Keywords:
online auction, regulation, self-regulation, electronic communities, legal systems, eBay

Abstract: The development of new technologies has allowed the digitalisation of a traditional negotiation process, whose proliferation is now clearly perceivable in electronic commerce. In point of fact, the model of the auction sale which concludes with a contract is not entirely new, either to economic actors, or to lawyers; however, the manner in which the electronic marketplace affects this kind of negotiation process can modify its traditional characteristics so that they adapt to a virtual environment. When a community of customers, or more generally of users, interact within an electronic platform developed to provide an auction service two main concerns surface: first, is the platform capable of providing a level of protection corresponding to that of the traditional auction model? Secondly, is it possible for the members of the community to define, control, and even enforce the rules that are applicable to the negotiation process? In order to give a clearer answer to the above–mentioned questions, the present analysis will make use of the example provided by one of the best known online auction websites, eBay, whose business activity not only is carried out in trans–national markets, from the U.S. to Europe to Asia, but also presents an organisational structure which involves both issues concerning the protection of its users’ rights and the creation of a self–regulatory environment.

Résumé: Le développement de nouvelles technologies a permis la digitalisation d’un processus de négociation traditionnel dont la prolifération est évidente dans le commerce électronique. En fait, le modèle de vente aux enchères n’est pas du tout nouveau, ni pour les acteurs économiques, ni pour les acteurs du droit; même si la façon dont le marché électronique affecte ce type de processus de négociation peut conduire à une évolution de ses caractéristiques traditionnelles en vue d’une adaptation à un environnement virtuel. Quand une communauté de clients ou, plus en général, d’utilisateurs interagissent dans le cadre d’une plate–forme électronique qui fournit un service de vente aux enchères, il a deux questions principales. Tout d’abord la plate–forme est–elle capable de fournir un niveau de protection correspondant à celui existant dans le modèle d’enchères traditionnel? Deuxièmement, est–il possible pour les membres de la communauté de définir, de contrôler et, éventuellement, de faire respecter les règles qui sont applicables au processus de négociation? Afin de préciser plus clairement ces questions, cette contribution partira de l’exemple d’un des site d’enchères en ligne le plus connu: eBay, qui non seulement réalise son activité sur un marché transnational, des Etats–Unis à l’Europe, à l’Asie; mais qui présente également une structure organisationnelle qui touche autant la protection des droits des utilisateurs, que la création d’un environnement d’autorégulation.

Zusammenfassung: Die Entwicklung neuer Technologien hat zu einer Digitalisierung des Verhandlungsprozesses geführt. Dieses ist insbesondere deutlich im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr zu sehen. Das Model einer Verkaufsauktion, die mit einem Vertragsabschluss endet, ist weder für die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten noch für Rechtsanwälte etwas Neuartiges

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009001

Keywords:
Undisclosed Agency, Indirect Representation, European Private Law

Abstract: The distinction made on the Continent between direct and indirect representation does not exist in English law which differentiates between disclosed and undisclosed agency. This article looks at the rules relating to the civilian concept of indirect representation and the common law concept of undisclosed agency in order to answer two main questions: whether they are identical, and what are the effects between principal and third party. After reviewing how the two concepts work in France, Spain and in the UK, the article considers the position as defi ned in European and international texts in order to see whether a consensus can be reached.

Résumé: La distinction entre représentation directe et indirecte, présente dans les systèmes de droit de tradition civiliste, n’existe pas en droit anglais qui distingue simplement entre le mandat ‘disclosed’ et le mandat ‘undisclosed’. Cet article a pour but de comparer les règles civilistes, du point de vue des droit français et espagnol, avec celles du droit anglais afin de répondre à deux questions: le concept de représentation indirecte est il similaire au concept de ‘undisclosed agency’ et quels sont les effets entre le mandant et le tiers. Cet article va expliquer les règles applicables en France, Espagne et en Angleterre ainsi que la position dans les textes européens et internationaux afin de voir sion peut voir un consensus.

Zusammenfassung: Die in den kontinentalen echtsordnungen gemachte Unterscheidung zwischen unmittelbarer und mittelbarer Stellvertretung ist dem englischen Recht unbekannt, welches zwischen offen gelegter und nicht offen gelegter Mandatierung unterscheidet. Dieser Artikel enthält einen Vergleich der Regelungen der kontinentalen Rechtssysteme Frankreichs und Spaniens mit denen des englischen Rechts insbesondere in Hinblick auf die Frage, ob das Konzept der mittelbaren Stellvertretung mit dem der ‘undisclosed agency’ übereinstimmt und welches die jeweiligen Wirkungen für das Verhältnis von Vertretenem und Dritten sind. Nach diesem Vergleich nationaler Rechtsordnungen richtet der Artikel den Blick auf entsprechende Regelungen in europäischen und internationalen Regelwerken und geht der Frage nach, ob sich ein übereinstimmendes Konzept herausarbeiten lässt.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009002

Abstract: Recent legislative initiatives from the European Commission, such as the Review of the Consumer Acquis, show an increasing tendency in favour of maximum harmonization. This is a diversion from previous practice, where the general policy was one of minimum harmonization, which allowed Member States to divert from the standard set by European legislation if in favour of the consumer. This article makes a critical assessment of the policy of maximum harmonization and suggests a number of parameters that determine its chance of success. Important factors are the Community’s limited legislative competence, restricted in essence to internal market policy, and the related question of where to strike the balance between business interests and consumer protection. The main concern, however, lies with the elusive nature of the concept of maximum harmonization – the possibility of alternative legal bases for liability in European and national legislation may undermine the notion of a fully harmonized regime, as can be seen with regard to product liability law. In this light, it is suggested that the success of the current review programme may increase by a redefi nition of its scope, taking account of the wider framework set by European and domestic rules of private law.

Zusammenfassung: Neuere Gesetzgebungsinitiativen der EG–Kommission, wie zum Beispiel die Überarbeitung des Verbraucher–Acquis, zeigen eine zunehmende Tendenz hin zur Maximalharmonisierung. Dies weicht von der bisherigen Praxis ab, in der Mindestharmonisierung als allgemeiner Grundsatz anerkannt war. Nach diesem war es den Mitgliedstaaten erlaubt, von durch europäische Gesetzgebung gesetzten Standards zum Vorteil des Verbrauchers abzuweichen. Dieser Beitrag setzt sich mit dem Ziel der Maximalharmonisierung kritisch auseinander und zeigt eine Anzahl von Parametern auf, die für dessen Erfolgsaussichten entscheidend sind. Wichtige Faktoren sind die Gesetzgebungskompetenz der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, die die im Wesentlichen auf die Binnenmarktpolitik beschränkt ist, und das damit verbundene Problem, einen Ausgleich zwischen Geschäftsinteressen und Verbraucherschutz zu fi nden. Die größte Sorge liegt jedoch in der schwer fassbaren Natur des Konzepts der Maximalharmonisierung – die Möglichkeit alternativer rechtlicher Haftungsgrundlagen in Europäischer und nationaler Gesetzgebung könnte die Idee eines vollständig harmonisierten Haftungsregimes unterminieren, wie es im Bereich des Produkthaftungsrecht zu sehen ist. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird argumentiert, dass die derzeitige Überarbeitung des Verbraucher–Acquis größeren Erfolg versprechen könnte, wenn der Umfang der Überarbeitung verändert würde und dabei der weitere Rahmen der europäischen und nationalen Privatrechtsregeln beachtet würde.

