Rediscovering the public/private divide in EU private law

This article explores the role of the public/private divide within EU private law. It shows that although EU private law cuts across the boundaries of public and private law, the conceptual distinction between these well‐established categories does matter within it and may lead to better law‐making in the EU more generally. The legal grammar of a particular EU harmonisation measure—which can be more “public” or “private”—may have important implications for the position of private parties at national level, for the CJEU's likely activism in this context, and ultimately for the measure's ability to realise its policy goals. Therefore, instead of ignoring the existing differences between public and private law, EU law should explicitly adopt the public/private law language in its discourse, without, however, introducing any sharp divide between these two areas.     

Horizontal Liability for Damages in EU Law—the Changing Relationship of EU and National Law

The article focuses on damages liability between private parties—referred to as horizontal liability—that is based on EU law. Generally, this kind of liability may be based on EU secondary legislation or be derived from substantive EU law and legal principles. The article seeks to analyse the latter: liability in an area of EU law where so‐called procedural autonomy still, at least apparently, prevails. Special attention is paid to the lively interface between EU law and national remedies and to the increasing EU law requirements for the enforcement of EU law in national courts. Recent case‐law on private liability for damages caused by competition infringements is discussed as part of a more general question concerning the ways in which the relationship of EU law and national enforcement frameworks is developing.     

The Proposed ‘Common European Sales Law’: Legal Framework and the Agreement of the Parties

The European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (‘CESL’) seeks to create a European scheme of contract law available for parties to choose to govern cross‐border contracts for the sale of goods, supply of ‘digital content,’ and for the supply of related services. This article explains the background to the Proposal, sketches out the purposes and scope of the CESL, and considers and criticises its legal framework (and in particular its relationship with private international law) and the key requirement of the parties’ agreement. In the author's view, the CESL scheme remains an unconvincing basis for the achievement of its economic purposes and, as regards consumer contracts, puts too much reliance on the agreement of the consumer as a justification for the loss of their existing protection under EU private international law rules.     

The EU's Private Law in the Regulated Sectors: Competitive Market Handmaiden or Institutional Platform?

The article contests the claim that EU private law is narrowly circumscribed by a market rationality. Such a claim tracks broader criticism of EU functional legal integration, although it tends to obscure the underlying transformative pressures on private law and regulation and the role EU law plays in coping with such pressures. To offer a number of counter‐narratives, the article draws on examples from the regulated sectors, including telecommunications and energy, to reveal their experimentalist features. These suggest that EU private law is constructed through a process of error‐corrections, which allows for mutual adjustment of instruments and hybridisation of EU and local policy goals. The process results in more finely grained assemblages of autonomy and regulation to respond to concrete problems or newly salient policy goals, so that markets are understood as social institutions that are always works‐in‐progress rather than convergence points. Thus, EU private law provides a platform for transnational market‐building through innovating institutions that promote various normative and policy commitments despite the interdependencies that could undermine them.     

Global social media vs local values: Private international law should protect local consumer rights by using the public policy exception?

This article focuses on the relationship between forum selection clauses, choice of law clauses and data protection and privacy protection. In particular, it discusses the question whether and why jurisdiction and choice of law clauses used in the terms of social media providers should not be enforced against social media users located in a different jurisdiction. The article distinguishes between the contractual, private law analysis and the application of public policy as part of the private international law analysis. The contract law analysis is centred on doctrines such as unconscionability, which in turn examines issue such as fairness and overwhelming bargaining power of one party. By contrast, the public policy analysis in private international law focuses on fundamental rights, legality of contractual clauses according to the local law of the forum and the interests of justice. It is argued here that both aspects (contractual and public policy doctrines) are paramount for achieving not only justice between the parties of a dispute but also ensuring good administration of justice in the public interest.     

