Mandatory Rules and Public Policy under the Rome I Regulation

2009 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Rome I

CONTRACTS, ILLEGALITY AND COMITY: RALLI BROS REVISITED

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-90
Author(s):  
William Day
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Rule ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
Governing Law ◽  
Rome I

AbstractThere has always been considerable uncertainty about the nature and scope of the rule by which contractual performance is excused if illegal in the place of performance, even though performance would not be illegal by the contract's governing law. This article revisits the so-called “Ralli Bros rule” and looks at how the scope of the rule has been developed and its nature misunderstood. It argues that the rule is neither a choice of law rule nor part of the rules discharging a contract for frustration but is instead a public policy rule favouring judicial abstention for reasons of comity. This has implications for how the rule interacts with the choice of law rules for contracts under the Rome Convention and the Rome I Regulation.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION PUBLIC POLICY INTERESTS AND INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 56-69
Author(s):  
A. A. Shulakov
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Intercountry Adoption ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Interstate Cooperation ◽  
The Family ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Family Code

The article is devoted to the protection of the Russian Federation public policy interests in the field of intercountry adoption. It is established that strengthening of such protection entails changes in the legislation. Such changes are connected either with the super-mandatory character of already existing statutory mandatory substantive rules or with the emergence of new super-mandatory rules. In the field of intercountry adoption in Russia, this process is particularly striking. The study highlights that the general equation contained in Art. 1192 “Rules of direct application” of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes two ways that allow by analogy to determine the super-mandatory nature of certain mandatory substantive rules stated in the Family Code of the Russian Federation: “by reference in the mandatory rules themselves” (the over-mandatory character of the rule is expressly determined by the legislator) or “because of their particular importance also for the protection of rights and legally protected interests” (the over-mandatory character of the rule is determined by the executor of law). It is concluded that the emergence of constitutionally significant values/public interests in the content of the mandatory substantive rule (“protection of morals, health, rights and legitimate interests of other family members and other citizens”, etc.) forms a criterion that allows the executor of the law to determine such rules as rules of over-mandatory character. Based on the analysis of international treaties of the Russian Federation on interstate cooperation in the field of adoption of children, the article defines the fundamental principles that make up the structure of intercountry adoption in the Russian Federation. It is established that the additional conditions and requirements of the state of child’s origin are included in the regulation of intercountry adoption (provisions of articles 165, 124-133 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation; provisions of bilateral treaties between Russia and European countries where more than 85% of Russian children are adopted (France, Italy, Spain)) to protect the interests of the RF public policy.

scholarly journals Bribery and International Commercial Arbitration – the Role of Mandatory Rules and Public Policy

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pavić
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Behaviour ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Additional Problem ◽  
Mandatory Rules

Although designed to resolve private disputes, usually commercial in nature, arbitration may nevertheless encounter during its course allegations of impropriety and criminal behaviour. In the context of international commercial arbitration, the most common of those are allegations of bribery. However, tribunals may adjudicate only matters of private law and, should they establish existence of bribery, may draw only civil law consequences thereof. An additional problem in this respect is determining the body of rules that will be applicable in defining the very notion of bribery, since some aspects of bribery are almost universally prohibited, while the others are banned only in certain jurisdictions. In determining the law applicable to the matters of bribery, tribunals then face choice-of-law dilemmas. Each of the public policy techniques (overriding mandatory provisions, international and/or transnational) has its strengths and weaknesses. 

6 Conduct of the Proceedings

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blackaby Nigel ◽  
Partasides Constantine ◽  
Redfern Alan ◽  
Hunter Martin
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Law ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Do So

This chapter outlines the conduct of the tribunal and the parties during arbitration proceedings. In general, an arbitral tribunal must conduct the arbitration in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties. If it fails to do so, the award may be set aside, or refused recognition and enforcement. However, the freedom of the parties to dictate the procedure to be followed in an international arbitration is not unrestricted. The procedure must comply with any mandatory rules and public policy requirements of the law of the juridical seat of the arbitration. It must also take into account the provisions of the international rules on arbitration, such as those of the ICC, which aim to ensure that arbitral proceedings are conducted fairly. Accordingly, a balance must be struck between the parties’ wishes concerning the procedure to be followed and any overriding requirements of the legal regime that governs the arbitration.

scholarly journals Law Applicable to Consumer Contracts: Interaction of the Rome I Regulation and EU-directive-based Rules on Conflicts of Laws

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ragne Piir ◽  
Karin Sein
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Apparent Problem

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.

Ch.3 Validity, s.3: Illegality, Introduction to Section 3.3 of the PICC

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cuniberti Gilles
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Conceptual Possibility

Section 3.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with illegality. This is an innovation of the third edition of the PICC. Previous editions expressly excluded immorality and illegality. The rationale for the exclusion was the complexity of questions of public policy and the diversity of national laws. When UNIDROIT inquired among its experts which topics should be included in a new edition, illegality emerged as one of the most widely supported topics. The conceptual possibility of a private instrument governing the application of mandatory rules was apparently not considered. Yet, the issue might reveal an essential limit to the relevance of the provisions of Section 3.3.

Posted Workers in Europe from a Private International Law Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 219-244
Author(s):  
Louise Merrett
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Rome I

Abstract Cases involving the posting of workers will inevitably involve international elements and therefore issues of private international law. Historically, it has been assumed that English employment law is territorial: in particular section 204 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the provisions of the Act apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract. This contribution examines this proposition through the perspective of private international law principles, and also considers the compatibility of section 204 with the private international law rules in the Posted Workers Directive and the new definition of overriding mandatory rules in the Rome I Regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document