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

Commission’s Response to Council’s Common Position on Rome II

October 8, 2006/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

In the wake of the Council's common position on the proposed adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ("Rome II") (see our news item on the common position here), the European Commission have published their Communication to the European Parliament, pursuant to Art 251(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Communication discusses the common position's points of departure from both the Commission's modified proposal on 21 February 2006, and the amendments made by the European Parliament on 6 July 2005 (which were reflected in the Commission's modified proposal.) One point in particular may be of interest:

Article 16 departs from Article 13 of the Commission’s amended proposal which contained an additional paragraph dealing with the possibility for the court to give effect to overriding mandatory rules of another country than the country whose law is applicable under the rules of the instrument. This provision in the Commission’s proposal did not reflect any particular Community interest; it was aiming at consistency as it was inspired by a similar provision in the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. The Commission has accepted this deletion.

Whilst the Commission states overall that it, "accepts the common position in the light of the fact that it includes the key elements included in its initial proposal and Parliament’s amendments as incorporated into its amended proposal", there are nevertheless some strong indicators of its displeasure over the common position in the text. For example:

The Commission continues to regret the approach in the common position which provides for a rather complex system of cascade application of connecting factors. It remains persuaded that its original solution offered an equally balanced solution for the interests at stake, while expressed in much simpler drafting.

The word "regret", in fact, appears no less than four times in the six-page document. It will be interesting to see what the European Parliament makes of it all; the second reading has been scheduled by the DG of the Presidency for 12 December 2006.

The Commission's Communication to the European Parliament can be downloaded from here (PDF). All comments welcome.

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 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2006-10-08 19:00:032006-11-25 15:08:07Commission’s Response to Council’s Common Position on Rome II

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Recognition of a Surname and Validity 2 Link to: Recognition of a Surname and Validity 2 Recognition of a Surname and Validity 2 Link to: EU Council Confirms Decision for the Accession of the Community to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and Common Position on European Small Claims Procedure Link to: EU Council Confirms Decision for the Accession of the Community to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and Common Position on European Small Claims Procedure EU Council Confirms Decision for the Accession of the Community to the Hague...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top