A Shift in Focus: Systematisation in European Private Law through EU Law

The discourse on the Europeanisation of private law appears gradually to be moving into new territory in which the central debate on convergence of private laws in Europe makes place for structural questions on private law development in a multi‐level European legal order. With the realisation that private law is and will remain complementary regulated at EU level and in national laws, a re‐orientation is called for that, in the words of Micklitz, ‘allows one to determine which norms shall be elaborated and enforced at what level and by whom’. This article accepts that such a re‐orientation is needed in relation to substance, process, instruments and enforcement; a more fundamental question needs to be addressed, however, in order to ensure coherence in the development of private law in Europe. As can be gleaned from existing practice in EU consumer law, competition law, and financial market regulation, a deeply engrained tension between market integration and protectionist policies in Community law has resulted in incoherent regulation at EU level, which filters through into national legal systems. This puts at risk fundamental values of private law, such as certainty and fairness. A solution for this is proposed by shifting the focus from national private laws to the political and doctrinal structure of EU private law, and the normative framework it provides. General principles of EU private law, it is argued, could and should provide a counterweight to the problem of conflicting policies and set out a guideline for the future development of European private law.     

中国传统契约中的“契约自由”与“主体平等”——以清水江文书为视角

中国法律传统虽以"公法"为主要特征,强调以身份关系为纽带的"公权力",但在"私法"领域,却并非不重视以自由和平等为基础的"私权利"。在中国传统契约与清水江文书中,均普遍存有关于"契约自由"与"主体平等"这样一种"契约型社会"的私法观念。在契约自由方面,主要通过"二主和同"、"两和立契"等契约语言来体现契约是双方协商一致,达成合意的结果;在主体平等方面,则通过"两共平章"、"平中立约"等用语来表明立约双方具有平等的人格与主体地位。而这样一种注重合意、平等立约的私法观念,以及尊重契约、敬畏契约,通过契约保护自身合法权利的精神,是当今我国法治化建设过程中重要的本土资源与宝贵财富。在提倡尊重契约精神、保护私权利等法治观念的今天,亦能够为我国法治的现代化进程提供历史的和本土的基因。     

雇佣关系调整的法律分界——民法与劳动法调整雇佣类合同关系的制度与理念

《合同法》起草时曾设定一类有名合同——雇佣合同,但雇佣合同最终没有体现在《合同法》中,近年来民法学界开始涉及雇佣合同问题。《劳动法》调整的劳动合同实质上也是一种雇佣合同,民法与劳动法调整雇佣关系有着各自相应的区界。本文对传统雇佣契约与劳动合同之间存在的差异进行了分析,指出民法与劳动法所调整的雇佣关系是一种互补关系,两者在调整雇佣类社会关系中发挥着不可替代的功能。     

Why Do Labour Lawyers Ignore the Question of Social Justice in European Contract Law?

Abstract: Over recent years, a heated debate about social justice in European contract law has been taking place. Great emphasis is placed on ideological assumptions. For example, the over‐individualistic interpretation of European private law, its market‐led orientation and the insufficient attention paid to the idea of the protection of the weaker party. This discussion considers the traditional conflict between the meta‐principles of market‐oriented efficiency and solidarity‐based action. The whole debate, it seems to me, now calls for a more rules‐based approach. In endeavouring to validate such an approach, this article starts by illustrating the various facets connected to the theme of ‘European contract law’. Then as a preliminary step, I shall briefly examine the question as to why labour lawyers have remained silent and take no part in the discussion on European social contract law. There is ample reason to believe that the contrary is necessary. It has been generally acknowledged that labour contracts are not outside private law—individual contract law in particular—and that it represents one of the most important examples of long term incomplete contracts. The idea of labour law as autonomous is dead and it appears simple to promote the reintegration of labour law into modern social contract law. In the context of the debate on European contract law, three different strategies can be envisaged to achieve this end. The first strategy tests the degree to which provisions under the contractual regime, not all of which are legally binding, effectively meet the needs of the weaker party in the contractual relationship, in terms of his/her security—what might for short be termed the social validity of the contract regime—(the Principles of European Contract Law, the EU rules affecting contract law, etc which are analysed and proposed in the various workshops that are currently examining them), from the specific point of view of labour law. A second strategy is to codify European or Community labour law. Lastly, another strategy is to introduce an intermediate category of long‐term social contracts. What makes this last trend particularly significant for the future is that today globalisation is progressively diminishing the income earned from labour contracts and in this sense creating insecurity. In a globalised economy, where levels of remuneration are lower than in the past, the individual's sense of security must be ensured also in the context of other social or long‐term contracts (outside the workplace), which enable people to obtain other sources of finance (such as consumer credit, for example), or to make arrangements necessary for living (such as tenancy contracts). A need exists for consumers to be granted similar rights to those which historically have been granted to workers. To take just one example: if the borrower under a consumer credit agreement loses his/her job for objective reasons, or falls ill and is therefore temporarily unable to pay the instalments under the agreement, why should there not be a mechanism which limits the credit‐providing institution from terminating the credit arrangement?     