Résumé: De récentes initiatives législatives de la Commission européenne, telles que la révision de l’acquis communautaire, conduisent à tirer le constat d’une tendance croissante en faveur d’une harmonisation maximale. Une telle approche constitue une évolution par rapport à celle retenue jusqu’alors. En effet, jusqu’à ce jour, la politique retenue a été de favoriser une harmonisation minimale, laissant aux États la faculté de choisir un standard différent du standard communautaire, pour autant qu’il soit plus protecteur des consommateurs. La présente étude vise à une appréciation critique de la politique d’harmonisation maximale e

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009003

Zusammenfassung: Ausbildungssysteme unterliegen dem Wandel der Zeit und sind dementsprechend immer und überall starker Kritik ausgesetzt. Dies ist gut so und führt im Idealfall zu Reformen, die die Ausbildung zeitgemäßer und berufsgerechter machen. Wird ein Reformmodell nicht für geeignet gehalten, diese Ziele zu erreichen, wird es abgelehnt, so wie 2005 in Deutschland die Parteien der Großen Koalition die Einführung des Bologna– Modells für die deutsche Juristenausbildung ablehnten. Damit war die Bologna–Debatte aber nicht etwa beendet, sie ging und geht vielmehr unvermindert weiter. Viele erhoffen sich von einer Reform im Sinne der Bologna–Beschlüsse die Beseitigung folgender immer wieder in der Öffentlichkeit formulierter Probleme: das zu hohe Alter der Absolventen, deren zu geringe Mobilität und Internationalität, die zu universelle Ausbildung. Das Bachelor–/Master–System wird hierbei als maßgeschneiderte Lösung empfunden, um alle diese Probleme auf einmal zu beseitigen. Die sich vor einer so einschneidenden Änderung aufdrängenden Fragen, wieso sich unsere derzeitige Ausbildung so entwickelt hat, warum sich in anderen Ländern abweichende Modelle gebildet haben und welche Erfahrungen man dort mit modularisierten Studiengängen gemacht hat, finden nahezu keine Beachtung. Deshalb hatte es sich die Trierer Tagung ‘Juristenausbildung in Europa zwischen Tradition und Reform’ unter der wissenschaftlichen Leitung von Christian Baldus (Heidelberg), Thomas Finkenauer (Tübingen) und Thomas Rüfner (Trier) zur Aufgabe gemacht, diesen Fragen nachzugehen. Wie Rüfner in seiner Begrüßung verdeutlichte, sollte mit der Tagung nicht die politische Diskussion fortgeführt, sondern eine wissenschaftliche Grundlegung für eine sachlichere Diskussion geschaffen werden.

Abstract: As times change, so do educational systems. According to this they come under criticism anytime and anywhere. Criticism is a benefit and ideally causes contemporary and adequate reforms. If a reform is not considered as appropriate to achieve this objective, it gets refused. Correspondingly, 2005 the parties of the grand coalition refused to implement the Bologna reform to law studies in Germany. Nevertheless the public dispute on ‘Bologna’ continues to this day. Many people expect the Bologna model to be the tailor–made solution for the following problems, which are consistently verbalised in public: the old age of the alumni, their low mobility and internationality, the voluminous universality of studies. However, the bachelor/master system would be a drastic change and raises diverse questions: How did our present study system develop, why did other countries generate divergent systems and which experiences emerge from modularised programs of study? These questions so far attracted only marginal interest, for which reason the conference ‘Juristenausbildung in Europa zwischen Tradition und Reform’ under the academic direction of Christian Baldus (Heidelberg), Thomas Finkenauer (Tübingen) and Thomas Rüfner (Trier) entered into them. The conference’s aim was not to continue the political debate, but to create an academic basis for a realistic discussion, how Ruefner pointed out in his introduction.

Résumé: Des systèmes de formation sont soumis à l’évolution du temps. Aussi sontils critiqués toujours et pa

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009004

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009005

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009006

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009007

Keywords:
Zinsen; außervertragliche Geldforderungen; Dänisches Zinsgesetz; Sempra Metals Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners; Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR)

Abstract: The Directive on combatting late payment has harmonized the law governing interest due on certain delayed payments. The law governing the accrual of interest on all other kinds of outstanding debts is regulated very differently under national laws. Some national legal systems rely in this respect on the general rules for delayed payments and on concrete interest policies. They do, at the outset, not accept that legal right to interest could owe its existence to the simple fact of the maturity of the debt. On the other hand, some legal systems do accept an abstract right to receive interest after the maturity of all possible money debts. In other jurisdictions, similar results have been reached by recent jurisprudential developments. This contribution examines German, French, Swiss, Danish, English and Austrian Law. This comparative survey prepares the way for an examination of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). The DCFR creates a mixed system based upon a general rule for abstract rights to interest after maturity and special rules for interest on particular claims with concrete interest–policies. The basic values of the general right to interest after maturity do not however match with these special rules. Furthermore, for some types of extra–contractual claims, the DCFR foresees an abstract right to interest after maturity based on an interest rate applying for loans, which is only realistic for some of those claims. As a common solution, it is proposed to link the general rule on post–maturity–interest in the DCFR with an interest rate related to deposits.

Résumé: La Directive concernant la lutte contre le retard de paiement a entraine une harmonisation de la reglementation des interets relatifs aux pretentions contractuelles dans les transactions commerciales. Le regime des interets relatifs aux autres categories de creances d’argent demeure fort different d’un systeme juridique a l’autre. Certains systemes juridiques prevoient pour ces creances le paiement d’interets moratoires ; ils ne connaissent en revanche pas les interets de type compen satoire ou bien ne les prevoient que dans des cas limites. Dans d’autres systemes juridiques, toute creance pecuniaire est productive d’interets compensatoires. Dans une troisieme categorie de systemes juridiques, la jurisprudence aboutit a un resultat analogue a celui auquel conduit l’octroi de principe d’interets compensatoires. La presente contribution analyse les regimes des interets relatifs aux creances exclues de la Directive sus–mentionnee qu’orga nisent les droits allemand, francais, suisse, danois, anglais et autri chien. Un tel apercu comparatif peut en effet contribuer utilement a l’analyse des regles que contient le Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) en matiere d’in terets. Le DCFR propose un regime mixte qui, tout en optant pour le principe des interets compensatoires, l’as souplit par des normes speciales et restrictives quant a cer taines categories de creances. Or, la raison d’etre sousjacente au principe general des interets compensatoires s’harmonise mal avec ces regles speciales. Il est propose, comme solution generale et, en tout cas, point de depart pour l’etablissement d’un regime coherent, que le taux des interets compensatoires soit, dans le Common Frame of Reference (CFR), analogue a celui des interets des depots bancaires et que ce taux soit applique a la totalite des creances pecuniaires.

Zusammenfassung: Durch die Zahlungsverzugsrichtlinie wurde die Verzinsung vertraglicher Entgeltford

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009008

Abstract: What can lawmakers learn from forty years of contract law and economics? This article surveys the economic literature on the formation of contracts and derives some recommendations for lawmakers. It also comments on some articles of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). The main fi ndings are given as follows: (1) In principle, the least cost information gatherer should produce and communicate information. (2) There should be no duty to reveal entrepreneurial information. (3) There should be no duty to be honest with respect to mere opinions or other non–falsifiable statements. (4) The difference between lying and concealing information is irrelevant. (5) The difference between intentionally and negligently misinforming is irrelevant, except for the determination of remedies and criminal sanctions. (6) Hence, there is no need for separate doctrines on mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, or latent defect, all that is needed is a duty–to–inform doctrine. (7) ‘Consent theories’ or ‘will theories’ can never provide precise criteria for when a contract should be void. (8) The condition that the misinformed party would not have entered the contract otherwise is analytically imprecise and unnecessary. (9) To what extent sellers would spontaneously reveal the information on the market is generally irrelevant for lawmakers. (10) Less is more: parties get better informed when unimportant information is filtered away.

