Promoting human rights within the union: The role of european private international law

European Law Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 105-127

  Van Den Eeckhout, Veerle ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249162884     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00404.x     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. V. Van Den Eeckhout, 'Tien jaar Europees internationaal privaatrecht. Een verrassende metamorfose van exotisch muurbloempje tot goed geïntegreerde deelnemer in diverse gezelschappen' [Ten Years of European Private International Law. A Surprising Metamorphosis from an Exotic Wallflower into a Well- Integrated Participant in a Variety of Companies'], [2005] Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 289.
2. OMC can be briefly defined as follows (see, e.g., O. De Schutter and S. Deakin, 'Introduction: Reflexive Governance and the Dilemmas of Social Regulation', in O. De Schutter and S. Deakin (eds), Social Rights and Market Forces. Is the Open Coordination of Employment and Social Policies the Future of Social Europe? (Bruylant, 2005), 1): 'The open method of coordination is one of a number of new governance mechanisms which, from a theoretical point of view, are understood as performing a range of functions. These include fostering mutual learning between the Member States and avoiding or limiting the phenomenon of competitive deregulation in the internal market, while at the same time respecting the diversity of national practices and the existing division of powers between the European Community and the Member States'.
3. O. De Schutter, The Implementation of the EU Charter of Human rights through the Open Method of Coordination, Jean Monnet Working Paper 2004 07/04, at 2, available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram. org/papers/ papers04.htlm.
4. Here and below, quoting De Schutter, I refer to the orginal draft of his contributions to the project (mainly his contribution 'Monitoring Human Rights in the Union as a Learning Process'), as well as to his publication mentioned in n 3 supra.
5. It should be emphasised, however, that there were already discussions about the relationship between PIL and European law before the Treaty of Amsterdam, both from the perspective of the four freedoms and from the perspective of the non-discrimination principle, and that the Court of Justice, for example, had already intervened in matters such as the cautio judicatum solvi.
6. In the extensive version of this article (available in its original version at http://refgov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be under 'Publications', 'Fundamental Rights', 'FR4', and to be published in a slightly revised version in Fundamental Rights and the EU-In the Web of Governance (Bruylant, 2007), I have made a first attempt to position-in a fragmentary way-the convergence or tension between 'old' ('classic') and 'new' (European) tendencies to instrumentalise PIL and its interaction with human rights. The extensive version of this article also includes more discussions and footnotes.
7. See, e.g., for the Netherlands S. J. Schaafsma, Vervuiling in het conflictenrecht: Een onderzoek naar theoretische concepten in praktijk van de internationale milieuvervuiling onrechtmatige daad in het international privaatrechtelijke conflictenrecht [Pollution in Conflict of Laws] (Post Scriptum Reeks, 1994).
8. See P. Vlas, 'Terrorisme en IPR' ['Terrorism and PIL'], [2005] Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie 663.
9. See Schaafsma, n 7 supra.
10. In these analyses, I have pointed out several times that the 'instrumentalisation' of PIL for the purpose of encouraging mobility of persons (which Europe is currently trying to achieve in the context of international family law) is much more in line with the essence of PIL and modern PIL, which is essentially, even if only in part, focused on facilitating legal transactions and the target of international harmonisation, certainly now that Europe takes 'favor' tendencies to heart.
11. Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and CommercialMatters 27 September 1968, [1990] OJ C189/2 (consolidated version published in 1998 ([1998] OJ C27/1) (the Brussels Convention).
12. Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations [1998] OJ C27/34, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (the Rome Convention).
13. On this subject, see also A. A. H. Van Hoek, Internationale mobiliteit van werknemers; een onderzoek naar de interactie tussen arbeidsrecht, EG-recht en IPR aan de hand van de Detacheringsrichtlijn [International Mobility of Employees.
14. A Study into the Interaction between Labour Law, EC Law and PIL on the Basis of the Posting Workers Directive] (Sdu Uitgevers, 2000), at 103-104.
15. and M. S. Houwerzijl, De Detacheringsrichtlijn [Directive on Posting of Workers] (Kluwer, 2005), at 4.
16. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1.
17. Proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market COM (2004) 2def/2 (13 January 2004).
18. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations ('Rome I') COM (2005) 650 final (15 December 2005).
19. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to noncontractual obligations ('Rome II') COM (2003) 427 (01) (22 July 2003).
20. Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ('Rome II') COM (2006) 83 final (21 February 2006).
21. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market [2000] OJ L178/1 (E-Commerce Directive).
22. COM (2003) 356 def (namely Art 4, para 1) and COM (2004) 753 def. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7 EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2005] OJ L149/22 (Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices).
23. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin [2000] OJ L180/22.
24. See, e.g., M. Traest, 'Enkele overwegingen over de toepasselijkheid van de wet ter bestrijding van discriminatie in internationale (arbeids)verhoudingen' ['Some Considerations about the Applicability of the Anti-Discriminationl Act in International Labour Relationships'] in D. Cuypers (ed.), Gelijkheid in het arbeidsrecht. Gelijkheid zonder grenzen? [Equality in Labour Law. Equality without Limits?] (Intersentia, 2003), 80.
25. See also, on the issue of harmonisation, the Communications and the Action Plan on European Contract law, and see also the project European Labour Law Network, available at http://www.elln.eu, an EU-wide network of labour law academics.
26. ECJ Case C-381/98, Ingmar [2000] ECR I-9305.
27. See also, on the aim of stimulating a fair competition within the internal market, and the implications of focusing on either this aim (considered by de Boer as the aim of protecting a 'public interest'), or the aim of protecting the agent (considered by de Boer as the aim of protecting an 'individual interest'), Th. M. De Boer, 'Comments with Ingmar', [2005] Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 332.
