Gregor Christandl

Policy Options for Progress Towards a European Contract Law. Comments on the issues raised in the Green Paper from the Commission of 1 July 2010, COM(2010) 348 final

In its position paper on the Commission’s Green Paper on policy options for a European contract law (COM (2010) 348 final, 1 July 2010), the Max Planck Working Group welcomes initiatives to overcome the fragmentary and inconsistent state of contract law in Europe. However, the Working Group criticizes that the Commission did not sufficiently consider the issue of the legislative competence of the EU. At present, an optional instrument (opt-in) drafted as a Regulation (option 4) and based on Art. 352 TFEU seems to be the preferable option. Such an instrument raises a number of questions regarding its choice and its area of application which have been addressed by the Working Group. An optional instrument should be granted a broad scope of application, including both B2B and B2C contracts, domestic contracts, intra-Union cross-border contracts as well as contracts with parties resident in third states. Its scope should neither be limited to cross-border contracts nor to contracts concluded online. However, the recommendation of the Institute is subject to an evaluation of the substantive quality of the instrument which is not yet available. In this regard, an important preparatory work for any future European contract law, i.e. the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), has already been criticized by some members of the Working Group. Also, any legislative initiative should be preceded by a proper review of the existing acquis and should be coordinated with the current work on a Consumer Rights Directive.This article is published in this Research Paper Series with the permission of the rights owner, Mohr Siebeck. Full-text Rabel Journal articles are available via pay-per-view or subscription at IngentaConnect, a provider of digital journals on the Internet.

Multi-Unit States in European Union Private International Law

The problem of reference to composite legal systems in private international law has only occasionally been studied in the recent legal literature. This problem arises when the applicable law turns out to be the law of a state which shows some form of complexity. This complexity can either be personal or territorial. Personal complexity occurs in legal systems where different legal regimes (eg in family and succession law) coexist for people of separate ethnic or religious communities. 1 Territorial complexity, by contrast, exists where different legal regimes apply within distinct territorial units of a state. 2 This article will focus on the latter type of complex legal systems, so called nonunifi ed legal systems or multi-unit states.3 The problem of reference to multi-unit states will become more important in the near future because EU private international law predominantly operates with territorial connecting factors even in areas, such as family and succession law, where the principle of nationality has long prevailed as the main connecting factor on the continent.4 Thus, territorial legal regimes will increasingly have to be applied to non-citizens of multi-unit states as well. Take the example of a British citizen who after his retirement decides to move to Spain

Über Sinn und Funktion einer gesetzlichen Erheblichkeitsschwelle im Nichtvermögensschadensrecht – eine kritische Auseinandersetzung

Nach der mit der jüngsten Fassung des Reformentwurfs für ein neues österreichisches Schadenersatzrecht vorgeschlagenen gesetzlichen Bagatellschadensklausel sollen unerhebliche ideelle Nachteile nicht ersetzt werden. Der vorliegende Beitrag setzt sich konstruktiv kritisch mit diesem Vorschlag auseinander und untersucht, ob eine Bagatellschadensklausel aus rechtlicher Sicht notwendig und zweckmäßig ist. Besonderes Augenmerk wird dabei auf die Frage der systematischen Vereinbarkeit einer solchen Klausel mit dem Grundkonzept des Reformentwurfs gelegt.