The communitarization of the conflict of laws under the treaty of Amsterdam

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 687-708

  Basedow, Ju¨ Rgen ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85102807674     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: 18758320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1005628803659     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. 1. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (hereinafter EEC Treaty, later renamed EC Treaty), Done at Rome on 25 March 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11.
2. 2. See e.g. Schweitzer in Grabitz and Hilf (Eds.), Kommentar zur Europa¨ischen Union (looseleaf edition) Art. 220 EGV no. 2; Schwartz in von der Groeben, Thiesing, Ehlermann (Eds.), Kommentar zum EU/EG-Vertrag vol. 5, 5th ed. (1997), Art. 220 no. 30 et seq.
3. 3. See e.g. von Hoffmann, “The Relevance of European Community Law”, in id. (Ed.) European Private International Law (1998) pp. 19–37 (31); de Miguel Asenso, “La evolucio´n del derecho internacional privado comunitario en el Tratado de Amsterdam”, 50 Revista Espan˜ola de Derecho Internacional (1998), 373–376, 376.
4. 4. Of 27 Sept. 1968. The consolidated version of the Brussels Convention following the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden is published in O.J. 1998, C 27/1.
5. 5. Of 24 Oct. 1988, O.J. 1988, L 319/9.
6. 6. Of 19 June 1980. The consolidated version of the Rome Convention following the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden is published in O.J. 1998, C 27/34.
7. 7. In July 1999 the European Commission criticized the fact that the “Brussels Convention, as amended following the accession negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden, has not yet entered into force for all the Member States as only a minority of them have ratified it.” COM (1999) 348 final of 14 July 1999 at 2.1. The accession negotiations of the three States which have been members of the EC since 1 Jan. 1995, terminated in December 1996.
8. 8. See the answer of Commissioner Monti of 19 Nov. 1996 to the European Parliament, O.J. 1997, C 83/35, reprinted in Zeitschrift fu¨r Europa¨isches Privatrecht (ZEuP) (1998), 368.
9. 9. See the so-called federal State provisions in various Hague conventions, e.g. Art. 19 of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to agency of 14 March 1978, reprinted in Hague Conference on Private International Law (Ed.), Collection of Conventions 1951–1980, p. 253; see also Art. 19 of the Rome Convention, supra note 6.
10. 10. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, O.J. 1993, L 95/29; for a recent and general survey see Joustra, “Europese richtlijnen en internationaal privaatrecht”, (1999) Weekblad voor privaatrecht, notariaat en registratie, 664– 670.
11. 11. See supra note 6.
12. 12. Cf. Lando, “The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations”, 24 CML Rev. (1987), 159–214 (181) who advocates an extension of the principle embedded in Art. 3(3) to transborder intracommunity cases.
13. 13. See Art. 6(2) of Directive 93/13, supra note 10.
14. 14. See my proposal for such an amendment to be agreed upon in the context of an overall revision of the Rome Convention in Basedow, “Materielle Rechtsangleichung und Kollisionsrecht”, in Schnyder, Heiss, Rudisch (Eds.) Internationales Verbraucherschutzrecht (1995) pp. 11, 34.
15. 15. Cf. Treves, “Un nuovo labirinto normativo in tema di legge applicabile alla vendita: le vendite ai consumatori”, in Collisio legum: studi di diritto internazionale privato per Gerardo Broggini (1997) p. 561 et seq.; see also the fervent critique by Jayme, “Europa¨isches Kollisionsrecht: Neue Aufgaben, neue Techniken”, in Hommelhoff, Jayme, Mangold (Eds.), Europa¨ischer Binnenmarkt: Privatrecht und Rechtsangleichung (Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 35–49; Martiny, “Europa¨isches Internationales Vertragsrecht – Erosion der Ro¨mischen Konvention?” (1997) ZEuP, 107–129, 128 et seq. observes a “certain erosion” of the Rome Convention.
16. 16. For a first survey see Basedow, “EC Regulations in European Private Law”, in Private Law in the International Arena: Festschrift for Kurt Siehr (2000) forthcoming.
17. 17. Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA (II), [1978] ECR 629, paras. 17/18.
18. 18. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91 of 4 Feb. 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, O.J. 1991, L 36/5; see also the proposed amendments in O.J. 1998 C 120/18 (proposal) and in O.J. 1998 C 351/7 (amended proposal).
19. 19. Cf. District Court (Landgericht) Frankfurt am Main 29 April 1998, NJW – Rechts-prechungsreport Zivilrecht (NJW-RR) 1998, 1589, 1590: flight from Munich to Tunisia by Tunis Air.
