Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
Out now: Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, Issue 4 (2018)
The latest issue of the Zeitschrift für Europäische Privatrecht has just been released. It contains the following articles:
Thomas Ackermann, Sektorielles EU-Recht und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik
In the German tradition, private law is considered as a system of consistent rules that can be reduced to a unity formed by a small number of axioms. This idea has been the driving force behind huge efforts to overcome the fragmentation of EU private law. However, the concept of a private law system is unsuitable for a democratic polity whose supranational level is formed by the EU. Instead, the systematic quest for unity and consistency should aim at positioning private law rules in the entirety of our legal order. This leads to a better understanding of European legislation and case-law in the field of private law.
Jürgen Basedow, Sektorielle Politiken und allgemeine Privatrechtssystematik
Following Ackermann the author elaborates on the distinction of horizontal and vertical EU legislation. The problems caused by the latter aggravate by the increasing use of regulations (instead of directives) and by the progressive adoption of rules on liability in acts aiming at market regulation. The author advocates renewed work on a Common Frame of Reference and the creation of a unit within the Commission that would be tasked with the survey of coherence of provisions of the private law acquis.
EU private law, in particular EU consumer law, has encountered heavy criticism: It was, for instance, accused of being one-dimensional – ie only market functional – or to transform contract law into a set of mostly inadequate or inefficient mandatory rules. The article analyses this criticism by creating links between several discourses: (behavioral) law and economics, paternalism, fundamental rights, competences, contract law versus regulatory law, and the conflict between self-interest and social responsibility.
Gerhard Wagner, Zwingendes Vertragsrecht
Modern contract law, as applied between businesses and consumers, operates in the form of mandatory law. This pattern dominates not only in Europe, but also in the United States. It is supported by strong normative reasons. However, it is time to rethink the relationship between mandatory law and court control over standard business terms: Court control over standard terms does better than mandatory law in reconciling consumer protection and private autonomy, and should thus be preferred.
Pietro Sirena, Die Rolle wissenschaftlicher Entwürfe im europäischen Privatrecht
The article deals with the projects of a European private law, which have been drafted in black letter rules, and their influence upon the laws of the Member States as well as that of the European Union. The author points out that a genuine European private law could not overlook the best developments of the national legal cultures, which have been flourishing in the last two centuries on the basis of the national codifications of civil law and the judge-made common law.
Reinhard Zimmermann: Die Rolle der wissenschaftlichen Entwürfe im europäischen Privatrecht
The creation of various sets of „model rules“, „restatements“, or „non-legislative codifications“, particularly concerning contract law, is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the field of comparative private law over the last fourty years. The present essay argues that one important function of these model rules is to facilitate the discussion of legal problems beyond national borders and thus to stimulate the development of a truly European legal doctrine. They can thus help to achieve what Professor Sirena in his lecture is aiming for.
This article attempts to assess the consequences of Brexit for English and European private law. More specifically, I am interested in how the level of legal innovation in private law will be influenced by Brexit. I argue that Brexit will reduce the level of efficiency-enhancing legal innovation in Member States’ and European private law. Brexit will eliminate the UK as a highly innovative competitor on the European market for new legal products in private law, reducing the beneficial effects of regulatory competition. Further, private law-making on the European level will no longer benefit from the UK’s efficiency-enhancing influence. I substantiate and illustrate the main thesis of this article with examples taken mostly from contract law and dispute resolution, company law and insolvency law.
The Brexit will have considerable consequences for international private and procedural law. From an individual point of view, there will be changes to the applicable law that can be managed with the methods of the PIL. At a general and abstract level, the shape of the acquis will change in several respects.
Lado Chanturia, Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten am Beispiel Georgiens
Georgia signed an Association Agreement with the EU on 27.6.2014. According to the Association Agreement (AA) the reform of private law should be considered as further development of the Europeanization of Georgian law, which began in the early 1990s. The political decision in favor of the Europeanization of law is now turning into an obligation of legal harmonization. The pertinent areas as per the agreement are electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, competition, company law, accounting and auditing, corporate governance and consumer policy.