Zusammenfassung: Was konnen die Gesetzgeber aus 40 Jahren des Vertragsrechts und der Okonomie lernen? Dieser Artikel uberblickt die Okonomieliteratur uber die Gestaltung von Vertragen und bietet eine Anzahl von Empfehlungen fur die Gesetzgeber an. Er beinhaltet auch die Bemerkungen zu einigen Artikeln des Entwurfs des Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens. Die Hauptfeststellungen sind wie folgt:(1) Der Sammler von Informationen uber die Niedrigstkosten sollte im Prinzip Informationen erzeugen und mitteilen. (2) Es sollte keine Pflicht bestehen, unternehmerische Informationen offen zu legen. (3) Es sollte keine Pfl icht bestehen, in Bezug auf blose Meinungen oder andere nicht–falsifizierbare Behauptungen ehrlich zu sein. (4) Der Unterschied zwischen Lugen und Verheimlichen von Informationen ist irrelevant. (5) Der Unterschied zwischen absichtlicher und nachlassiger Fehlinformierung ist irrelevant, auser fur die Bestimmung der Rechtsbehelfe und strafrechtlichen Sanktionen. (6) Demzufolge gibt es kein Bedurfnis nach getrennten Doktrinen fur Fehler, Schwindel, falsche Darstellung oder latente Defekte – die einzige notwendige Doktrin ist die Informierungspfl icht. (7) ‘Zustimmungstheorien’ oder ‘Willenstheorien’ konnen nie prazise Kriterien fur die Entscheidung uber die Nichtigkeit des Vertrags setzen. (8) Die Bedingung, dass die falsch informierte Partei andernfalls den Vertrag nicht geschlossen hatte, ist analytisch unprazis und unnotig. (9) Fur die Gesetzgeber ist es hauptsachlich irrelevant, in welchem Umfang die Verkaufer die Informationen auf dem Markt spontan offen legen wurden. (10) Weniger ist mehr: die Vertragsparteien werden besser informiert, wenn unwesentliche Informationen weggefi ltert werden.

Résumé: Qu’est–ce que les legislateurs peuvent apprendre de 40 annees du droit des contrats et de l’economie? Cet article donne un apercu de la litterature economique traitant de la formation des contrats, et en deduit un certain no

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009009

Abstract: Community legislation and case law exert an ever–growing infl uence on the tort law of the Member States. Yet, ‘community tort law’ does not form a consistent and self–contained body of law. Rather, community legislation has approximated Member State law only eclectically, and community case law remains confi ned to a few specialized forms of liability. So far, community tort law is not founded on overarching principles and is, by consequence, riddled with inconsistencies. This situation is exacerbated since little regard has been given to the ‘general principles common to the laws of the Member States’ (Article 288 (ex Article 215) (2) of the European Community Treaty) in the past, and so a hasty disintegration of national tort law threatens. An overarching pan–European framework would halt this process and commence the genesis of a homogenous European tort law.

Resumé : Le droit communautaire exerce une influence de plus en plus grande sur le droit de la responsabilite civile des Etats membres. Cependant, le "droit de la responsabilite civile communautaire" ne constitue pas un domaine juridique autonome et coherent, etant donne que la jurisprudence des Cours de justice europeennes s’est limitee a quelques types speciaux de responsabilite. Ce n’est que d’une maniere eclectique que le droit communautaire se rapproche du droit des Etats membres. A cela s’ajoute le manque de principes fondamentaux solides qui provoque des contradictions internes. Et puisqu’on n’a porte jusqu’a present que peu d’attention aux "principes generaux communs aux droits des Etats membres" (Article 288 du Traite CE), on risque la decomposition prematuree des droits de la responsabilite civile nationaux qui existaient traditionnellement. Seule une structure generale de base paneuropeenne pour le droit de la responsabilite civile peut mettre finace developpement tout en contribuant en meme temps au developpement d’un droit europeen homogene de la responsabilite civile.

Zusammenfassung: Das europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht ubt einen stetig wachsenden Einfl uss auf das Haftpflichtrecht der Mitgliedstaaten aus. Allerdings bildet das “Gemeinschaftshaftpflichtrecht” kein eigenstandiges und koharentes Rechtsgebiet, denn die Rechtsvereinheitlichung durch das Sekundarrecht ist bislang recht eklektisch geblieben und die Rechtsprechung der europaischen Gerichtshofe beschrankt sich auf einige wenige Haftungsformen. Da das “Gemeinschaftshaftpflichtrecht” bislang auch nicht auf tragfahigen Grundprinzipien beruht, wird es von inneren Widerspruchen geplagt. Da den “allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsatzen, die den Rechtsordnungen der Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsam sind” (Artikel 288 (ehemals Artikel 215) Absatz 2 des EG-Vertrages), zudem nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wurde, droht eine voreilige Zerschlagung dieser natürlich gewachsenen Rechtsgebiete. Nur eine paneuropäische Grundstruktur kann diesen Prozess aufhalten ung zugleich Grundstein der Entwicklung eines homogenen europäischen Haftplichtsrechts sein.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009010

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009011

Keywords:
Dutch Case Note Keywords: asbestos, causation, immaterial damages, proportional liability, Italian case note Keywords: Compensation – Damages – Asbestos – Pleural plaques – Psychiatric harm

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009012

The European Law School (Network) opened its doors at the end of the 2007/2008 academic year. For the first time, three universities have come together to create a comprehensive European legal education. The initial project will be to create a program of study, with both national and international components. This joint venture is not simply to create another Master’s program but an understanding of Europe that emphasizes and promotes both unity and diversity. We develop this theme in sections 4 and 5 of this paper. At the same time the program endeavours to provide the essential features of a modern legal education (as set out in section 5), albeit, at the present time, for only a limited number of students.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009013

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009014

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009015

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009016

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009017

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009018

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009019

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009020

Keywords:
European tort law; harmonisation; Draft Common Frame of Reference.

Abstract: Recent years have seen the publication of the Principles of European Tort Law, the principles on Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another, and in 2008, the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) containing principles, definitions, and model rules not only on the law of contract but also the law of tort or delict. Although primarily academic exercises, these publications raise the possibility of the introduction of some form of harmonized European tort law as a practical reality. This article will not examine the substance of these texts but will instead focus more generally on a number of fundamental questions that require consideration prior to any possible move toward harmonization. Despite the lively debate in the context of European contract law, less attention has been given to the potential operational difficulties facing any future harmonization of the law of tort or delict, which, it is submitted, require particular attention in the light of its inclusion in the DCFR. This article will therefore highlight the need for a broader debate if these projects are to form the basis of any future instrument.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009021

Keywords:
Torts, Nordic Law, Human Rights, Constitutional Law

Abstract: Swedish courts have taken a revolutionary step towards a new paradigm of rights in Swedish law. In only a few years, the discourse of fundamental rights and freedoms has gone from being perceived as obscure, irrational, and unfit for practical law to being an important factor in practical law. This transition has been surprisingly smooth, considering the long lasting scepticism towards rights arguments in Swedish law, and the reason for this is that the development has taken place in private law, more specifically tort law, which is less politically sensitive than constitutional law reforms.

Résumé : Les cours suédoises ont fait un pas révolutionnaire envers un nouveau des droits en droit suédois. En l’espace de quelques années, le discours sur les droits et libertés fondamentales, d’abord perçu comme obscur, irrationnel et non approprié au droit en pratique, est désormais considéré comme un facteur important. Cette transition s’est effectuée en douceur après une longue période de scepticisme envers les droits fondamentaux en droit suédois. Cela s’explique par cette évolution effectuée au sein du droit privé, plus spécifiquement en droit de la responsabilité, qui est moins sensible politiquement que les réformes en droit constitutionnel.

Zusammenfassung: Die schwedischen Gerichte haben einen revolutionären Schritt aufein neues Paradigma der Rechte im schwedischen Recht genommen. Innerhalb weniger Jahre entwickelte sich die Diskussion über Grundrechte und Freiheiten, die zunächst durch die juristische Praxis als undurchsichtig, irrational und unpassend wahrgenommen wurde, zu einem wichtigen Faktor in der praktischen Rechtsanwendung. Dieser Übergang verlief überraschenderweise sehr reibungslos, wenn man die langwierigen Zweifel an den rechtlichen Argumenten im schwedischen Recht berücksichtigt. Der Grund hierfür ist, dass diese Entwicklung im Rahmen des Zivilrechts, insbesondere im Haftungsrecht, stattgefunden hat, das politisch weniger sensibel ist als eine verfassungsrechtliche Reform.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009022

Keywords:
Consumer rights; contract; Community legislation; harmonization

Abstract: The author asserts that the proposal for a new horizontal directive on consumer rights offers no substantial improvements to consumer protection while the full harmonization clause of the proposal will result in a reduced level of protection in all Member States. Surprisingly, the proposal makes little use of the terminology of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR).

