The draft common frame of reference: How to improve it?

European Private Law after the Common Frame of Reference

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 90-100

  Smits, Jan M ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881950057     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Von Bar, C., E. Clive and H. Schulte-Nölke (eds) (2008), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference, Interim Outline Edition, Munich: Sellier.
2. These groups are the most important members of the Joint Network on European Private Law (CoPECL).
3. Communication on European Contract Law and the Revision of the Acquis: the Way Forward, COM(2004)651 final, OJ EC 2005, C 14/6.
4. DCFR (2008), 6 ff.
5. DCFR (2008), 6.
6. DCFR (2008), 37.
7. Communication (2004), 14.
8. Communication (2004), 3.
9. Communication (2004), 6.
10. Published by Sellier Publishers (Munich) from 2006 onwards.
11. Research Group on the Existing EC Private Law (2007), Principles of the Existing EC Contract Law (Acquis Principles), Vol. I: Contract: Pre-contractual Obligations, Conclusion of Contract, Unfair Terms, Munich: Sellier, on which Jansen, N. and R. Zimmermann (2007), 'Grundregeln des bestehenden Gemeinschaftsprivatrechts?', 62 Juristenzeitung 1113. Vol. II on Performance, Non-Performance and Remedies is announced for 2008.
12. Martins, H. (1974), 'Time and Theory in Sociology', in: J. Rex, Approaches to Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan, 246, at 276.
13. See Wimmer, A. and N. Glick Schiller (2002), 'Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences', 2 Global Networks 301, at 304.
14. See Wimmer and Schiller (2002), at 302.
15. Wimmer and Schiller (2002), at 304.
16. Cf. Joerges, C. (2004), 'The Challenges of Europeanization in the Realm of Private Law: APlea For a New Legal Discipline', 14 Duke J. Comp. Int. L. 149, at 160.
17. Cf. Beck, U. (2003), 'Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent', 10 Constellations 453, at 456: methodological nationalism prevents us from looking beyond the 'traditional conceptualisations of terms and the construction of borders between the "national" and the "international", domestic and foreign politics, or society and the state'.
18. Beck (2003), at 458.
19. I only need to refer to the elaborate discussion about the best way to characterise the European Union (not as a federation or as an international organisation, but as a sui generis type of entity).
20. Building on Habermas' concept of a 'postnational constellation' in which traditional democratic processes have to take on new forms: see Habermas, J. (2001), The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
21. Notable exceptions are Joerges, C. (2004), 149 ff., Michaels, R. (2005), 'Welche Globalisierung für das Recht? Welches Recht für die Globalisierung?', RabelsZ, 525 ff. and the contributions to Cafaggi, F. (ed.) (2006), The Institutional Framework of European Private Law, Oxford: OUP.
22. I have been critical about the entire project before: see Smits, J.M. (2006), 'European Private Law: a Plea for a Spontaneous Legal Order', in: D. Curtin, et al, European Integration and Law, Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia.
23. Cf. Jansen, N. (2004), Binnenmarkt, Privatrecht und europäische Identität, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20.
24. On private regulation at the European and supranational level see e.g. Cafaggi, F. (ed.) (2006), Reframing Self-regulation in European Private Law, The Hague: Kluwer; Schiek, D. (2007), 'Private Rule-making and European Governance: Issues of Legitimacy', European Law Review 443 and Zumbansen, P. (2007), The Law of Society: Governance Through Contract, CLPE Research Paper 2/2007.
25. Cf. Cafaggi, F. (2006), 'Introduction', in: id. (ed), The Institutional Framework of European Private Law, Oxford: OUP, 1 and Cafaggi, F. (2008), 'The Making of European Private Law: Governance Design', in: F. Cafaggi, and H. Muir Watt, Making European Private Law: Governance Design, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 289.
26. All traditional codifications were declared to be exclusive: they were the only source of law. See for a thorough analysis Van den Berg, P.A.J. (2007), The Politics of European Codification: A History of the Unification of Law in France, Prussia, the Austrian Monarchy and the Netherlands, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
27. See Smits, J.M. (2008), 'A European Law on Unjustified Enrichment? A Critical View of the Law of Restitution in the Draft Common Frame of Reference', in: A. Vaquer (ed.), European Private Law Beyond the Common Frame of Reference, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 153.
28. Swann, S. (2005), 'The Structure of Liability for Unjustified Enrichment: First Proposals of the Study Group on a European Civil Code', in: R. Zimmermann (ed.), Grundstrukturen eines Europa¨ischen Bereicherungsrecht, Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 268.
29. Surprisingly, neither is the case law of the European Court of Justice codified in any way, whereas one would have expected a codification of the doctrine of state liability on the basis of Francovich and Brasserie.
30. Green paper on the revision of the consumer acquis of 8 February 2007, COM(2006)744 final. Also see Second progress report on the CFR of 25 July 2007, COM(2007)447 final.
31. The following remark (DCFR (2008), 10) is therefore surprising: '[w]hether particular rules might be used as a model for early legislation, for example, for the improvement of the internal coherence of the acquis communautaire ... is for others to decide'.
32. Cf., Study Group on Social Justice in European Private Law (2004), 'Social Justice in European Contract Law: a Manifesto', 10 European Law Journal 653.
33. DCFR (2008), 12.
34. This is suggested in the DCFR (2008), 12, where it says that the CFR 'mediates' between diverging results in the various Member States.
35. DCFR (2008), 9.
36. The authors mention 'justice, freedom, protection of human rights, economic welfare, solidarity and social responsibility', to which they add for European regulation 'promotion of the internal market', 'preservation of cultural and linguistic plurality' and, specifically for the drafting of model rules, the goals of 'rationality, legal certainty, predictability and efficiency'. See DCFR (2008), 13.
37. Cf. Morgan, B. and K. Yeung (2007), An Introduction to Law and Regulation, Cambridge: CUP, 303-304.
38. On the very idea of representing law see Roberts, S.A. (2005), 'After Government? On Representing Law Without the State', 68 Modern Law Review 1.
39. Cf. Twining, W. and D.R. Miers (1999), How To Do Things With Rules, 4th edn, Cambridge: CUP.
40. Morgan and Yeung (2007), 305.
41. DCFR (2008), 6.
42. See e.g. Smits, J.M. (2008), 'The German Schuldrechtsmodernisierung and the New Dutch Civil Code: a Study in Parallel', in: O. Remien (ed.), Schuldrechtsmodernisierung und Europäisches Vertragsrecht, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 117ff.
43. Micklitz, H.-W. (2008), The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law: The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation, EUI Working Paper 2008/14.
44. With much less generalisation of the existing rules than advocated by the acquis group: cf. Jansen and Zimmermann (2007), 1120 ff.
45. Cf. Wilhelmsson, T. (2002), 'The Legal, the Cultural and the Political: Conclusions from Different Perspectives on Harmonisation of European Contract Law', European Business Law Review 551 and Smits, J.M. (1998), 'A European Private Law as a Mixed Legal System', 5 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 328.
46. See now also Eidenmüller, H., F. Faust, H.C. Grigoleit, N. Jansen, G. Wagner and R. Zimmermann (2008), 'Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen für das Europäische Privatrecht', 63 JuristenZeitung 529.