Contract Governance in the EU: Conceptualising the Relationship between Investor Protection Regulation and Private Law

The instrumental use of private law, in particular contract law, by the EU raises a complex issue concerning the relationship between contract‐related regulation and traditional private law and underlines the need for conceptualising the interplay between the two from the contract governance perspective. The present article aims to apply this new analytical approach in the investment services field where there is considerable tension between the EU investor protection regulation embodied in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID I and MiFID II) and national private laws. The article explores various models of relationship between investor protection regulation and traditional private law within a multi‐level EU legal order, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each field in pursuing public and private interests involved in financial contracting. This analysis also offers some lessons for the broader narrative of how European integration in regulated areas dominated by public supervision and enforcement could proceed.     

Internal Market Rationality,Private Law and the Direction of the Union: Resuscitating the Market as the Object of the Political

This paper proposes a concept of ‘internal market rationality’ for the analysis of the political, legal and economic consequences of European integration. Internal market rationality refers to a specific pattern of political action in the field of internal market, which has emerged gradually due to the confluence of three main factors: first, the EU's functional institutional design; second, the processes of post‐national juridification; and third, a more contingent influence of ideas. In the interplay of those three factors, the interpretation of internal market has become overdetermined, restricting thereby the space of (democratic) politics in its regulation. This reification of internal market rationality has had a direct influence on the content of European law, as I demonstrate through the example of European private law. Internal market rationality has transformed the very concept of justice underpinning private law, the concept of the person or subject of law, the (re)distributive pattern of private law as well as the normative basis on which private law stands. I argue, finally, that a close examination of the legal, institutional and ideological arrangement behind internal market rationality provides clues for the democratisation of the EU.     

The Question Concerning the Common Frame of Reference

The many directives on private consumer law enacted in the last three decades have met with considerable neglect and resistance amongst domestic judges, legislatures and scholars, bringing about less legal unity and more ‘legal fragmentation'—to say it in the words of the Commission. The Draft Common Frame of Reference is one more attempt, on the part of certain strands of European private law scholarship, at imposing a formal break on, and at overcoming, such fragmentation. Presented as a ‘comprehensive and self‐standing’ document, its ambition is to definitively implement the Commission‐generated, market‐orientated agenda of private law reform, so much resisted at the national level. The article argues that the EU legislative institutions should not go ahead with the plan of incorporating the Draft's content in EU law, by adopting a CFR. A CFR would confer an unprecedented degree of authority on a range of contested directive‐generated rules, from the test of fairness to the risk development defence in product liability. In creating a climate in which CFR‐based legalistic arguments promote unity over fragmentation, a CFR would emasculate public debate by implementing, under the spell of legal necessity, exactly those partisan, Commission‐initiated policies that have been, and still are, openly opposed in domestic legal circles. The Draft embodies a grammar of imposition that should be questioned.     

Private Law and Public Stakes in European Integration: the Case of Property

Abstract:  In European legal discourse, the old public/private divide is experiencing a revival and a transformation. Member States used to claim autonomy in private law matters. Now private law is subsumed into a functionalist logic and can presumptively be harmonised if so demanded by the goal of market integration. States or local constituencies can only resist harmonisation by highlighting the connection between their private laws and those 'public' matters still immune from Europeanisation. Property law can effectively illustrate this phenomenon. The written pledge of non-interference with States' property systems, restated both in the TEC and in the draft Constitution, cannot be taken at face value, given the plethora of supra-national inroads into this field. But it performs the essential rhetorical function of reassuring national law makers that Europe will pay special attention to sovereign choices when harmonising those areas of private law which, like property, harbour an obvious core of constitutional values.     

The citizen‐makers: Ethical dilemmas in immigrant integration

The topic of citizen‐making—turning migrants into citizens—is one of the most politically contested policy areas in Europe. Access to European citizenship is governed by national law with almost no EU regulation. The Article brings to the fore normative concerns associated with citizen‐making policies in Europe (Section 2). It examines ethical dilemmas involved in the process of creating new citizens (Section 3) and promotes the adoption of a European legal framework on access to citizenship (Section 4). The overall claim is that every newcomer will be required to demonstrate, as a prerequisite for citizenship, attachments to the constitution of the specific Member State, yet the test will be functional, flexible and non‐exclusive. As the topic of EU citizenship law is currently at the centre of the European agenda, this article has both theoretical significance and policy implications.     

The European Emissions Trading Scheme Case Law

Within European climate change and energy policy, the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) occupies a prominent role. This article considers the developing case law of the European courts on the EU ETS. Specific attention is paid to the role of the different actors within the EU ETS and the impact that their applications to the courts may have on the further development of the EU ETS. Moreover, the continuing lack of standing of private parties in EU ETS cases is analysed in light of demands for legal certainty within a developing economic market.     