20. 20. See the U.S. Oversales Regulations, 14 C.F.R. 250 which provide for a similar denied boarding compensation and apply only to interstate and international flights originating at a point within the U.S., see 14 C.F.R. 250.2.
21. 21. Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Done at Amsterdam on 2 Oct. 1997, O.J. 1997 C 340/1.
22. 22. Treaty on European Union, Done at Maastricht on 7 Feb. 1992, O.J. 1992, C 224/1.
23. 23. Cf. the detailed analysis by Mu¨ller-Graff, “The legal bases of the third pillar and its position in the framework of the European Union Treaty”, 31 CML Rev. (1994), 493–510; Schutte, “Judicial cooperation under the Union Treaty”, in Monar and Morgan (Eds.) The Third Pillar of the European Union (1994), pp. 181–191.
24. 24. See the Council Act of 28 May 1998, drawing up, on the basis of Art. K.3 TEU, the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters, O.J. 1998, 221/1.
25. 25. See e.g. Case C-388/92, Parliament v. Council, [1994] ECR I-2067, paras. 10–19; cf. Oppermann, Europarecht, 2nd ed. (1999), p. 246 et seq., para 662, who takes the view that the violation of all participation rights in the legislative procedure will lead to the nullity of the resulting acts.
26. 26. This view is also taken by Besse, “Die justitielle Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam und das EuGVU¨ ”, (1999) ZEuP, 107–122, at 110 et seq.
27. 27. See for the freedom of establishment Case 2/74, Reyners v. Belgium, [1974] ECR 631 paras. 24/28; Case 33/74, van Binsbergen v. Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid, [1974] ECR 1299 paras. 20/23 and 24/26 for the freedom to provide services.
28. 28. See e.g. Case 205/84, Commission v. Germany – Insurance, [1986] ECR 3755 paras. 30 et seq.; Case C-113/89, Rush Portuguesa Lda v. Office national d’immigration, [1990] ECR I-1417 para 18; Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financie¨n, [1995] ECR I-1141 paras. 40–55 and many others.
29. 29. Cf. Case 138/79, SA Roquette Fre‘res v. Council, [1980] ECR 333 para 33; Case 139/79, Maizena v. Council, [1980] ECR 3393 para 34; Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council, [1991] ECR I-2867 para 20.
30. 30. O.J. 1987, L 169/1.
31. 31. See Vincent and Guinchard, Proce´dure civile (23rd ed. 1994) p. 887; Ferrand, Cassation franc¸aise et Re´vision allemande (1993) p. 18 seq.
32. 32. Kohler, “Interrogations sur les sources du droit international prive´ europe´en apre‘s le traite´ d’Amsterdam”, 88 Revue critique de droit international prive´ (RCDIP) (1999), 1–30 at 8.
33. 33. See COM (1999) 348 final of 14 July 1999 at 2.2.
34. 34. See the previous note.
35. 35. Schack, “Die EG-Kommission auf dem Holzweg von Amsterdam”, (1999) ZEuP, 805– 808.
36. 36. For a general survey, see Basedow, “Europa¨isches Internationales Privatrecht”, (1996) NJW, 1921–1929.
37. 37. See e.g. Art. 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC, supra note 10.
38. 38. Second Council Directive of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 78/239/EEC (88/357/EEC), O.J. 1988, L 172/1; Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), O.J. 1992, L 228/1; Council Directive of 8 Nov. 1990 on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (90/619/EEC), O.J. 1990, L 330/50; Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 Nov. 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), O.J. 1992, L 360/1.
39. 39. See the survey in Basedow, supra note 16.
40. 40. de Miguel Asenso, op. cit. supra note 3, 376; Kohler op. cit. supra note 32, at 16 et seq.
41. 41. For an extensive treatment of the legislative history see Kohler op. cit. supra note 32, 10–14.
42. 42. See the heading of the new Title IV.
43. 43. This view is very clearly set out by de Miguel Asenso op. cit. supra note 3, 374.
44. 44. de Miguel Asenso, loc. cit.
45. 45. Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council, ECR 1991 I, 2867 para 20 in a case confronting Art. 95 EC (ex 100a) with former Art. 130s EC which, like Art. 67, granted a mere right of consultation to the Parliament.
46. 46. See above at section 2 of this article.
47. 47. Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice, O.J. 1999, C 19/1.
48. 48. Action Plan, loc. cit., at 40.
49. 49. COM (1999) 220 final of 4 May 1999.