Resumé : L’auteur estime que la proposition de directive horizontale relative aux droits des consommateurs n’apporte aucune amélioration notable à la protection des consommateurs. Au contraire, l’harmonisation complète prévue par cette directive aura pour conséquence de réduire leur niveau de protection actuel dans tous les États membres. Étonnamment, la proposition de directive s’inspire très peu de la terminologie employée par le projet de cadre commun de référence.

Zusammenfassung: Der Autor stellt fest, dass der Vorschlag für eine neue horizontale Verbraucherrechtsrichtlinie keine wesentlichen Verbesserungen des Verbraucherschutzes bewirkt. Die Vollharmonisierung führt vielmehr zu einer Absenkung des Verbraucherschutzniveaus in allen Mitgliedsstaaten. Überraschenderweise nimmt der Vorschlag wenig Bezug auf die Terminologie des Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR).

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009023

Abstract: Positive law, as presented in scholarship and in jurisprudence, rarely addresses the concept of the legal power. When the term ‘power’ does appear, its scope is limited: it serves as a mere synonym for capacity or competence or to define an individual right. However, the Civil Code of Québec, through its codification of the rules governing the administration of the property of others, reveals the power to be an independent category, distinct from the right. It is a prerogative granted in order to achieve a purpose. The concept of the power justifies a specific regime governing its exercise and specific remedies that sustain it. The category of the power, furthermore, has a scope of application that extends well beyond the administration of the property of others.

The development of a general theory of the private power, for which the Title on the Administration of the Property of Others represents a first step, is a useful response to criticisms levelled against rights-centric theories. It also provides a framework for considering which interventions may legitimately be made by one person in the juridical sphere of another.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009024

The article treats the impact of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), which were published in 2000 and 2003. They have had a considerable influence on law reforms in various European Countries, and has prompted the Commission of the EC to sponsor the bringing about of a Common Frame of Reference which is being prepared by the Study Group of a European Civil Code and other groups, and which is intended to operate as soft law. However, the author’s ambition that the PECL would bring about a binding European Civil Code of Contract applicable in the European Union and replacing the national laws will probably not be realised for a long time to come.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009025

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009026

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009027

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009028

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009029

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009030

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009031

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009032

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009033

ABSTRACT: Bernhard Windscheid stood at the summit of the German pandectist school. He produced the very influential Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, which condensed the works of the authors belonging to the school, and took part in the commission charged with the redaction of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. The jurisprudence of concepts that developed the pandectist school created a series of legal concepts such as Rechtsgeschäft, subkektive Rechte, Anspruch, which were incorporated successfully into the German BGB – legal concepts that later spread in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and even The Netherlands.

The Draft Common Frame of Reference (CFR) includes an Annex containing a glossary of legal terms that are used in the black letter rules. Article I-1:108 states that the definitions in the Annex ‘apply for all the purposes of these rules unless the context otherwise requires’ and warns that ‘where a word is defined, other grammatical forms of the word have a corresponding meaning’. The purpose of this paper was twofold. On the one hand, the paper discusses how much of the concepts elaborated by the pandectist school remains in the Draft CFR. The reason is that it is solemnly stated that ‘[a]n attempt has been made to find, wherever possible, descriptive language which can be readily translated without carrying unwanted baggage with it’. Since the conclusion is that most of the concepts elaborated by the German doctrine can be found in the Draft CFR, the second purpose is to analyse the consistency of the use of the concepts in the black letter rules.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009034

Keywords:
European contract law, harmonisation, fundamental rights, constitutionalisation.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a constitutional analysis of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) that has been prepared by a network of European legal scholars. The central question is to what extent the DCFR reflects fundamental values shared by the Member States. In order to answer this question, this paper analyses the relevant DCFR provisions in the light of fundamental rights, such as those laid down in national Constitutions and international treaties. Comparative remarks are made on the effects of fundamental rights in the national contract laws of various Member States (the Netherlands, Germany, England, and Italy), since the DCFR provisions that refer to fundamental rights correspond to some typical cases (or Fallgruppen) of fundamental rights application that have arisen in these countries. The structure of the analysis accordingly follows three main categories: the interpretation of the rules of contract law, non-discrimination in contractual relationships, and the validity of the contract. Attention is paid to direct and indirect effects of fundamental rights in European contract law cases as well as to the legal-political implications of these effects. On the basis of the comparative analysis, finally, it is submitted that choices will have to be made regarding the extent to which legislators and judges have to take into account the values expressed in these rights and, importantly, which form should be given to the provisions of a Common Frame of Reference in order to reach the highest possible level of protection of these values in contract law throughout Europe. Only then will the further harmonisation of European contract law truly contribute to the establishment of a European Constitution.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009035

ABSTRACT: This article tries to analyse in a comparative manner the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) 2009 rules relating to various types of multiparty situations in the law of obligations. It analyses more specifically the structure of the legal relationships in case of representation, stipulation in favour of a third party, assignment, (personal) subrogation, and some other situations that can be seen as situations with a change on the side of the creditor. Attention is given especially to the question on how the three single relationships relate to each other, including the defences of the parties, as well as to the relationship between the proprietary and the obligational aspect of the relationship. The third part deals with situations where a new or additional debtor enters into the relationship, and again more specifically with the question on how the three single relationships relate to each other, including the defences of the parties (in these relationships, there are no relevant questions of property law). The analysis shows that the DCFR 2009 has rather coherent rules as to the multiparty relationships it expressly covers and is not yet fully developed as to some other similar relationships. The ‘product’ is benefiting highly from the fact that the contract has been replaced by the obligational relationship as central category and that both are clearly distinguished. The distinction between the proprietary and obligational aspects is fairly developed but could have been clearer.

RÉSUMÉ: Cet article tente d’analyser de manière comparée les règles du Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) 2009 concernant les différentes situations multi-parties en droit des obligations. Il analyse plus spécialement la structure des relations juridiques en cas de représentation, stipulation en faveur d’autrui, cession de créance, subrogation (personnelle) et quelques autres situations qui peuvent être comprises comme situations de changement concernant le créancier. L’article examine comment les trois relations bipartites interagissent entre eux, y compris la question des exceptions que les parties peuvent invoquer, ainsi que la relation entre les aspects du droit des biens (la créance comme propriété). L’analyse montre que le DCFR 2009 a des règles expresses assez cohérentes concernant les situations tripartites ; il n’est pas encore pleinement développé s’agissant d’autres situations. Le ‘produit’ a bénéficié énormément du fait que le contrat a été remplacé comme catégorie centrale par celle de relation juridique (obligationnelle) et que ces deux notions sont bien distinguées. La distinction entre les aspects du droit des obligations et ceux du droit des biens est relativement bien développée, mais aurait pu être encore plus claire.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009036

ABSTRACT: This article deals with the relationship between information duties and the good faith principle within the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). After an introduction regarding the origin of the Common Frame of Reference (CFR) and its end, the author explains the meaning of the concurrence between the Principles of European Law (PEL) and the acquis communautaire. Both of these sources deal with precontractual duties although at a different level. Whereas the PEL set up a general duty to act in good faith during negotiations, on this point the acquis concentrates on duties of information with regard to the consumer. The opinion of the author is that the generalization of these duties, which has been operated by the DCFR, is a good result as well as the insertion of them in the more general good faith principle. If information is loyalty, it cannot but be a general duty, at least in European legislation, which shows to have gone ahead in comparison with many national legal systems in Europe. There are also situations in which information has become contents of the contract.