28. As permitted currently, for example, in Art 3 of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
29. See above for references to these (proposals for) Directives.
30. O. De Schutter and S. Francq, 'La proposition de directive relative aux services dans le marché intérieur: Reconnaissance mutuelle, harmonisation et conflits de lois dans l'Europe élargie' (2005) 5-6 Cahiers de droit européen 603.
31. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the Posting of Workers in the framework of the provision of services [1997] OJ L18/1.
32. De Schutter, n 3 supra, at 3.
33. De Schutter and Deakin, n 2 supra, at 3.
34. On this subject, see also infra section II.C.
35. Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses [2000] OJ L160/19.
36. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 [2003] OJ L338/1.
37. Case C-96/04, Grunkin. The Opinion dates from 30 June 2005. The judgment dates from 27 April 2006. The judgment has fizzled out: The Court of Justice stated that 'The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Amtsgericht Niebüll in its decision of 2 June 2003'.
38. PIL lawyers often already try to use differences between the legal systems in a strategic way-eg in the frame of Art 6 of the Rome Convention. See also in this context the information published on the website available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/ejn/ (European Justice Network).
39. See supra section II.A.b).ii).
40. See, in particular, publications by M. Traest and A. A. van Hoek. See also the Directive on Posting of Workers, n 28 supra, Art 3, para 1(g).
41. See the Amended Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (COM (2003) 199 def), at 3.
42. On this philosophy, see also V. Van Den Eeckhout, 'Communitarisation of International Family Law as seen from a Dutch Perspective: What is New ? A Prospective Analysis', in A. Nuyts and N. Watté (eds), International Civil Litigation in Europe and Relations with Third States (Bruylant, 2005), 509-561.
43. This could be placed in the context of what De Schutter, n 3 supra, at 3-4, describes as a function of OMC: '... the openmethod of coordination could be an adequatemeans of better reconciling the requirements of market (economic) freedoms constitutive of the internal market, with human rights, especially social rights, which the Member States are bound to protect and implement under their jurisdiction'. Possibly, PIL could help to find such 'means of better reconciling'!
44. Cha'are shalom ve tsedek v France, 27 June 2000, European Court of Human Rights.
45. R. Lawson, The Monitoring of Fundamental Rights in the Union as a Contribution to the European Legal Space (III): The Role of the European Court of Human Rights, contribution to the project, available at http://refgov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be and to be published in Fundamental Rights and the EU-In the Web of Governance (Bruylant, 2007).
46. Decision of the German Constitutional Court of 4 May 1971 ([1974] Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 72)
47. This means that there could be class justice if only people who can afford, time-wise or financially, to travel to that other country where a right may be recognised under the applicable law may have effective access to this right.
48. Cf in this context the case of Johnston and Others v Ireland, 18 December 1986, European Court of Human Rights.
49. With respect to France, see, e.g., the Simitch case-law: Cass (Fr), 6 February 1985, [1985] Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 369.
50. See on this case-law, e.g., P. Courbe, 'Le divorce international: premier bilan d'application de l'article 310 du Code Civil', [1989-1990] Comité français de droit international privé, Travaux 123.
51. J. Deprez, 'Droit internatoinal privé et conflits de civilisations', (1988) IV Recueil des cours 175 and F. Moneger, 'Vers la fin des répudiations musulmanes par le juge français?', [1992] Journal de Droit International 347.
52. Compare supra section II.A.b).i)
53. In this context, see, e.g., Art 3(3) of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
54. On this issue, see also my remarks about the problems of international environmental pollution and Art 7 of the Rome II proposal in the full version of this article.
55. Cf the discussions raised by the Inspire case of the Court of Justice (C-167/01, [2003] ECR I-10155).
56. See also Van Den Eeckhout, n 1 supra, especially at 298 and 300-301. I repeat a passage from this contribution.
57. Case C-148-02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I-11613.
58. In this context, see also the Opinion rendered by Advocate General Geelhoed dated 27 February 2003 in the Hacene Akrich case (C-109/01, [2003] ECR I-9607).
59. And see, e.g., in this context also the Chen case (C-200/02, [2004] ECR I-9925), concerning a child with and parents without EU nationality.
60. See the Baldinger decision, C-386/02, [2004] ECR I-8411.
61. C-370/90, Singh [1992] ECR I-4265 and C-109/01, Hacene Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607. Another case worth mentioning is C-1/05, Jia [2007] ECR Page I-1.
62. Also on the basis of the analysis of the Baldinger case, it turns out that, in specific cases, considering specific rights as a 'social advantage' may offer a solution, but that this is not always the case. In this context, see also the Reed case (Case 59/85, [1986] ECR 1283).
63. Likewise, it was also considered in Garcia Avello, n 52 supra, para 36, that '... it is common ground that (such a) discrepancy in surnames is liable to cause serious inconvenience for those concerned at both professional and private levels resulting from, inter alia, difficulties in benefiting, in one Member State of which they are nationals, from the legal effects of diplomas or documents drawn up in the surname recognised in another Member State of which they are also nationals'.
64. Paragraph 47.
65. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 concerning the Law of Family Reunification, [2003] OJ L251/12.
66. This touches on the interdependencies between European law, PIL, nationality law and aliens law.
67. Inspire, n 50 supra. See also C-212/97, Centros [1999] ECR I-1459 and C-208/00, Uberseering [2002] ECR I-9919.
68. See also n 6 supra.
69. In this context, see, e.g., ECJ 28 March 2000, Case C-7/98 Krombach, and studies thereon.
70. C-148/02, Judgment dated 2 October 2003.
71. C-96/04. The Opinion dates from 30 June 2005. Judgment dated 27 April 2006.