50. 50. COM (1999) 348 final of 14 July 1999.
51. 51. See the opposite view held by von Hoffmann, op. cit. supra note 3, p. 32.
52. 52. See EC Doc. SEC (96) 2004 p. 14, as cited by Kohler op. cit. supra note 32, at 11.
53. 53. See EC Doc. CONF/2500/96 ADD 1 p. 20 as cited by Kohler, op. cit. supra note 32, 14.
54. 54. See Besse, op. cit. supra note 26, 117 seq.
55. 55. Kohler op. cit supra note 32, at 23; Adam, “La cooperazione in materia di giustizia e affari interni tra comunitarizzazione e metodo inter-governativo”, (1998) Il Diritto dell’ Unione Europea, 481–509 at 504 note 37.
56. 56. Cf. Basedow, “Europa¨isches Zivilprozeßrecht – Generalia”, in Handbuch des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts vol. I (1982) Kap. II no. 8.
57. 57. As argued by Kohler op. cit supra note 32, 19.
58. 58. Kohler, ibid., 18.
59. 59. See Art. F as proposed by the Dutch Presidency of the Council in Doc. CONF/2500/96 ADD 1, as cited by Kohler, ibid, at 13 note 20.
60. 60. See the heading of Title IV of the EC Treaty.
61. 61. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Done at Vienna on 11 April 1980, 19 ILM (1980), 668.
62. 62. Done at Warsaw on 12 Oct. 1929, Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 II, p. 1039 as amended.
63. 63. See supra the text following note 44.
64. 64. See von Hoffmann op. cit. supra note 3 p. 32.
65. 65. See Basedow, op. cit. supra note 56, nos. 166 et seq. with regard to the Brussels Convention.
66. 66. See supra section 2, and note 22 in particular.
67. 67. Reichert-Facilides, “Zur Kodifikation des deutschen internationalen Versicherungsver-tragsrechts”, (1990) IPRax, 1–18 at 9 (C I 5): the choice of law rules of the insurance directives are only applicable to contracts made by insurers established in the Community and covering risks situated there.
68. 68. See the text supra at note 9 et seq.
69. 69. Case C-440/97, Groupe Concorde v. Master of the vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan, judgment of 28 Sept. 1999, nyr; German version in (2000) Europa¨isches Wirtschaftsund Steuerrecht, 31 paras 23 et seq.
70. 70. That has been regarded as a main goal of private international law ever since Savigny, cf. Firsching and von Hoffmann, Internationales Privatrecht, 5th ed. (Mu¨nchen, 1997) no. 1/13; Batiffol and Lagarde, Traite´ de droit international prive´, vol. I, 8th ed. (Paris, 1993) p. 399, 409 et seq.; Mosconi, Diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Torino, 1996, reprint 1997) p. 72.
71. 71. This less ambitious position is taken by Collins in Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, vol I, 11th ed. (London, 1987) p. 5.
72. 72. Case 22/70, ERTA, [1971] ECR 263 para 28; the most recent statement of the Court is contained in Opinion 1/94 of 15 Nov. 1994, WTO, [1994] ECR 5267 para 76; cf. also the Editorial Comment in 32 CML Rev. (1995), 385.
73. 73. See Emiliou, “The death of exclusive competence?” (1996) EL Rev., 294, 308; Scheibeck, Die Außenkompetenzen der EG im internationalen Zivilluftverkehr (Frankfurt am Main, 1999) p. 262–285.
74. 74. See the criticism by Schack, “Entscheidungszusta¨ndigkeiten in einem weltweiten Gerichtsstandsund Vollstreckungsu¨bereinkommen”, (1998) ZEuP, 931–956 with further references.
75. 75. von Hoffmann op. cit. supra note 3, p. 31; de Miguel Asenso, op. cit. supra note 3, 375 seq.
76. 76. Kohler op. cit. supra note 32, 19 et seq.
77. 77. See Kohler, ibid., at 18; Besse, op. cit. supra note 26, 115.
78. 78. See the text above at note 58.
79. 79. See e.g. Arts. 44(1) and 94 EC.
80. 80. See the authors cited in note 77 supra.
81. nd ed. (1999) Art. 68 no. 7; Petite, “Le traite´ d’Amsterdam: ambition et re´alisme”, (1997/3) RMUE, 17–52 at 27.
82. 82. See supra at notes 49 and 50.
83. 83. See supra in section 5 at note 51.
84. 84. O.J. 1987, L 169/24.
85. 85. Adam op. cit. supra note 55, 502.