As to the method of connecting the acquis with PEL, this article tries to demonstrate that the double inspiration of the DCFR could only be satisfied by at the same time giving room to the task of the acquis and to the necessity of coherence, which was the preoccupation of PECL and now of PEL. A clear example of this is the new meaning that the original rule on negotiations contrary to good faith, originally adopted by PECL and inherited by PEL, has acquired following the flowing together of the last ones and the acquis; now the violation of duties of information also makes a negotiation contrary to good faith.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009037

ABSTRACT: The authors discuss how different rules of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) may all be relevant in situations where performance of a contractual obligation meets unexpected difficulties. In the authors’ opinion, little would be gained by adding a distinction between obligations to achieve a specific result and obligations to use reasonable efforts.

RÉSUMÉ: Les auteurs étudient comment les diverses règles du Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) pourraient toutes être pertinentes dans les cas où l’exécution d’une obligation contractuelle pose des difficultés inattendues. Il en ressort qu’il n’y aurait que peu d’intérêt à ajouter une distinction entre les obligations de résultat et les obligations de moyens.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Verfasser erläutern welche Bedeutung die verschiedenen Regelungen des Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) in den Situationen einnehmen können, in denen die Erfüllung einer vertraglichen Pflicht unerwartet erschwert wird. Nach Ansicht der Verfasser stellt die Einführung einer Unterscheidung zwischen einer Pflicht zur Erfüllung eines speziellen Ergebnisses und einer Pflicht zur Verwendung eines angemessenen Aufwands keinen Ausweg dieses Problems dar.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009038

ABSTRACT: Civil- and common-law systems are asserted to treat the right of a party to a contract to specific performance in quite different ways: in civil-law systems, this right seems to be a fundamental right of a creditor, emanating from the adagium ‘pacta sunt servanda’ itself; common-law systems, on the contrary, are supposed to grant this action to the creditors only in the exceptional case that their usual remedy, damages, would not achieve appropriate justice.

One might expect that this well-known divergence between the before-said law systems has posed quite a problem to the draughtsmen of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR); since it is to serve as an international instrument, unitary rules were needed, and therefore, it might be expected that its draughtsmen have reached a laborious compromise between the before-said law systems in a laborious way.

The following questions will be addressed: does this divergence between civil- and common-law systems exist realiter and, if so, how has it been bridged in the DCFR?

In order to answer these questions, rights of a party to a contract of monetary obligations have been distinguished from rights to non-monetary ones.

It will turn out with respect to each of these types of obligations that the beforesaid divergence between civil- and common-law systems is not as wide as might have been expected.

The remaining divergences between the law systems have been bridged by the draughtsmen of the DCFR in different ways, dependent on the type of obligation at stake. With respect to monetary obligations, they have chosen for the common-law solution, that is, damages instead of a right to specific performance. With respect to non-monetary obligations, the civil-law solution that these draughtsmen have, on the contrary, chosen for the civil-law solution as the basic rule is the right to specific performance; their task to include the rights that the European Union confers on consumers in the DCFR may account for this latter choice.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009039

Keywords:
Enforced performance, Non-Monetary Obligations, 9:102 PECL, III:3:302 DCFR, Terminology.

ABSTRACT: The Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, Interim Outline Edition 2008) contains a provision concerning the right to enforced performance of non-monetary obligations (Article III.3:302 DCFR). This provision is the successor of Article 9:102 of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and it is quite different. The leading question in this article concerns whether the DCFR provision on the right to enforced performance is an improvement compared with that of the PECL, in the sense that it meets the objections raised by the author against the PECL provision. First, the content of Article 9:102 PECL provision will be outlined briefly. Second, the PECL provision will be evaluated, and three objections will be raised against it; one concerns the terminology used in the provision, the second concerns the absence of a link with procedural law, and the third concerns the substance of the provision as a somewhat unfortunate compromise. Third, the question of whether the new DCFR provision eliminates the objections will be answered. The conclusion is that the DCFR provision is an improvement compared with that of the PECL. However, on a terminological level, the author suggests a few modifications. Furthermore, the author criticizes the apparent lack of attention for procedural law.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Der Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, Interim Outline Edition 2008) enthält eine Bestimmung über das Recht, die Erfüllung eines nicht auf eine Geldforderung gerichteten Anspruchs zu erzwingen (Artikel III.3:302 DCFR). Diese Vorschrift ist der Nachfolger von Artikel 9:102 PECL und enthält durchaus Unterschiede. Die entscheidende Frage dieses Beitrags ist, ob die in der DCFR enthaltene Bestimmung über das Recht, der Erfüllung zu erzwingen, im Vergleich zu der Bestimmung der PECL eine Verbesserung der Rechtslage dahingehend darstellt, dass sie die durch den Verfasser gegen die Vorschrift der PECL geäußerten wegräumt. Aus diesem Grund erfolgt zum ersten eine Darstellung des Artikels 9:102 PECL. Zum zweiten wird eine Beurteilung der PECL Vorschrift vorgenommen, und es werden drei Kritikpunkte gegen diese Bestimmung geäußert, wobei der erste die in dieser Vorschrift verwendete Terminologie, der zweite die mangelnde Verbindung zum Verfahrensrecht und der dritte den Inhalt dieser Norm betrifft, der als ein etwas unglücklicher Kompromiss angesehen werden kann. Zum Dritten wird die Frage beantwortet, ob die neue, in der DCFR enthaltene Bestimmung die Kritikpunkte ausräumen kann. Die Schlussfolgerung dieses Beitrags ist, dass die in der DCFR enthaltene Bestimmung im Vergleich zu der Vorschrift der PECL eine Verbesserung darstellt. Allerdings stellt der Verfasser im Hinblick auf einige Begrifflichkeiten einige Änderungsvorschläge vor. Darüber hinaus bemängelt der Verfasser die fehlende Abstimmung mit dem Verfahrensrecht.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009040

ABSTRACT: This article deals with the rules of the Draft Common Frame of References (DCFR) on foreseeability of damages in contracts between business people. It examines which approaches with regard to this topic can be found in various legal systems. Discussed is the type of damages that can be recovered, the difference between liability arising out of tort and out of contract, and to what extent fault can be relevant.

RÉSUMÉ : Le présent article porte sur les règles du Draft Common Frame of References (DCFR) relatives à la prévision des dommages dans les contrats entre contractants professionnels. Sont exposées les approches suivies dans différents systèmes juridiques, concernant en particulier les types de dommages couverts, la différence entre responsabilité délictuelle et contractuelle et dans quelle mesure la faute a une influence.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009041

ABSTRACT: This article examines the provisions on consumer guarantees as contained in the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). It will be argued that while some of these provisions may seem sensible at first sight, there appears to be no clear justification for their adoption. Drawing on the wider literature on the function of consumer guarantees, it will be suggested that the DCFR provisions have failed to take into account relevant empirical findings and that some of these provisions cannot be supported on the basis of this literature. The limited influence of the DCFR provisions on consumer guarantees on the Acquis review is noted.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Bestimmungen zu Verbrauchergarantien im Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Es wird argumentiert, dass es – obwohl viele dieser Bestimmungen scheinbar sinnvoll sind – keine klaren Gründe für deren Annahme gibt. Der Beitrag beruft sich auf Forschungsergebnisse über die Funktionen von Verbrauchergarantien, und behauptet, dass solche empirischen Studien unzureichend im DCFR berücksichtigt worden sind. Demnach sind einige der DCFR Bestimmungen nicht annehmbar. Der beschränkte Einfluss der DCFR Bestimmungen wird auf den Acquis review angemerkt.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009042

Keywords:
Financial Leasing – UNIDROIT Convention – Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR).

ABSTRACT: The Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) applies inter alia to financial leasing contracts. In a considerable number of Member States of the European Union, the UNIDROIT-Convention on International Financial Leasing (UCIFL) is in force. The present contribution examines the relationship between these two bodies of rules and the extent to which the rules of the Draft Common Frame of Reference are compatible with the UNIDROIT-Convention.

