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

When to Depart from Rome?

December 17, 2010/1 Comment/in /by Andrew Dickinson
image_pdfimage_print

The Commission has published lists of the Conventions which Member States have notified under Art. 26(1) of the Rome I Regulation and Art. 29(1) of the Rome II Regulation.

It appears that Belgium alone among the Member States has not notified the Commission of any derogating conventions, even though it has ratified the Hague Traffic Accidents Convention and signed (but not ratified) the Hague Products Liability Convention, two instruments to which Art. 29(1) Rome II was clearly intended to apply.

The reasons for these omissions are unclear, with the deadlines for notification having long passed (28 July 2008 in the case of Rome II and 17 June 2009 in the case of Rome I). The failure to notify should not prevent Belgian Courts from applying the Hague Traffic Accidents Convention, just as it should not prevent any other Member State court from applying any convention involving a third state, to determine the law applicable to contractual or non-contractual obligations. Belgium’s apparent lack of engagement with EU private international law instruments, resulting in doubt for those litigating before Belgian courts, is however unfortunate. It is unclear whether the Commission intends to take steps to address this.

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 Andrew Dickinson https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Andrew Dickinson2010-12-17 12:24:562010-12-17 12:24:56When to Depart from Rome?
1 reply
  1. Pietro Franzina says:
    December 17, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Failing to notify the information required by ‘Rome I’ and ‘Rome II’ is certainly unfortunate. Providing incorrect information is worse. Italy declared it had no conventions to notify under Article 26(1) of the ‘Rome I’ regulation (OJ C 343 of 17 December 2o10, p. 4), although it is in fact part of the Hague Convention of 15 June 1955 on the law applicable to the international sales of goods, just like Finland, France and Sweden (who notified the Commission accordingly). According to the ‘Archivio dei trattati internazionali’ of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the 1955 Hague Convention is still in force for Italy (http://itra.esteri.it/itrapgm/Visualizza.asp?ID=47159). The same is true according to the Hague Conference’s website (http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=31). There may be very good reasons for Italy to denounce the Convention but, as long as no such denunciation takes place, Italian courts are expected to determine the law applicable to international contracts for the sale of goods – according to Article 25 of the ‘Rome I’ regulation – by resorting to the Hague Convention, not the ‘Rome I’ regulation. The information provided by the Italian government appears to be definitely misleading in this respect.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • 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
Link to: New Edition of Mayer/Heuzé’s Droit International Privé Link to: New Edition of Mayer/Heuzé’s Droit International Privé New Edition of Mayer/Heuzé’s Droit International Privé Link to: Third Issue of 2010’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Link to: Third Issue of 2010’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Third Issue of 2010’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top