The European Union and Penal Law

Technically-speaking, penal law remains outside the competence of the European Communities and Union. However, mirroring other legal developments within Europe, a combination of higher Community 'principles' such as proportionality, non-discrimination, free competition and loyal co-operation, together with secondary Community law, has on the one hand, led to an unforeseen process of the harmonisation of national penal systems; with national norms either being set aside by Community law, or given extended scope in the pursuance of EC/EU goals. On the other hand, certain European interests – most notably, the need to safeguard the European Union budget – have proven strong enough to prompt the evolution of a nascent penal law of the EU; the most noteworthy development here being the drawing up of an independent European 'corpus juris' covering penal policy and procedure in the area of EU budget protection.     

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.     

Private Law and Housing Justice in Europe

This article explores the different meanings of the right to housing in Europe in public and private relations with housing providers. In light of the fundamental right to housing's meaning in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, we offer a new reading of the CJEU judgments that have hitherto been heralded as extending the social dimension of EU (private) law. We submit that the emphasis on economic and procedural rights risks further ‘economisation’ of housing relations in Europe. While the possibilities to grant direct horizontal effect to the right to housing in EU law currently offer limited potential to counter this trend, private law provides part of the framework for a further balancing of social and economic elements in housing cases. Accordingly, we call for a debate on the specific aspects of horizontal relationships in the complex system of housing justice.     

To block or not to block: European approaches to content regulation,and implications for freedom of expression

Based on the limited effectiveness of state laws, and lack of harmonization at international level a number of states started to introduce policies to block access to Internet content and websites deemed illegal which are situated outside their legal jurisdiction. However, blocking policies are not always subject to due process principles, decisions are not necessarily taken by the courts of law, and often administrative bodies or Internet hotlines run by the private sector decide which content or website should be subject to blocking. Therefore, increasingly, the compatibility of blocking action is questioned with regards to the fundamental right of freedom of expression. This article assesses significant developments at the pan-European level with regards to the development, and implementation of Internet content blocking policies. Adaptation of content blocking policies from certain member states of both the European Union and the Council of Europe will be used to assess the nature and implementation of access blocking policies. It will be argued that there could be a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if blocking measures or filtering tools are used at state level to silence politically motivated speech on the Internet.     

The Rule of Law and EU Expansion

The article seeks to further discussion about the European Union's identification of the rule of law as a fundamental principle and pre-requisite for EU membership by prospective member states, despite the lack of a uniform Community-wide understanding of this concept. In this article, three points will be explored. Firstly, it will briefly examine the rule of law principle within the EU, as a contested concept, despite its pre-eminence as a fundamental principle upon which EU membership is based. Because of its contested nature, there exists across the EU, conceptual variations, leading to the problem of an apparent absence of a uniform conception of the rule of law. Secondly, the article will identify some of the main conflicts between the EU making this rule of law a pre-requisite for membership and the lack of a uniform conception for this fundamental principle. Thirdly, the article explores how these conflicts affect the development of legal cultures of prospective member states and what potential problems these conflicts imply. The article focuses on the European Union's lack of a uniform understanding of the rule of law and how this affects prospective member states from Central and Eastern Europe. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The evolution of security industry regulation in the European Union

ABSTRACT

The European private security sector has grown from a handful of small companies at the end of the Second World War into a multibillion Euro industry with thousands of firms and millions of security staff. In Europe, the demands for security is not just expressed notionally but also officially in The European Agenda on Security stating the European Union (EU) aims to ensure that people live in an area of freedom, security, and justice. This article will begin by exploring the role of private security in society. It will then move on to consider the main phases in the development of private security regulation in Europe. Following on from this, some of the main areas of policy development will be considered, such as European bodies, initiatives, and standards. Finally, the article will explore some of the potential options for the future in better regulating the European private security sector. From a historical perspective, the evolution of private security regulation can be divided into three phases: the laissez-faire, the centrifugal, and the centripetal era – each with its own distinct characteristics and impact on the concurrent industry. In the EU where there is the legal framework for the development of a single market in services, the key social partners have been at the forefront of developing a series of standards and guidance documents which promote standards across borders at the European level. However, the institutions of the EU have been reluctant to intervene at a European level in setting minimum standards of private security regulation. Thus, the changing terrain of the EU relating to security, regulation, and the private security industry means the current trajectory may be in need of an injection of more radical thought and consideration.     

The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and national courts revisited

This article analyzes how the judicial politics sparked by the European Union's (EU) legal development have evolved over time. Existing studies have traced how lower national courts began cooperating with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to apply EU law because this empowered them to challenge government policies and the decisions of their domestic judicial superiors. We argue that the institutional dynamics identified by this ‘judicial empowerment thesis’ proved self‐eroding over time, incentivizing domestic high courts to reassert control over national judicial hierarchies and to influence the development EU law in ways that were also encouraged by the ECJ. We support our argument by combining an analysis of a dataset of cases referred to the ECJ with comparative case study and interview evidence. We conclude that while these evolving judicial politics signal the institutional maturation of the EU legal order, they also risk weakening the decentralized enforcement of European law.     

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.     