RÉSUMÉ : Le Draft Common Frame of Reference(DCFR) contient entre autres des dispositions en matière de crédit-bail. La Convention UNIDROIT sur le crédit-bail est en vigueur dans de nombreux pays membres de l’Union européenne. La présente contribution analyse la relation entre les deux ensembles de dispositions et s’efforce de vérifier dans quelle mesure les règles de la Convention UNIDROIT s’accordent avec les normes du Draft Common Frame of Reference applicables au crédit-bail.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Der Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) regelt unter anderem den Finanzierungs-Leasingvertrag. Die UNIDROIT-Convention on International Financial Leasing (UCIFL) ist in zahlreichen Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union in Kraft. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage nach, in welcher Beziehung die beiden Regelwerke stehen und inwieweit die Regelungen der UNIDROIT-Convention mit den auf das Finanzierungsleasing anwendbaren Normen des Draft Common Frame of Reference übereinstimmen.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009043

ABSTRACT: Chapter IV.C-3 of the academic ‘Draft Common Frame of Reference’, published in February 2009, deals with the specific construction contract (Articles IV.C-3:101 to IV.C-3:108), that is, the contract ‘under which one party, the constructor, undertakes to construct a building or other immovable structure, or to materially alter an existing building or other immovable structure, following a design provided by the client’ (Article IV.C-3:101). The aim of this paper was, first, to set out some points of comparison, in relation with the building of immovable structures only, between the solutions provided under the Draft Common Frame of Reference and under Belgian law to the same legal issue (especially the variations ordered by the client, the delivery procedure and the liability for defects that appear after delivery of the works) and then to discuss the specific rules existing in Belgium regarding the acquisition by consumers of buildings (houses or apartments) under construction. Finally, I will discuss the question as to whether it could also be useful to take further steps towards harmonizing consumer protection in the field of construction law.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009044

ABSTRACT: This article aims to explore the possible relationship that may arise between the model rules contained in Book VI of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, concerning non-contractual liability) and the recent Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007, on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations), as well as the harmonising value of both texts for the internal market. Two main questions will be highlighted: firstly, the ‘hidden’ conflict-of-laws rules present in some of the provisions of Book VI, which invoke the application of national law, and which requires the prior application of Rome II Regulation; and secondly, the possible scope of party autonomy in Article 14 of the Rome II Regulation, allowing parties to incorporate the rules of Book VI of the DCFR into their choice.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: In diesem Beitrag soll das mögliche Verhältnis zwischen den im Buch VI Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, concerning non-contractual liability) und der neuen Rom II-Verordnung (Verordnung (EG) 864/2007, über das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendendes Recht ) sowie der Beitrag beider Regelungen für eine Harmonisierung des Binnenmarktes untersucht werden. Zwei Hauptfragen stehen dabei im Vordergrund: Erstens die ,,verborgenen“ Kollisionsnormen, die in einigen Bestimmungen des Buch VI enthalten sind, auf das nationale Recht verweisen und eine vorherige Anwendung der Rom II-Verordnung erfordern. Zweitens der mögliche Umfang der Parteiautonomie in Artikel 14 der Rom II-Verordnung, der es den Parteien erlaubt, die Regelungen des Buch VI der DCFR in ihre Rechtswahl zu integrieren.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009045

Keywords:
DCFR; property law; ownership; acquisition; delivery; transfer.

ABSTRACT: This contribution focuses on Book VIII Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) regarding acquisition and loss of ownership of movable property and consists of fifteen questions encountered when studying the rules of this book. The aim is to provide an ‘internal’ assessment of the provisions by establishing their completeness, consistency with other provisions, fairness, and practicability, without trying to determine to what extent they fit into the current European legal systems. The topics addressed in these questions are exclusivity of ownership and rights of others (Article 1:202), retention of ownership (Articles 1:204 and 2:307), ownership and the limited right to use (Articles 1:202 and 1:204), the ‘right or authority’ to transfer ownership (Chapters 2 and 3), the agreement as to the time ownership is to pass (Article 2:101 (1)(e)), ratification of an invalid transfer (Article 2:102), the legal nature of delivery (Article 2:104 (1)), the possibility to transfer ownership of stolen goods, transfer of goods by means of a document (Article 2:105 (4)), transfer subject to a resolutive or suspensive condition (Article 2:203), the burden of proof on the transferee in case of good faith acquisition (Article 3:101), acquisitive prescription of cultural objects (Article 4:102), acquisitive prescription and acknowledgement of the owner’s rights by a possession-agent (Article 4:205), acquisition of ownership by the producer in the case of production for the benefit of the owner of the materials (Article 5:201).

RÉSUMÉ : Grâce à l’inclusion des règles du droit des biens et de la responsabilité civile, le Projet de Cadre Commun de Référence (PCCR) comprend les parties essentielles du droit patrimonial, le coeur de tout Code civil. Cette contribution se focalise sur le Livre VIII du PCCR concernant l’acquisition et la perte de propriété de biens meubles, et aborde quinze questions rencontrées durant une évaluation ‘interne’ de ce livre (exhaustivité, consistance, justice, praticabilité).

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Dank der Aufnahme der Regeln des Sachen- und Haftungsrechts, umfasst der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen (GER) das meist essentielle Teil des Zivilrechts, der Kern jedes bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs. Dieser Beitrag konzentriert sich auf Buch VIII den GER hinsichtlich der Erwerb und Verlust von Mobiliarsachen, und besteht aus fünfzehn Fragen hervorgegangen aus eine ,,interne“ Evaluierung diesen Regeln (Vollständigkeit, Konsistenz, Billigkeit, Handlichkeit).

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009046

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009047

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009048

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009049

Keywords:
European Contract Law; Harmonisation; Standards of Variable Content; Reasonableness

Abstracts: The notion of ‘reasonableness’ is familiar to Common Law lawyers, whereas it is almost unknown to most ‘continental’ civil codes (e.g., the German, French and Italian Civil Codes). In the last decades the situation has, however, considerably changed and also within the continental context. References to ‘reasonableness’ in legal provisions have continuously increased due to many factors: among others, the influence of important international conventions dealing with commercial contracts (e.g., Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG)) and the implementation of EU Directives in the field of contract law, where ‘reasonableness’ is constantly present. The same phenomenon can be observed to a greater extent in most academic projects aiming at harmonizing European contract law: Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), Code Européen des Contrats, Principles of European Law (PEL), Acquis Principles, Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), and so forth. It is not only a matter of ‘globalization’ of the law. The attractiveness of ‘reasonableness’ also depends on its specific features of extreme flexibility and proximity to concrete circumstances compared with the abstract and rigid features of other well-known principles and concepts familiar to Civil law (like ‘good faith’, ‘diligence’, ‘equity’). Nevertheless, the introduction of this new notion raises controversial issues: first, there is the risk of unfaithfully assimilating the foreign legal pattern (examples taken from EU Directives demonstrate this very well); secondly, some doubts may be raised as to whether such an ungraspable notion may really serve the aim of harmonization; finally, one may wonder whether it is wise to sacrifice traditional concepts like ‘good faith’, ‘diligence’, or ‘equity’ on the altar of simplification, thus renouncing conceptual precision and legal certainty.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009050

Abstract: Tort law is fast becoming ‘big business’. Hardly a week goes by without some lawyer or other launching a mass claim to redress a perceived injustice. Investors, too, are starting to recognize the commercial potential of tort law. Coinciding with the increasing commercialization of tort law, is growing support amongst European policy makers and legal academics for the view that tort law can be used as an ‘instrument’ for the enforcement of other areas of the law.

