¹ Clearly, European authorities would object to that, as they rule that European Union law is superior to the constitution of the Member States. But French highest courts have ruled in recent years that they still consider the French constitution to be the highest norm in the French legal system. See Fraisse [2001] Recueil Dalloz 1636 (Cour de cassation (Ass)); Sarran v Levacher [2000] Recueil Dalloz 152 (Conseil d'Etat).

² Munzer v Munzer [1964] Rev Crit DIP 344Google Scholar; [1964] Clunet / J Dr Int 302 (Civ lère). The decision can also be found in Ancel, B and Lequette, Y, Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (5th edn, Dalloz, Paris, 2006) 357.Google Scholar

³ Bachir v Bachir [1968] Rev Crit DIP 98Google Scholar; [1969] Clunet 102 (Civ lère). See also Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 402.

⁴ See, eg, Civ lère, 1 June 1994 [1995] Rev Crit DIP 103Google Scholar; Civ lère, 17 Feb 2004 [2004] Rev Crit DIP 424.Google Scholar

⁵ See, eg, Pordea v Times Newspaper Ltd [2000] Rev Crit DIP 223 (Civ 1ère) (ruling that a security for costs was a breach of the right to a fair trial because it jeopardized access to justice).Google Scholar

⁶ Simitch v Fairhusrt [1985] Rev Crit DIP 369Google Scholar; [1985] Clunet 460 (Civ lère). See also Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 624.

⁷ ‘si le litige se rattache de manière caractérisé au pays dont le juge a été saisi’.

⁸ See, eg, Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 633; Audit, B, Droit international privé (4th edn, Economica, Paris, 2006) 380.Google Scholar

⁹ Weiss v AMACO 27 May 1970 [1971] Rev Crit DIP 113 (Civ 1ère)Google Scholar. See also Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 445.

¹⁰ See, eg, Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 761; Audit (n 8) 380.

¹¹ Mayer, P and Heuzé, V, Droit international privé (Domat-Montchrestien, Paris, 2004) 272.Google Scholar

¹² Ponsard, A, ‘Le contrôle de la compétence des juridictions étrangères’ [1985–6] Travaux Comité Fr Dr Int Pr 53Google Scholar; J Lemontey, 65.

¹³ Mayer and Heuzé (n 11) 272.

¹⁴ See Audit (n 8) 379 and the cases cited.

¹⁵ Prieur v de Montenach [2006] Rev Crit DIP 871Google Scholar; [2006] Clunet 1365 (Civ lère). See also Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 755.

¹⁶ Audit, B, ‘La fin attendue d'une anomalie jurisprudentielle: retour a la lettre de l'Article 15 du code civil’ [2006] Recueil Dalloz 1846, 1849.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See eg Audit (n 16); Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 755; Tallon, H Gaudemet [2006] Rev Crit DIP 871.Google Scholar

¹⁸ French criminal code, Art 435–3.

¹⁹ The leading case is Bauffremont v Bauffremont (1878) Clunet 505 (Civ)Google Scholar; Ancel and Lequette (n 2) 47, where Princess Bauffremont had sought Saxon nationality in order to avoid the application of French law, which did not allow divorce at the time.

²⁰ The Algerian decision will then typically be denied recognition on the ground of public policy, because the Islamic divorce violates the principle of equality between men and women as embodied in Art 5 of Protocol 7 to the European Court of Human Rights: see, eg, the cases cited in n 4.

²¹ Loesch [1966] Rev Crit DIP 289Google Scholar; [1966] Clunet 369 (Civ lère).

²² See, eg, Civ lère, 22 Apr 1986 and 6 July 1988 [1989] Rev Crit DIP 89.Google Scholar

²³ See, eg, Audit (n 8) 384; Mayer and Heuzé (n 11) 283.

²⁴ [2007] Recueil Dalloz 1115.

²⁵ Gressot-Leger, S, ‘Faut-il supprimer le contrôle de la loi appliquée par le juge étranger lors de l'instance en exequatur?’ [2003] Clunet 767.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, eg, L d'Avout and S Bollée, [2007] Recueil Dalloz 1116.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, eg, Mayer and Heuzé (n 11) 389.