公用事业公私合作合同的法律属性与规制路径——基于经济法视野的考察

公用事业公私合作合同是国家规范公用事业公私合作活动的重要法律工具,具有经济法的属性,应接受公法与私法的双重规制。就公法规制来说,政府应保留一定的公权力,并承担相应的义务,同时,私人部门也应承担一定的公法义务,其部分私权利要接受公法的限制。就私法规制来看,主要体现在基于契约精神对政府公权力进行限制,并要求政府承担相应的合作风险,以及在违反合同义务的时候,承担相应的民事法律责任。     

Insurers, Claims and the Boundaries of Good Faith

This article examines the refusal of the English courts to award damages for consequential losses following unreasonable delay on the part of insurers in settling a claim. This has the potential to give rise to dire consequences for insureds. These difficulties have been addressed in North American jurisdictions where the concept of good faith has been developed and applied as a means of both compensating insureds and regulating the conduct of insurers. However, a hallmark of English law is that it fails to draw a bright line between the law of contract and the law of contracts. As a result, the policy issues that should inform insurance contracts are excluded by virtue of the notion, imported from the law of contract, that the contractual relationship is a matter of private law and is not, therefore, a means for public regulation of insurers.     

税收法律行为初论

与税收法律关系同样都为税法学的基本范畴 ,但税收法律行为的研究在传统税法学理论中却付之阙如 ,本文即对此作出了探索性的研究。本文首先界定了税收法律行为的概念 ,并确定了其较为重要的种类划分 ;然后 ,通过对税收法律行为与行政法律行为以及私法法律行为之间关系的分析 ,明确了税收法律行为的公、私法交融的性质特征 ,并着重以契约行为为例加以进一步的说明 ;最终 ,将税收法律行为与税法上的事实行为一起 ,初步构建了税法上行为的体系。     

德国国际私法渊源的新发展

在传统上,德国国际私法的渊源包括制定法、德国缔结或者参加的各种国际私法条约、习惯法和判例法,但是随着欧盟国际私法统一化的深入发展,尤其是欧洲共同体在公司法、合同法、物权法、知识产权法、破产法和国际民事诉讼程序法等领域的立法不断加强,欧盟法中的国际私法规范逐渐渗入德国国际私法,从而使德国国际私法的渊源突破了传统的范围,越来越多地打上了欧盟法的烙印,呈现出“欧盟化”倾向。     

政府特许经营合同法律性质新探

政府特许经营合同是政府与私人投资者间就市政公用行业或基础设施领域中某个项目的建设、经营、移交而签订的协议。它的法律性质在学界是一个争议颇多的问题,主要有行政合同与民事合同之争。由于政府特许经营合同兼具行政合同与民事合同的特征,不能将其归类为单纯的行政合同或民事合同。它体现的法律关系更符合经济法的调整对象,因此是经济法意义上的合同。     