In this contribution, the author demonstrates that instrumentalist concepts like ‘punitive damages’ and ‘popular actions’ are by no means foreign to the Western European legal tradition. In the Low Countries, the reception of Roman law ensured that punitive damages and popular actions were part of private law until the days of the Republic. However, with the rise of the Natural law school in the seventeenth century, the Dutch moved away from the concept of private citizens exacting punishment. The author would regard a return to an instrumentalist view of tort law as a real ‘step backward’.

Résumé: L’usage légal de la responsabilité civile délictuelle se développe rapidement comme une pratique commerciale très rentable. Peu de semaines se passent sans qu’un avocat quelconque ne démarre une « action de groupe » pour redresser une injustice supposée. Le mouvement gagne les investisseurs qui commencent, eux aussi, à reconnaître le potentiel commercial de la responsabilité civile délictuelle. Simultanément à la marchandisation croissante de l’usage légal de la responsabilité civile délictuelle, l’opinion que ce concept peut être utilisé comme instrument permettant la mise en action d’autres domaines de la loi, rencontre un soutien croissant dans les cercles européens de décision politique et le monde universitaire.

Dans cet article, l’auteur démontre que des concepts instrumentalistes comme les indemnités à caractère punitif (‘punitive damages’) et les actions populaires (‘popular actions’) ne sont pas étrangers à la tradition juridique d’Europe de l’Ouest. Aux Pays-Bas, l’héritage du droit romain a permis que les indemnités pénales et les actions populaires forment une partie du droit civil jusqu’à l’époque de la République. Cependant, suite a l?ascension de l’école du droit naturel au 17ème siècle, les Hollandais se sont éloignés du concept de personne privée infligeant des peines. L’auteur regarderait un retour à la conception instrumentaliste comme une véritable régression.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009051

Keywords:
Europeanization, Harmonisation, Codification, Comparative law.

Abstract: This article attempts to contribute to the debate of how the legal families are to be reconcilable, if need be, to achieve a European private law. The debate kicks off through an analysis of comparative law. Nowadays, comparative law plays a very important role in bridging differences between different legal systems and academics, practitioners and judges alike are becoming increasingly aware of how their colleagues in other Member States tackle similar legal issues. Having established the role of comparative law, the article then moves on to list, describe, and discuss the possible tools that can be used to achieve Europeanized private law. Achieving Europeanization is one thing, moving on to codification is another issue. The article concludes with a discussion on the role of codification in the process of Europeanizing private law and if it would be desirable to have eventually a European civil code.

Résumé: Le fait que l’UE puisse éventuellement avoir un code civil, en associant les systèmes légaux et en revenant à l’époque à laquelle il y avait un « ius commune », est discutable. Ce document ne cherche pas à prendre position sur le fait de savoir si cette réalisation est souhaitable ou possible, mais il cherche à identifier et analyser les outils qui peuvent être utilisés pour parvenir à une telle éventualité. Peu importe qu’un code soit réalisé ou non, c’est une réalité quotidienne que les mesures de l’UE, en particulier dans le domaine de la coopération judiciaire en matière civile, contribuent à la réalisation d’une forme de droit privé européanisé à travers l’Union, même si la réalisation d’un code civil semble compliquée. Dans ce document, par européanisation, on entend le processus par lequel les initiatives législatives sont prises au niveau de l’UE pour parvenir à un droit privé unifié ou harmonisé. Dans ce contexte, il faut se rendre compte que la plupart des systèmes juridiques européens appartiennent à l’une des deux grandes familles juridiques, le droit civil continental et le « common law » anglo-saxon. Si l’européanisation veut être une réussite, elle doit aborder la question des différences entre systèmes judiciaires. Comment? Ce document tente précisément de contribuer au débat sur la manière dont ils sont conciliables, s’il y a besoin. Le débat débute par une analyse comparative des droits et par la suite, décrit et examine les outils possibles qui peuvent être utilisés. Il se conclut par une discussion sur le rôle de la codification et sur le fait de savoir s’il serait souhaitable d’éventuellement avoir un code civil européen.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009052

Abstract: This article develops a critical evaluation of the theoretical foundations of the Common Core of European Private Law Project, in particular, of the theory of Rodolfo Sacco. The overall aim of this exercise is to test to what extent the common core project can truly provide an accurate and relatively neutral description of European Private Law. First, it describes the comparative law theory of Rodolfo Sacco and describes briefly how this method is applied practically in the Common Core of European Private Law Project. Second, it describes a number of criticisms that can be raised against this method. In doing so, it defends the thesis that law has a multi-faceted character and that there is not one single method for the study of comparative law that is able to cover all of these different facets. Rather, in order to provide an accurate and precise description of a different legal system, one has to apply different comparative methods.

Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag beabsichtigt, eine kritische Bewertung der theoretischen Grundlagen des Common Core of European Private Law Projektes, insbesondere der Theorie von Rodolfo Sacco. Das maßgebliche Ziel dieser Beitrags ist allerdings die Frage, in welchem Umfang das Common Core Projekt tatsächlich eine präzise und relativ neutrale Darstellung des europäischen Privatrechts bietet. Zunächst wird die rechtsvergleichende Theorie von Rodolfo Sacco näher dargestellt sowie auch erläutert, wie diese Methode im Common Core of European Private Law Projekt praktisch angewendet wird. Darüber hinaus wird eine Anzahl von Kritikpunkten näher aufgeführt, die gegen diese Methode vorgebracht werden können. Dabei wird die Ansicht vertreten, dass das Recht einen facettenreichen Charakter hat, sodass es nicht nur eine einzige Methode zur rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung gibt, die es ermöglicht alle diese unterschiedlichen Facetten abzudecken. Zur Ermöglichung einer akkuraten und genauen Erläuterung eines anderen Rechtssystems ist es vielmehr erforderlich, verschiedene rechtsvergleichende Methoden anzuwenden.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009053

Keywords:
European private law, Information duties, Law and economics, Legal reasoning, Interpretation, Social Justice

Abstract: After a rather hesitant reception, law and economics is today a well-established branch of legal education and research at many universities all over Europe. Competition law aside, its impact on legal practice and adjudication is still widely perceived as being rather modest. However, in European private law economic analysis slowly seems to gain more prominence. In its proposals and initiatives the Commission increasingly relies on efficiency and other law and economics arguments. Moreover, arguments based on an economic analysis of law have been advanced as a line of reasoning before, and have occasionally been relied on by, the Court of Justice in its decisions. This article analyses whether and to what extent law and economics may contribute to the development of an autonomous method of legal reasoning in European private law. It argues that law and economics arguments are legitimate and provide an indispensible tool for highlighting the inevitable social costs generated by decisions that satisfy the perceptions of fairness and justice of certain groups.

Résumé: Malgré des débuts quelque peu hésitants, l’analyse économique du droit est aujourd’hui pleinement reconnue comme un aspect important de l’enseignement juridique et de la recherche par beaucoup d’universités en Europe. Cependant, le droit de la concurrence mis à part, son impact sur la pratique juridique et sur les décisions judiciaires est encore très largement perçu comme relativement modeste. Pourtant, dans le droit privé européen, l’analyse économique semble gagner peu à peu en importance. La Commission Européenne dans ses propositions et initiatives, s’appuie de plus en plus sur l’efficience et donc sur des arguments de nature économique. Par ailleurs, des arguments basés sur l’analyse économique du droit avaient déjà été utilisés comme outils de raisonnement et, en de certaines occasions, la Cour de Justice Européenne y avait eu recours dans ses décisions. Cet article analyse si -et surtout dans quelle mesure- l’analyse économique du droit peut contribuer au développement d’une méthode indépendante de raisonnement juridique en droit privé européen. Il est démontré que les arguments de l’analyse économique du droit sont légitimes et fournissent un outil indispensable pour mettre en exergue les coûts sociaux inévitables générés par des décisions satisfaisant uniquement les perceptions d’équité et de justice voulus par certaines groupes.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009054

Abstract: Despite international and European cooperation, copyright law remains a predominantly national affair dominated by national policy. The article examines if this framework is up to the challenges presented by the Internet. Two problems are found: the laws of all the receiving countries apply to an Internet publications and these laws often differ substantially. This is so because states wish to remain free to draft national copyright policy and apply it to their public sphere. As a consequence, exemptions from copyright protection are not harmonized. Using the example of digital libraries and the problem of copyright-protected works whose right holders are unknown or unlocatable (so-called orphan works), the article demonstrates how divergence of laws impairs Internet-related use of copyrighted materials. As these orphan works cannot legally be used, an exemption from copyright protection may be warranted. However, to facilitate online distribution, an international approach is required. This article discusses the possibilities of such an approach by means of choice-of-law and harmonization and unification of copyright law in the European Union.

