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

German Article on Rome II Regulation

December 10, 2007/3 Comments/in /by Veronika Gaertner
image_pdfimage_print

Thomas Thiede and Markus Kellner (both Vienna) have written an article on Forum Shopping between Rome II and the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to Traffic Accidents in the legal journal Versicherungsrecht (VersR 2007, 1624 et seq.): “‘Forum shopping’ zwischen dem Haager Übereinkommen über das auf Verkehrsunfälle anzuwendende Recht und der Rom-II-Verordnung”.

The authors argue that Article 28 (1) Rome II, which provides as a general rule that the Regulation shall not prejudice the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are parties and which lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations, leads to the precedence of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents since the exception clause of Article 28 (2) Rome II is – due to the fact that also Non-Member States are parties to the Hague Convention – not applicable.

It is submitted that the subsidiarity of the Rome II Regulation on the one side and the fact that the Hague Convention has not been ratified by some Member States on the other side entails the possibility of forum shopping. Thus, the authors argue, it would have been preferable to give priority to the Rome II Regulation over all Hague Conventions in order to ascertain – at least for intra-EU cases – the applicability of only one law.

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 Veronika Gaertner https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Veronika Gaertner2007-12-10 12:25:482007-12-10 12:25:48German Article on Rome II Regulation
3 replies
  1. Abbas says:
    December 11, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Dear sir
    I have read your Article. I could use it and to some extent underestand about conflict of laws in tort. It was important for knowing about tortlaw in international private law ( conflict of laws). i have a question about what theories of applicable law in infringment cases of Intellectual Property Law are there? would you please direct me how can I know about that the subject matter.
    Regards,
    Ahadzadeh

  2. Athanasios says:
    March 12, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    This is true. How can the Regulation not prejudice the application of international conventions to which the MSs are parties when in cases where the loss or damage suffered in one or more MSs the Regulation takes precedence over the Hague Convention? the exception in Article 28(2) of Rome II then is not applicable.

    p.s How can i get the complete article?

    Athanasios Sylianou

  3. Thomas Thiede says:
    May 27, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Dear Mr Ahadzadeh, dear Mr Athanasios,

    thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on this article. And, indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As some of you may remember, the Parliament (i.e. Ms Wallis) asked for another statute for personal injuries and, thus, a depeçage concerning tort. If this was really taken into account (see e.g. the Review Clause in the current Regulation) the dilemma would even be enhanced: Signatory States of the HAgue Convention would not even take into account the different standards, non-signatory states would have to apply the law at the place of the victim!

    For a complete print of the article, please feel free to contact me directly (thiede [at] ectil [dot] org). The situation for intellectual property rights is not solved currently. I presented a rather small paper on it in the Swiss paper HaVE/ReAs, you may have a look at it. In addition, I would also welcome you to contact me directly.

    Best regards and thanks again for your Comments on the topic,
    Thomas Thiede

Comments are closed.

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: BIICL event: 11th annual review of the Arbitration Act 1996 – Is English law really better? Link to: BIICL event: 11th annual review of the Arbitration Act 1996 – Is English law really better? BIICL event: 11th annual review of the Arbitration Act 1996 – Is English law... Link to: New Service Regulation Repealing Reg. 1348/2000 Published in the Official Journal Link to: New Service Regulation Repealing Reg. 1348/2000 Published in the Official Journal New Service Regulation Repealing Reg. 1348/2000 Published in the Official J...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top