Reiner Schulze, Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten
Following the article by Lado Chanturia (‘Die Ausdehnung des Europäischen Privatrechts auf Drittstaaten am Beispiel Georgiens’, in this issue, page 919), this contribution analyses different ways of third countries adopting European Private Law beyond the institutionalized forms of approximation of law. In particular, it deals with the reception of the law of the Member States and the „acquis commun“ alongside the Acquis communautaire and criticizes the concept of a „legal transplant“ of European law in third countries.
Reminder: Conference Pathways to Civil Justice
On 19-20 November 2018, the conference: Challenge Accepted! Exploring Pathways to Civil Justice in Europe funded by the European Research Council takes place at Erasmus University Rotterdam. It focuses on artificial intelligence, ADR and ODR, self-representation, and court specialization in the context of improving access to and the quality of civil justice. Keynote speakers include Judith Resnik (Yale University) and Ruth de Bock (Advocate-General Dutch Supreme Court).
Further information on the program and registration is available here.
Find the description of the panels below.
Panel 1: The computer as the court
Artificial Intelligence (AI) research is fast advancing on new frontiers, which promise to make computers replicate traits of human intelligence. In the near future, we might see robots or machines that handle legal cases and might even replace humans as judges. We might see the computer as the court. However, AI is a term that encompasses many technologies with as many applications. This panel aims at providing an overview of the different AI technologies and their benefits. Furthermore, it explores what ethical issues are raised by replacing judges with AI units. It will try to map near?future AI innovations in the court system.
Panel 2: Consumer ADR/ODR: Justice behind closed doors? ADR (and its digital incarnation, ODR) are commonly presented as tools facilitating informal, accessible, fast and cost?effective access to justice for consumers while preserving public resources. However, such new forms of privatised Justice have raised a number of questions relating, among others, to their transparency, effects on due process or accountability. Representatives of ADR providers from several Member States and academics will critically discuss the role and potential of ADR/ODR in 21st century justice systems.
Panel 3: Access to civil justice: Taking lawyers out of the equation?
Richard Susskind’s ‘The End of Lawyers?’ underscored the existential need of the legal profession to adapt to an ever?changing landscape of legal services under the influence of the increased use of information technology, commoditisation, outsourcing, and so on. Not only are lawyers subject to change in the way they work, lately we see that, in attempts at making the administration of justice cheaper, faster and accessible, lawyers may not be part of the equation at all. Increasing possibility for self?representation in the Netherlands and the drastic cuts to legal aid in the UK provide the backdrop for a discussion about the changing landscape of civil justice and representation. This panel focuses the discussion on the relevance of legal assistance for effective dispute resolution and critically assesses the impact of the diminishing role of lawyers on the administration of justice.
Panel 4: Court specialization: Turning the tide of the ‘vanishing trial’?
Court specialization may enhance the efficiency of civil justice, provide expertise and, as a result, improve the quality and uniformity of court decisions. However, one cannot turn a deaf ear to the concerns expressed. Specialized courts may impair the geographical proximity of justice, put in question the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, establish stereotype procedures and lastly lead to a proliferation of forums resulting in a judicial labyrinth. Although specialized courts have long existed, recent legislative initiatives signal a shift towards an even greater court specialization. Courts specializing in international commercial cases, patent or company matters are only some to mention. By mapping the risks and benefits of specialized courts this panel assesses the impact court specialization has on access to justice on a European level.
Out now: Journal of Private International Law, Volume 14, Issue 3
Issue 14. 3 of the Journal of Private International Law has just been released. It contains the following articles:
Maria Caterina Baruffi, A child-friendly area of freedom, security and justice: work in progress in international child abduction cases, pp. 385-420
The protection of children’s rights constitutes the subject matter of various private international law instruments within both the international and the EU frameworks. The paper focuses on their relevant provisions regarding child abduction, which pose a number of problematic issues as to their interpretation and practical application. Against the existing background, future legislative developments are assessed with a view to proposing a provisional evaluation as to their effectiveness and actual improvement.
