Martin Illmer

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.

Brussels I and Arbitration Revisited. The European Commission’s Proposal COM(2010) 748 final

In December 2010, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a reformed Brussels I Regulation. One of the cornerstones of the proposal is the interface between the Regulation and arbitration. In the first part, the article sets out the development of the exclusion of arbitration from the Regulations scope up to the West Tankers and National Navigation cases. In the second, main part, the author, who is a member of the Commissions Expert Group on the arbitration interface, provides a detailed account and evaluation of the new lis pendens-mechanism established by the Commission proposal in order to effectively prevent parallel proceedings in the arbitration context. In the third, final part, the author scrutinizes the Commission proposal against the background of the Commissions Impact Assessment before concluding with a short resume.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.

The New European Private International Law of Product Liability -- Steering Through Troubled Waters

B. Legislative History. 272 /. Early Attempts. 272 L A Private Effort. 272 2. On the Agenda of the Hague Conference. 272 3. Early Attempts by the European Economic Community. 273 //. The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability . 273 ?77. The Legislative Process of the Regulations Rule on Product Liability 274 L Back again on the Agenda of the European Community. 274 2. The First Draft of the Commission. 275

Final curtain for anti-suit injunctions. Zur Vorlage des House of Lords an den EuGH in West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and others (The Front Comor)

licht eine routinierte und schnelle Bearbeitung der Klage. Des Weiteren sind die Gerichte im Sitzoder Wohnsitzstaat des Gemeinschuldners st rker mit dem anzuwendenden Insolvenzanfechtungsrecht vertraut, als die ausl ndischen Gerichte am Sitz oder Wohnsitz des Anfechtungsgegners. Das Anfechtungsrecht bestimmt sich n mlich grunds tzlich nach der lex fori concursus (Art. 4 II lit. m EuInsVO oder § 339 InsO). Die lex fori concursus ist das Recht des Staats, in dem das Insolvenzverfahren erçffnet wird. Die internationale Zust ndigkeit f r die Erçffnung eines universal geltenden Hauptinsolvenzverfahrens haben wiederum die Gerichte des Staats, in dem der Gemeinschuldner den Mittelpunkt seiner haupts chlichen Interessen (Art. 3 I EuInsVO) oder den Mittelpunkt seiner selbst ndigen wirtschaftlichen T tigkeit (§ 3 I InsO) hat. Dieser Ort stimmt wiederum regelm ßig mit dem Sitzoder Wohnsitzstaat des Gemeinschuldners berein. Schließlich sind die Vorteile f r den Insolvenzverwalter selbst nicht von der Hand zu weisen. Eine geb ndelte Erhebung der Insolvenzanfechtungsklagen am Sitz oder Wohnsitz des Gemeinschuldners erspart ihm, die Anspr che im Ausland (mçglicherweise rund um den Globus) geltend zu machen. Das f hrt zu einer Reduktion der Kosten des Insolvenzverfahrens (§§ 53, 54 Nr. 2 InsO), was sich wiederum positiv auf die Befriedigungsaussichten der Insolvenzgl ubiger auswirkt. Die Entscheidung des OLG M nchen ist mithin Ausdruck einer prozessçkonomisch sinnvollen Regelung der internationalen Zust ndigkeit im internationalen und autonomen internationalen Recht. Schließlich werden auch die ausl ndischen Beklagten durch die Geltendmachung der Anspr che am Sitz der Gemeinschuldnerin nicht unbillig benachteiligt. Die Begr ndung der internationalen Zust ndigkeit der Gerichte am Sitz des Gemeinschuldners resultiert aus der Teilnahme der Beklagten am inl ndischen Wirtschaftsverkehr. Die internationale Zust ndigkeit beruht damit letztlich auf der autonomen Entscheidung des Beklagten selbst.