Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Köhler on Overriding Mandatory Provisions in European Private International Law

April 18, 2013/in /by Giesela Ruehl
image_pdfimage_print

Andreas Köhler from the University of Passau has written a book on overriding mandatory provisions in European Private International Law (Eingriffsnormen – Der ‘unfertige Teil’ des europäischen IPR, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2013). The author has kindly provided us with the following summary:

After a detailed dogmatic analysis of the so-called “mandatory rules problem”, Andreas Köhler shows that, with the enactment of the Rome I and II Regulations, European Law on the conflicts of law now governs exclusively the applicability of provisions compliance with which is crucial for a country to protect its public interests, such as its political, social or economic system.The application of those provisions depends on a special conflict of law rule – originating from European Law – which must be developed modo legislatoris within the scope of the general clauses codified by Article 9 Rome I resp. Article 16 Rome II; in this sensethe so-called “mandatory rules problem” could be considered as Franz Kahn´s “unfinished part” of the – henceforth European – Private International Law. Based on this premise, the author develops a model for a coherent approach to mandatory rules (and to those protecting the socially weaker party) furthering the important objective of harmonizing judicial decisions in Europe but still subject to review by the European Court of Justice. One important consequence of Köhler’s approach is an unconditional obligation to apply mandatory rules of other member states, since the special conflict of law rule regardingsuch provisions originates from European Law and therefore binds all member state courts. In addition Köhler proves that the application of any foreign mandatory rules is not affected by the restrictive requirements of Article 9 III Rome I. Hence, it is possible to create a multilateral system for suchprovisions in European conflicts law.

Further information is available on the publisher’s website (in German).

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Giesela Ruehl https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Giesela Ruehl2013-04-18 20:39:572013-04-18 20:40:41Köhler on Overriding Mandatory Provisions in European Private International Law

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
Link to: US Supreme Court Delivers its judgment in Kiobel Link to: US Supreme Court Delivers its judgment in Kiobel US Supreme Court Delivers its judgment in Kiobel Link to: What will Kiobel’s Impact be on Alien Tort Statute Claims? Link to: What will Kiobel’s Impact be on Alien Tort Statute Claims? What will Kiobel’s Impact be on Alien Tort Statute Claims?
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top