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。     

Compensation for Damage Caused by Defective Drugs: European Private Law between Safety Requirements and Free-Market Values

Abstract: Within the European Union, the success of private law harmonisation is based upon the fragile balance between legal integration and protection of national traditions. In this respect, a transversal analysis of the obligation of safety established by the Directive 374/85/CEE shows that harmonisation sometimes prevails over the potential protections granted to the victims of a damage caused by defective products. On the one hand, this reduction arises from the balance between objective and subjective criteria used in evaluating the defect as defined in the harmonised text. On the other hand, it results from problems of coordination between national laws and EC law remedies. This latter difficulty is illustrated by the 25 April 2002 European Court of Justice decisions on the French experience. The paradigmatic example of the pharmaceutical sector is a clear illustration of these tensions, since it heightens free‐market values at the same time as seeking to ensure compensation for breach of health and safety of consumers.     

The Paradox of American Critical Legalism

Duncan Kennedy's essay is a reprint from his recently published book. We hope to draw attention to Kennedy's work among students of European integration since we believe his analysis to be relevant both to the specific debate on the impact of European integration upon private law and to comparative legal study in general. European legal scholarship has only recently begun to examine the problems of private legal integration. The late appearance of private law in the integration arena is due to a primarily instrumental understanding and strategic use of law in the European market-building project: only once legal ‘barriers to trade’ were eliminated and national regulatory law replaced by Europeanised norms, did the degree to which the core institutions of ’private‘ law had been (indirectly) affected by the integrationist logic become apparent. Comparative legal research, however, has benefited from this awakening of interest. European Commission projects have widened the scope of and intensified comparative studies in Europe. Equally, experience gained from the ‘Integration Through (Public) Law’ project has led to a new private legal debate on the impact of national traditions, the concept of legal cultures and the social functions of private law. Accordingly, whilst Duncan Kennedy's deliberations on the history of American legal thought and the differences between American and European legal cultures are generally to be commended for their sensitive treatment of the specificities of the civil law system and the common law heritage, they are equally of particular topical concern since in addition to highlighting America's ‘utter faith and utter distrust in law,’ they also investigate the fundamentally different approaches adopted towards ‘the project law’ within each of the member states of the EU. If European private lawyers are to come to terms with the problems of integration and convergence, they must first tackle these deep-seated divergences between their own national legal cultures.     

For Better or Worse? The Europeanisation of the Conflict of Laws

From its very beginnings the European Union(EU) has taken an interest in that area of legal activity known as the conflict of laws or private international law. The purpose of the conflict of laws is to determine how a national court should behave when confronted with a legal dispute that involves a foreign element. A state's conflict rules will provide the answer to three basic questions: in what circumstances their courts may assume jurisdiction over cases involving a foreign element, what system of municipal law to apply (their own or that of some foreign legal system) and which foreign judgments are capable of recognition and enforcement within their national system. The very fact that the EU exists in order to bring states together to form a single internal market would seem likely to provoke conflict of laws situations. It, therefore, appears unremarkable that the EU has agreed a variety of measures with a bearing on the conflict of laws. The purpose of this article, however, is not to give a detailed account of the EU's interventions on this topic. Instead the intention is to offer some thoughts upon and to raise some questions regarding the implications of the EU's engagement with the conflict of laws. In particular this article aims to provide an overview of the direction in which the EU is taking the conflict of laws and how this has affected the focus and character of the subject in one Member State, namely the United Kingdom. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Of Values and Legitimacy – Discourse Analytical Insights on the Copyright Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) increasingly faces societal value‐conflicts in EU law disputes. For example, in EU copyright law, in the digital age, diverse fundamental values, as well as cultural and societal developments, are at stake. This article discusses the role of the CJEU in the European value discourse, using copyright law as a case study. The methodological approach used, critical discourse analysis, is seldom applied in jurisprudential studies, but is well suited for teasing out value‐related aspects of case law. Exploratory research of seminal copyright cases suggests that the CJEU's discourse of the various values seems unnecessarily one‐sided and shallow. A lack of discursiveness in the jurisprudence would diminish the legitimacy of the Court's decisions, and would not offer adequate guidance to national courts or private decision‐makers, to whom the Court at the same time may be leaving more of the task of value reconciliation.     

European integration assessed in the light of the ‘rules vs. standards debate’

The interplay of various legal systems in the European Union (EU) has long triggered a debate on the tension between uniformity and diversity of Member States’ (MS) laws. This debate takes place among European legal scholars and is also paralleled by economic scholars, e.g. in the ambit of the ‘theory of federalism’. This paper takes an innovative perspective on the discrepancy between ‘centralized’ and ‘decentralized’ law-making in the EU by assessing it with the help of the rules versus standards debate. When should the EU legislator grant the national legislator leeway in the formulation of new laws and when should all be fixed ex ante at European level? The literature on the ‘optimal shape of legal norms’ shall be revisited in the light of law-making in the EU, centrally dealing with the question how much discretion shall be given to the national legislator; and under which circumstances. This paper enhances the established decisive factors for the choice of a rule or a standard in a national setting (complexity, volatility, judges’ specialization and frequency of application) by two new crucial factors (switching costs and the benefit of uniformity in terms of information costs) in order to assess law-making policies at EU level.