Sayfa 155Emmanuel GUINCHARD…
The Project (background and aim). Resolving disputes which arise under contracts may be complicated enough in the domestic context. The task may become even more complex in the presence of a foreign element, in particular if the parties are based in different states or the contract should be enforced abroad. In those circumstances, it is essential to establish what law will apply to such a contract, possibly before the parties enter into any binding agreement. In the European Union (save Denmark), the Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) is the key Regulation to consider. It derives from the initiatives of the European Commission following the Treaty of Amsterdam, which, according to Article 65(b) of the EC Treaty, gave the Community (now the European Union) competence to take measures to promote the compatibility of conflict-of-laws rules applicable in the Member States insofar as was necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. The idea was that substantial contract law differed considerably across Europe. In the absence of a unified European contract law, rules on conflict of laws were therefore crucial. However, the rules themselves differed. This, it was argued, hindered the proper functioning of the internal market, hence the need to harmonise these rules in order to increase legal certainty. The Rome I Regulation was however not starting from scratch as it is primarily a communitarisation of the older 1980 Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, albeit with major amendments as to the contents and institutional context (jurisdiction of the Court of Justice as of right). Rome I applies since 17 December 2009. As we are
The Team. To this end, a team of authors from the widest range of Member States…
The methodology. The authors collected judgments through national databases, but also local case-law reports at times (e.g. case-law
The relevancy. The evidence thus collected appears considerable — even it cannot be exhaustive and does not pretend to be. It is submitted that it provides a good picture of Rome I in practice. Such study…
The results (quantity). Key results of the study – necessarily based on collected…
The results (quality). From a qualitative perspective, overall, the judicial application of Rome I appears in many respects satisfactory. It is true that mistakes in the application of Rome I do occur. At times, they may even be basic ones. For example, in Hungary, a court suggested that the Rome I Regulation would not apply to cases with a significant non-EU element.…
Lois d’application immediate. Lois d’application immediate are, overall, seldom used. Firstly, the provision may not be identified as a loi d’application immediate. In France, it has been pointed out in this respect that “the enactment of the Rome I Regulation and the drafting of Article 9(1) seem to have reduced the judicial characterisation of [lois d’application immediate]”, even for cases falling under the Rome Convention. Thus, the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) decided “that the French provision that gives carriers a direct claim for payment against recipients of the goods is not a [loi d’application immediate] […] The Cour de cassation also refused to label as [lois d’application immediate] the provisions of [Consumer Law] protecting individuals who act as personal guarantors for the benefit of a bank. […] More surprisingly, the Cour de cassation recently decided, again under the Rome Convention, that the French legislation transposing the Directive No. 86/653/EEC on commercial agents is not a [loi d’application immediate]”.…
Secondly, the provision may be identified as a loi d’application immediate but its…
The only type of contracts for which courts have been lenient in the identification…
Escape clauses. The use of escape clauses appears limited in most countries, albeit not all. A good example of the restraint shown by judges in the use of escape clauses would be the judgment of the High Court of England and Wales (Commercial Court) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Molton Street Capital LLP v Shooters Hill Capital Partners LLP and Odeon Capital Group LLC.…
Ordre public. Ordre public appears to be hardly ever used. In many countries,…
A weakness of Rome I: Treatment and Proof of foreign law. The overall satisfactory…