as occurs in Portugal and other states; questions remain about determining the parties’ habitual residence, particularly after marriage, or changes to property regimes resulting from choosing a law different from the one that previously applied, among others. Perhaps the most pressing discussion concerns the applicable law to the very constitution of the marriage or cohabitation, which is not harmonised in the EU and arises inevitably when discussing patrimonial effects. Another important gap, now gaining attention, is the need to update and adapt registration law to Private International Law, especially of European origin .
Regarding European regulation and legal instruments, do you consider it a challenge to harmonise practices without undermining the internal coherence and jurisprudence of national legal systems?
I do not think this is a problem specific to European legal instruments, at least for cross-border legal relationships. Conflict-of-law systems, the most common method of regulating such relationships, have always coexisted with the possibility of a forum applying foreign law, along with the attendant issues (knowledge, interpretation, or coexistence of similar legal situations), some governed by domestic law and others by foreign law. This can be challenging for national jurisprudence, but in the absence of special substantive law for cross-border relations, it is the most accurate method, taking into account proximity of facts, parity of legal systems, and recognition of continuity beyond borders. Where applying foreign law violates the forum’s fundamental legal principles, tools such as international public order, mandatory rules, or autonomous constitutional limits serve, as always, as “pressure valves” for the system. The Europeanisation of Private International Law actually facilitates national courts, which can rely on the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify interpretations and harmonise application. This does not ignore points of friction from practices of the CJEU that can be considered “normative,” potentially exceeding its remit by imposing recognition of legal situations contrary to national law in areas under exclusive Member State competence. Examples include rulings on naming, same-sex marriage, and dual-mother parentage .
In this increasingly international and interdisciplinary context, what major challenges do you currently identify in your field? Are there emerging lines of research likely to be particularly decisive in the coming years?
As mentioned earlier, the greatest challenges in international family and succession relations arise from “fracturing” issues even within Member States’ domestic law, involving new family models (same-sex marriage, cohabitation, non-biological parentage), and the clash of civilisational or religious values with legal systems from other jurisdictions that recognise polygamous or child marriages, and various forms of discrimination, particularly against women or people of different races or ethnicities. On the European agenda, proposals on parentage and adult protection are already under discussion, the latter particularly relevant given ageing populations in the Western world. Additionally, while less obvious in family law but evident in succession law, digitalisation presents challenges, from post-mortem management of digital assets to digital formalisation of wills. Modernising registration law and adapting it to increasing international mobility and specific Private International Law issues also requires attention.
How do you believe Private International Law can, or should, maintain a clear connection to public interest and the concrete realities of people?
I dare to quote Ferrer Correia, who wrote decades ago on the rationale for applying and recognising civil laws across borders: “…it is fundamentally for the attention to the interests of individuals… their acts and contracts, their rights and duties, in short, the various matters of their lives and the wills they leave to be fulfilled after death.” Private International Law may seem “instrumental,” since it does not directly regulate its subject, which is international private relations. This is partly true, as conflict rules are increasingly designed to achieve specific material outcomes, whether favouring transactions (favor negotii), divorce (favor divortii), promoting private autonomy via conflicts, or protecting the weaker party in contractual relations, especially consumers or workers. Moreover, Private International Law ensures people’s integration into new geographical, political, and legal contexts, by guaranteeing the application of law from their new habitual residence, while also allowing them to maintain links to their original legal system. Without Private International Law, the concrete interests of people, and therefore the public interest in stability and social peace, would hardly be safeguarded.
|