Zusammenfassung: Trotz der internationalen und europäischen Zusammenarbeit verbleibt das Urheberrecht überwiegend eine nationale Angelegenheit, die durch nationale Grundsätze beherrscht wird. Dieser Beitrag untersucht, ob diese Grundstruktur den Herausforderungen, die das Internet mit sich bringt, gewachsen ist. Zwei Probleme können hier genannt werden: Die Gesetze aller Empfangsstaaten sind auf eine Veröffentlichung im Internet anwendbar, diese Gesetze aber unterscheiden sich oft erheblich voneinander. Der Grund hierfür liegt darin, dass die einzelnen Staaten die Freiheit haben möchten, um nationale Urheberrechtsgrundsätze zu konzipieren und in ihrer eigenen öffentlichen Bereich anzuwenden. Aus diesem Grund werden Ausnahmen von dem urheberrechtlichen Schutz nicht harmonisiert. Durch die Darstellung des Beispiels von digitalen Bibliotheken sowie des Problems von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken, deren Rechtsinhaber unbekannt oder unauffindbar sind (sogenannte verwaiste werke, oder orphan works), soll in diesem Beitrag aufgezeigt werden, wie Unterschiede in den nationalen Rechtssystemen die mit dem Internet zusammenhängende Verwendung von urheberrechtlichen material beeinflussen. Da diese orphan works nicht legal verwendet werden können, könnte eine Ausnahme vom urheberrechtlichen Schutz in diesen Fällen berechtigt sein. Um allerdings die Online-Verbreitung zu fördern, ist eine internationale Vorgehensweise zwingend erforderlich. Dieser Beitrag erläutert die Möglichkeit einer solchen Vorgehensweise durch die Regelung der Rechtswahl sowie die Harmonisierung und die Vereinheitlichung des Urheberrechts in der Europäischen Union.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009055

Abstract: The relationship between the investment firm and its (potential) client was traditionally the exclusive domain of private law. The leading role of private law in determining the investment firm-client relationship, however, has recently been put under pressure as a result of the EC securities regulation increasingly becoming relevant for this relationship. This article explores to what extent private law in the area of the investment firm-client relationship has been superseded by supervision standards following the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) 2004 in national legal systems. The author concludes that although there has been a major shift in focus from private law to supervision standards, private law has not lost its importance for the investment firm-client relationship. As a result, private law and the way in which private law and supervision standards interact may have a major impact upon the ability of the MiFID to pursue its policy goals. It is submitted therefore that the EU legislator should take the relationship between national private law systems and the EC securities regulation much more seriously than this has been the case so far.

Zusammenfassung: Das Verhältnis zwischen Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen und seinen (potenziellen) Kunden war traditionell eine exklusive Domäne des Privatrechts. Diese Führungsrolle des Privatrechts bei der Feststellung des Verhältnisses zwischen dem Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen und dem Kunden hat in letzter Zeit aufgrund der wachsenden Relevanz der Europäischen Union (EU) – Wertpapierregulierung innerhalb dieses Verhältnisses an Bedeutung eingebüßt. Dieser Beitrag untersucht, in welchem Umfang das Privatrecht im Bereich des Verhältnisses zwischen dem Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen und dem Kunden durch die Aufsichtsstandards verdrängt wurde, die 2004 durch die Richtlinie über Märkte für Finanzinstrumente (MiFID) in die nationalen Rechtssysteme implementiert werden mussten. Der Verfasser folgert, dass obwohl eine große Akzentuierung vom Privatrecht zu den Aufsichtsstandards hin erfolgte, das Privatrecht für das Verhältnis zwischen dem Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen und dem Kunden nicht an Bedeutung eingebüßt hat. Aus diesem Grund könnte das Privatrecht sowie die Weise, in der das Privatrecht und die Aufsichtsstandards zusammenwirken, einen entscheidenden Einfluss auf das Fähigkeit der MiFID haben, ihre politischen Ziele zu erreichen. Aus diesem Grund wird vorgeschlagen, dass der europäische Gesetzgeber das Verhältnis zwischen dem nationalen Privatrecht und der EU-Wertpapierregulierung ernster nehmen sollte, als er es bis jetzt getan hat.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009056

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009057

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009058

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009059

The article attempts to set the scene for the conference on a new book on Unauthorized Agency. It examines whether the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) reflect a ‘common core’ of European private law.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009060

This paper seeks to provide an overview of the project which led to publication of the book The Unauthorised Agent: Perspectives from European and Comparative Law, published by Cambridge University Press in 2009. Broadly speaking, the project concerned the problems caused by agents who act in an unauthorized manner and the legal concepts used to tackle those problems. These issues are analysed in the context of different national legal systems within the European Union and beyond. Drawing on the national chapters, the authors provide a detailed comparative analysis. Within this context, they assess whether a common law/civil law divide exists, and also analyse the contribution made by mixed legal systems. Finally, the book assesses the approach of international instruments such as the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009061

This essay discusses the topic of what common lawyers call ‘apparent authority’, whereby a principal may be bound by an unauthorized act because the agent appears to the third party to be authorized. Other legal systems reach similar (but not always identical) results, sometimes by different means. It contrasts the view taken by most legal systems that the principal’s liability depends on his own conduct (or ‘manifestation’), with the diametrically opposed view that the liability depends on the reasonableness of the impression received by the third party, and whether there is any intermediate position. It considers the technical means for giving effect to such approaches, especially the first, and whether the ‘estoppel’ approach of Anglo-Australasian common law is preferable to the approach of Restatement, Third, which treats apparent authority as simply another form of authority not requiring additional means to be made effective.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009062

Ratification permits a principal to determine to be bound by the legal consequences of action taken by an agent after the fact of the agent’s conduct when the principal would otherwise not be bound. By ratifying, a principal may clarify the effects of uncertainty, furnishing reassurance to the agent, the third party with whom the agent dealt, and other parties interested in the status of the transaction. However, at the point the principal decides whether to ratify, the principal knows facts not known to agent and third party at the time of the agent’s unauthorized transaction, in particular subsequent developments in the market. The principal thus may be tempted to speculate at the expense of the third party, ratifying if the transaction seems then favourable to the principal and, if not, relying on the agent’s lack of authority. This article is a comparative analysis of ratification doctrine within the systems covered by The Unauthorised Agent. Ratification doctrine is variable among these systems and, even within single systems, difficult to rationalize. The article argues that these doctrinal characteristics reflect tensions between two competing principles that underlie ratification – the necessity for the principal’s consent and considerations of fairness to third parties – leading to variations in doctrinal specifics. Ratification’s unevenness also reflects the complexity of consent within agency doctrine; system-by-system variations also stem from differences in the significance of ratification and the contexts in which the doctrine matters.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009063

This lecture examines the liability of the falsus procurator: the liability vis-à-vis the third party of the agent who acts without sufficient authority. It critically discusses the following topics: the legal basis of the agent’s liability, the measure of the agent’s liability in the absence of fraud or negligence, the principal’s vicarious liability in tort for the agent’s lack of authority, and the law governing the liability of the falsus procurator in the Rome I Regulation. The lecture concludes with four propositions.

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009064

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009065

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009066

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009067

Copyright © 2009 Kluwer Law International
All rights reserved

ISSN: 0928-9801
ID: ERPL2009068