Volume 29 (2018) / Issue 4
Gudula Deipenbrock, 'Private Enforcement in the Realm of European Capital Markets Law Revisited and the Case of Credit Rating Agencies from the Perspective of European and German Law' (2018) 29 European Business Law Review, Issue 4, pp. 549–575
This treatise revisits the debate on private enforcement in the realm of capital markets law from the European and German perspective. It has been inspired by and shall contribute to the wider debate on whether or not financial markets regulation and civil liability in European law have been steering a more coordinated course. The treatise introduces at the outset some vital aspects of the broader debate on the relationship of capital markets law and private law from the German perspective. The treatise then turns to the European civil liability regime for credit rating agencies (CRAs). The topic of this treatise thereby interweaves two realms of law: European capital markets law as an integral part of European financial markets law and national private (international) law. The treatise explores the efficiency and effectiveness of the European civil liability regime for CRAs in the European Union (Union) with a view to its design and implementation. It shows that the European civil liability regime for CRAs in the Union is a specific example of an ill-conceived private enforcement tool in the realm of European capital markets law. The complexity of its design is explored firstly from the perspective of the law in books. In highlighting the torso design problem of the European civil liability regime for CRAs focus lies on the role of private international law. Secondly – as to the perspective of the law in action – the approach of German courts is sketched to illustrate the challenge the national (German) judiciary faces in context with the civil liability of CRAs. The torso design of the European liability regime for CRAs appears to render it an alien concept rather than one fitting easily into the canon of (national) civil liability norms. The treatise concludes with a question rather than a response to the question on whether financial markets regulation and civil liability in European law have been steering a more coordinated course: Why not navigating better next time?
All rights reserved