Charlotte Mol & Thalia Kruger, International child abduction and the best interests of the child: an analysis of judicial reasoning in two jurisdictions, pp. 421-454
The Hague Child Abduction Convention aims to secure the speedy return of abducted children. Judges can use a limited number of grounds for refusal. They may not make an in-depth assessment of the merits of any custody issue. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This article analyses the use that judges make in their decisions on the concept of “the best interests of the child”. For this purpose it scrutinizes the case law on international child abduction of the Netherlands and England and Wales. By using software designed for qualitative research, the authors are able to make an objective and systematic analysis. This article confirms the hypothesis that the concept of the best interests of the child is often used without substance, and sometimes only to endorse conclusions that would have possibly been reached in any event.
Hayk Kupelyants, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the absence of the debtor and his assets within the jurisdiction: reversing the burden of proof, pp. 455-475
The article examines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the absence of the defendant and his assets within the jurisdiction. While at first sight a seemingly futile tactic, it opens a whole array of potential benefits to the judgment creditor. Under English law, to enforce a foreign judgment in the absence of the debtor and his assets, the judgment creditor needs to establish a reasonable prospect of legitimate benefit arising from the enforcement. The article challenges this view and argues that the position in English law is needlessly onerous: the burden should be on the judgment debtor to establish that the enforcement of the foreign judgment is an abuse of process. The paper also draws analogies to other legal regimes, both in the UK and outside.
Aleksandrs Fillers, Implications of Article 81(1) TFEU’s recognition clause for EU conflict of laws rules, pp. 476-499
The last decades have been marked by the extensive Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules. Traditionally, national conflict of laws rules in Continental Europe were aimed at determining the closest connection between the legal relation and the putatively applicable law. This universal objective was often combined with more local objectives: the achievement of certain substantive policies of the forum through conflictual mechanisms. The Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules poses a legitimate question: do EU conflict of laws rules pursue identical or similar policies as national conflict of laws rules? The issue may be approached using different methods. One approach is inductive – the analysis of conflict of laws rules found in EU secondary law and their comparison with national conflict of laws rules. Another approach is deductive – the analysis of the Treaty basis for EU conflict of laws rules, in order to identify whether this constitutional framework prescribes certain policies that may be different from those used in national conflict of laws rules. This contribution is devoted to the second method and analyses whether the recognition clause found in Article 81 TFEU has any meaningful influence on the nature and scope of EU conflict of law rules.
Mukarrum Ahmed, The nature and enforcement of choice of law agreements, pp. 500-531
This article seeks to examine the fundamental juridical nature, classification and enforcement of choice of law agreements in international commercial contracts. At the outset, it will be observed that the predominance of jurisdictional disputes in international civil and commercial litigation has pushed choice of law issues to the periphery. The inherent dialectic between the substantive law paradigm and the internationalist paradigm of party autonomy will be harnessed to provide us with the necessary analytical framework to examine the various conceptions of such agreements and aid us in determining the most appropriate classification of a choice of law agreement. A more integrated and sophisticated understanding of the emerging transnationalist paradigm of party autonomy will guide us towards a conception of choice of law agreements as contracts, albeit contracts that do not give rise to promises inter partes. This coherent understanding of both the law of contract and choice of law has significant ramifications for the enforcement of choice of law agreements.
Diletta Danieli, Mixed contracts under the Brussels Ia Regulation: searching for a “jurisdictional identity”, pp. 532-548
This paper addresses the debated application of the jurisdictional regime in contractual matters provided in the Brussels Ia Regulation to cases involving mixed contracts, which comprise elements of a sale of goods, as well as a provision of services, and are not expressly regulated by that legal instrument. The starting point of the assessment is a recent Italian Supreme Court ruling, which is further compared with the relevant CJEU and national case law. Then, some broader considerations are proposed with regard to the actual desirability of specific provisions concerning these types of contracts within the Brussels system.
Torsten Bjørn Larsen, The extent of jurisdiction under the forum delicti rule in European trademark litigation, pp. 549-561
This contribution compares the extent of jurisdiction of two different forum delicti rules namely that under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which applies in national trademark litigation, with that under Article 125(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, which applies in EU trade mark litigation. The former has been interpreted to cover both the place of acting and the place of effect and it seems likely that both places have limited jurisdiction. The latter covers only the place of acting which also seems likely to have limited jurisdiction.