论公权契约化——兼论国家干预契约化

受公私权二元对立及公私法二元划分的影响,禁止公权契约化被视为传统法治的基本原则。然而,随着社会的发展,公权与私权、公法与私法不再是简单的对立关系,而是呈良性互动和融合的发展趋势。因此,现代社会的公权运行逐渐采用契约这种私权行使方式,这一现象可被称为"公权契约化"。作为公权力重要组成部分的国家干预权,采用契约方式来实现干预目的,对构建和谐社会、减少政府失灵及实现经济法的现代化具有积极意义。     

Private ordering,collective action,and the self-enforcing range of contracts

Contract enforcement is acknowledged as a major issue in Law and in Economics. Contrasting substitution and complementary perspectives with respect to the role of private vs. public enforcement institutions, this article analyses how contract law can support private institutions, and enhance economic efficiency. With multilateral agreements at stake, self-regulation and reputation mechanisms at the core of private ordering have limitations that collective organizations backed by the Law help to overcome. The analysis is substantiated by empirical data from the cattle industry. Our results suggest the need for a broader approach to contract regulation by legal scholars and antitrust-authorities.     

Private roles in food safety provision: the law and economics of private food safety

Private food safety standards play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of the foods we consume. A voluntary instrument, private standards are so widespread to have become de facto mandatory for suppliers who wish to access the most profitable markets. Developed by retailers and business coalitions and enforced through third-party certification, private food safety standards constitute one of the principal food safety governance instruments of agribusiness value chains. Albeit private and voluntary, such standards have profound public implications because they contribute to food safety and protect consumers’ health. This article uses law and economics theory to identify their strengths and vulnerabilities and understand the relationship between public and private regulation. Specifically, it examines whether private standards can fulfill the public interest objective of protecting consumers’ health and whether they compete with or rather complement public regulation. The article argues that private standards have emerged in response to food scares to coordinate complex food value chains and have become ever more relevant in the context of intense market globalization, an area in which public regulation often failed. Among the advantages of private standards, are their flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to new risks. Through their focus on management-based regulation and strong market incentives for producers, private standards promote compliance better than traditional inspection methods. Private standards also present several gray areas including increased risk of capture due to their limited transparency and gaps in enforcement by third-party certifiers. The article suggests areas that deserve additional scrutiny, especially the opacity of standards vis-à-vis consumers and the public sector and the quality and reliability of third party certification.     

Commodity or Propriety? Unauthorised Transfer of Intangible Entitlements in the EU Emissions Trading System

This article argues that the law governing transfer of allowances within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) should place greater weight upon transactional (and environmental) integrity, even over market liquidity. More broadly, it reflects on the role played by registries in sharing or concealing information about the material world. Although property rules enable market activity through the creation of an abstract carbon commodity, they must also link past to future entitlements in a just way. In emissions trading markets, justice in private transactions is intimately connected to public questions of environmental justice. The relevant EU Regulation prioritises facility of transfer over protection of existing holders, insulating registered entitlements from prior proprietary claims. This approach ignores the important connections between history, integrity and responsibility in both public and private spheres. A preferable response would be to distinguish between transactional and register error, protecting against register mistakes, but not transactional defects.     

基于事实契约理论的事实劳动关系重述

由于历史的原因,我国劳动法领域形成的关于"事实劳动关系是欠缺书面形式的劳动关系"之通说给劳动者权益保护带来了普遍和深远的损害,其理论依据被认为是德国学者豪普特教授提出的事实契约理论。实际上,根据事实契约理论,事实劳动关系是指无有效之劳动契约而提供从属劳动所形成的劳动关系。该理论虽遭激烈批评,但在有关身份的领域不可被传统契约理论所替代。在合意因欠缺生效要件而被认定无效之场合,事实契约理论为这类"被否定"的用工行为提供了"被承认"的新的理论框架和立法技术。我国《劳动合同法》对无效劳动合同的劳动者一方以民法式保护为原则,以劳动法式保护为例外,存在保护不足、保护过度及违背传统契约法形式理性等问题,需作进一步的反思与调整。