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

Note from the Luxembourg Delegation on Rome I Proposal

May 26, 2007/in /by Veronika Gaertner
image_pdfimage_print

A note from the Luxembourg delegation on the Proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome I“) which has appeared on the agenda for the Competitiveness Council meeting on 21 and 22 May 2007 deals rather critically with Article 5 of the planned regulation.

Here an excerpt:

The Luxembourg Government is very concerned about the negative impact on competitiveness of the instruments of private international law which are currently being converted into Community instruments. In particular, it would like to draw the attention of the Competitiveness Council to the proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome I”, 6935/07), which is currently under discussion in the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Article 5 of the proposal has the effect, in certain cases, of depriving the parties of the freedom to choose the law applicable to business-to-consumer cross-border contracts. This changes the current situation under the Rome Convention, which lays down different protective rules and reflects a fair balance between the needs of businesses and those of consumers. This substantial change would have warranted an impact assessment by the Commission. However, the economic impact of this proposal has not been evaluated. Its consequences for the internal market and for consumers have not been analysed.

[…]

With a view to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 12 and 13 June 2007, it would be appropriate for the authorities concerned in all the Member States to be made aware of the negative consequences of this proposal for the internal market, for businesses and for European consumers. No decision should be taken which prejudices competition. In this context the Luxembourg delegation would recall the instruction given by the European Council in March 2003 that “the Competitiveness Council should be effectively consulted within the Council’s decision-making processes on proposals considered likely to have substantial effects on competitiveness”.

The complete note can be found here.

Many thanks to Dr. Jan von Hein, MPI Hamburg for the tip-off.

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 Gaertner2007-05-26 07:43:172007-05-26 07:43:17Note from the Luxembourg Delegation on Rome I Proposal

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: British Institute of International & Comparative Law Seeks New Director Link to: British Institute of International & Comparative Law Seeks New Director British Institute of International & Comparative Law Seeks New Director Link to: Trans-Tasman Co-operation in Civil Proceedings Link to: Trans-Tasman Co-operation in Civil Proceedings Trans-Tasman Co-operation in Civil Proceedings
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top