Remedies and the Conflict of Laws

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-248
Author(s):  
Adam Rushworth

This essay seeks to outline the theoretical basis underpinning the approach to remedies in the conflict of laws in light of the application of the rules contained within the Rome I and Rome II Regulations. It examines issues that have arisen in practice, in particular in cases before the courts of England and Wales, including with respect to matters of evidence, damages and interest, interim remedies and declaratory relief.

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva

The article deals with conflict of laws regulation of transfer of creditor’s rights to another person (assignment of claims (cessions) and transfer of rights under the law) in terms of amendments to Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The author notes that though amendments to the separate article on cession are not fundamental, the amendments of other articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, concerning contractual obligations, do influence regulation of relations between the parties in assignment. The article pays special attention to the new conflict of law rule regulating the transfer of the creditor’s rights under the law. Relevant court practice is analyzed. On the basis of comparing legislations of specific countries, as well as norms of EC No. 593/2008 (‘‘Rome I’’) Regulation and EC No. 864/2007 (‘‘Rome II’’) Regulation the author draws the conclusion that despite some differences in conflict of laws regulation of the transfer of the creditor’s rights, in general the Russian rules comply with modern trends in private international law in the majority of European countries.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Mink

The thesis focuses on the difficulties of determining the applicable law in interim proceedings in cross-border arbitral proceedings. First, it examines whether arbitral tribunals have a lex arbitri. Subsequently, the various possibilities of interim measures are described and the question is discussed whether arbitral tribunals have to refer to the Rome I Regulation or Section 1051 of the German Code of Civil Procedure in order to determine the applicable conflict of laws for contractual obligations. Then, it is analysed how the applicable substantive law is to be determined or how to proceed in case of non-determinability of such. Finally, the consequences of the application of a substitute law for the main proceedings are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-193
Author(s):  
Carlos Llorente

Consumer law nowadays pervades all areas of activity where consumers are present. The EU, along with its Member States, is probably one of the leading actors in promoting consumer protection. Also, in a globalized world, where the fact of being a consumer is a valuable asset (given their purchasing power), the cross-border implications of consumer contracts need to be effectively tackled by legislators. The EU has tried to address global legal concerns concerning consumer contracts by producing conflict-of-law rules such as article 6 of the Rome I Regulation and others contained in specifically-focused directives. This article reviews the scope and application of those rules and offers some insight into the not-so-well construed interaction between them all, keeping in mind that article 6 of the Rome I Regulation should be the centre of rotation of all EU PIL law in this field.


2013 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth B Crawford ◽  
Janeen M Carruthers

AbstractThis article considers points of connection and coherence between and among the Rome I Regulation, the Rome II Regulation, and Regulation 1215, and relevant predecessor instruments. The degree of consistency in aim, design and detail of conflict of laws rules is examined, vertically (between/among consecutive instruments) and horizontally (across cognate instruments). Symbiosis between instruments is explored, as is the interrelationship between choice of court and choice of law. Disadvantaged parties, and the cohesiveness of their treatment under the Regulations, receive particular attention.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ragne Piir ◽  
Karin Sein

The article discusses the abundance and interaction of rules aimed at determining the law applicable to cross-border consumer contracts. Firstly, it examines whether there is a continuing need for conflict-of-laws rules that stem from consumer-related directives. It then addresses the question of whether the Estonian Law of Obligations Act’s conflict-of-laws rules comply with the consumer-related directives. Lastly, the relations between the conflict‑of‑laws rules stemming from consumer-related directives and the Rome I Regulation are analysed. The authors conclude that the level of consumer protection afforded by Rome I seems to allow for a waiver of the various simultaneously existing directive-based conflict rules. Such renunciation would not only resolve the issue of inaccurate transposition to national laws – an apparent problem for the Estonian legislator as well – but also contribute to legal certainty. While the conflict-of-laws rules of Rome I and the national directive-based rules coexist, the latter are to be considered subordinately to Rome I. The conflict rules of the Estonian Law of Obligations Act are deemed to be only domestically mandatory and therefore not to be viewed as overriding mandatory rules in the sense of Article 9 of Rome I.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 223-236
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski

The question of the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims is widely discussed in the doctrinal debates. In common opinion, the existing European conflict-of-laws regulations do not provide for a rule governing this issue. In the case BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg (C‑548/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed this gape of the Rome I Regulation.The gloss presents the justification of the European Union Court’s judgment, the reasons for the lack of the uniform conflict-of-laws regulation, and the consequences of this state. It also analyses briefly the European Commission’s proposal for the EU Regulation concerning the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018) 96 final), as a response to this situation. Finally, it examines the appropriate conflict-of-laws rules for proprietary effects of assignments of claims (the law of the assignor’s habitual residence and the law of the assigned claim).


2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-535
Author(s):  
Mariusz Fras

Abstract The provisions on obligations under insurance relationships included in Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation are relatively complicated. However, although individual insurance contracts have their own legal regime in each Member State, only a few national legislators have decided to lay down the consequences of concluding a group insurance agreement. The Rome I Regulation does not include any special conflict of laws rule concerning group insurance contracts, which has been criticized in the literature on the subject.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor C Hartley

AbstractThe voluntary assignment of contractual (and non-contractual) obligations in conflict of laws is governed by article 14 of the Rome I Regulation. Under this, the validity of the assignment as between the assignor and assignee is governed by the law applicable to the contract between them (paragraph 1 of article 14). On the other hand, the assignability of the claim and the relationship between the debtor and the assignee are governed by the law applicable to the obligation assigned (paragraph 2 of article 14). Certain issues are, however, outside the scope of article 14 as it stands at present. These are the question of priorities between competing assignments (if the same obligation is assigned twice to different assignees) and the rights of third parties (mainly creditors of the assignor). This article examines the precise scope of the two existing paragraphs and considers the arguments that might be relevant in deciding what law should govern the issues at present not covered by either paragraph, a question that has become more pressing in view of the fact that negotiations will soon begin on a possible amendment of article 14 to deal with it.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-41
Author(s):  
Agata Jaroszek

The paper aims at discussing the rationale for protecting consumers under the new directive on consumer rights (CRD) and its relation to conflict of law rules under the Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).The author is of the opinion the newly adopted legal framework for consumer protection under the directive on consumer rights seems to be more predictable especially in terms of supporting consumers with more mandatory information before the conclusion of a contract with a professional as well as a single 14 day withdrawal period for all Member States. However, the level of consumer protection in the purchase of digital content is insufficient and from the perspective of conflict of laws rules for consumer contracts under Rome I, a consumer who actively makes a purchase from a professional from another Member State or a third country cannot expect the special protective rules envisaged in the regime under CRD and Rome I to be applied by default; rather, the general rules come into play.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document