The Product Liability Directive and Rome II Article 5: ‘Full Harmonisation’ and the Conflict of Laws

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Product Liability ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Article 5

The Product Liability Directive and Rome II Article 5: ‘Full Harmonisation’ and the Conflict of Laws

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 435-461
Author(s):  
Simon Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Law And Legislation ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Article 5

AbstractThis article considers the possible relationship between EU legislation governing private international law and legislation governing substantive law in the light of recent moves towards ‘full harmonisation’ and calls for greater consistency and coherence in European law-making. For this purpose, it considers the Product Liability Directive and the special product liability provisions in Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and asks how the understanding of ‘product liability’ compares in these two instruments, especially in relation to the distinctions between public and private law, general and special regulation and contract and tort.

The Product Liability Directive and Rome II Article 5: ‘Full Harmonisation’ and the Conflict of Laws

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 435-461
Author(s):  
Simon Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Law And Legislation ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Article 5

Abstract This article considers the possible relationship between EU legislation governing private international law and legislation governing substantive law in the light of recent moves towards ‘full harmonisation’ and calls for greater consistency and coherence in European law-making. For this purpose, it considers the Product Liability Directive and the special product liability provisions in Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and asks how the understanding of ‘product liability’ compares in these two instruments, especially in relation to the distinctions between public and private law, general and special regulation and contract and tort.

Conflict of Laws Regulation of Compensation for Harm Caused by the Defects in Goods, Work, or Services

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva
Keyword(s):  
Basic Principle ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Cascade System ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Article 5

The article deals with the conflict of laws regulation of compensation for damage caused by a product (works or services) in terms of amendments to Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by the Federal Law No. 260-FZ of September 30, 2013. It is noted that the effect of the basic principle (lex loci delicti) for non-contractual obligations in the field of products liability (works, services) is limited by the establishment of special forms of attachment due to the specifics of these relations that require a differentiated approach. On the basis of comparison of the legislation of certain countries, as well as Article 5 “Product liability” of the Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) tendencies of conflicts regulation in this area are identified based on the “cascade” system of norms, which allows to take into account various cases of causing of harm. It was concluded that despite some differences the Russian legal rules in general meet requirements of modern conflict of laws rules on product liability in most European countries.

Product Liability and the Conflict of Laws

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Richard Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Sense ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Specific Sense

The conflict of laws is one of the names given to the subject that deals with the resolution of private law disputes between private law parties where the facts have a connection to more than one legal system. Such situations arise frequently in product liability. For example, a product is assembled in State A using different components manufactured in States B, C, and D. Alternatively, a product is manufactured in State A, placed upon the market in State B, and consumed by the purchaser in State C, causing him injury which requires treatment in State D. In product liability litigation the fact that there are foreign issues means that a lawyer presented with such a case by the claimant must consider additionally three basic and interrelated questions. First, can the desired court hear the case the claimant would present to it? This is the jurisdiction question. If the answer is ‘No’, the claimant’s case will not proceed in that forum but may be able to be presented in another forum. If the answer is ‘Yes’, this means that the rules of jurisdiction may allow the claimant’s case to proceed as desired. The question of jurisdiction has a general and a specific aspect: the court must have the jurisdiction to hear the claim considered both in a general sense and in the specific sense involving the specific parties that the claimant would involve in the litigation he hopes to conduct before it.

scholarly journals Il Regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010 sulla legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale nella recente prassi giurisprudenziale italiana = Recent Italian case-law concerning EU Regulation on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Falconi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Italian Case ◽  
The Law ◽  
Article 5

Riassunto: Il presente contributo propone una breve analisi della prassi applicativa italiana in relazione al regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010 in tema di legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale. Solo in un ristretto numero di casi le parti si sono avvalse della facoltà di optio legis loro concessa dall’art. 5 del regolamento, accordando preferenza alla legge nazionale comune. Più spesso, in mancanza di un accordo delle parti, la legge applicabile è individuata in applicazione dell’art. 8: ciò conduce nella maggior parte delle ipotesi all’applicazione della legge dello Stato di residenza abituale dei coniugi, con il risultato di favorire l’integrazione sociale e ripristinando altresì la corrispondenza tra forum e jus.Parole chiave: Regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010, divorzio e separazione personale, conflitti di leggi, diritto internazionale privato dell’Unione europea, optio legis, legge applicabile in mancanza di scelta.Abstract: This article offers a brief analysis of the Italian case-law concerning Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Only in a few cases, spouses have chosen the applicable law according to Article 5, by designating the law of their State of nationality. More frequently, absent a valid choice by the spouses, the law applicable to divorce or legal separation has been determined in accordance with Article 8: this usually leads to the application of the law of the country where the spouses are habitually resident, thereby promoting social integration and also restoring the correspondence between forum and jus.Keywords: Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010, divorce and legal separation, conflict-of-laws rules; private international law of the European Union, choice of law agreement, applicable law in the absence of a choice by the parties.

scholarly journals COMPENSATION FOR HARM CAUSED BY THE DEFECTS IN GOODS (WORK OR SERVICES) IN FOREIGN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW LEGISLATION

2017 ◽  
pp. 92-98
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Cascade System ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Escape Clauses

The article deals with the conflict of laws regulation of compensation for damage caused by a product (works or services) in private international law legislation of different countries. The specificities of legal regulation of such relations are determined by the necessity of supporting the balance of parties’ interests, protection of persons and legal bodies (“weaker party”), damaged by the defects of products (works or services), and stimulation of quality workmanship of producers and sellers of products, works and services. Formulation of special conflict-of-law norms in modern codifying acts in this area of regulation is explained by the specifics of such relations, which are become more multivarious, requiring the differentiated approach. The place of producing the product (execution of work, provision of services) in such relations can be not coincide with the place of ensuing of harmful consequences, caused by a product of defective quality. It is noted that the effect of the basic principle (lex loci delicti) for non-contractual obligations in the field of products liability (works, services) is limited by the establishment of special forms of attachment and escape clauses. On the basis of comparison of the legislation of certain countries, as well as Article 5 “Product liability” of the Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) tendencies of conflicts regulation in this area are identified, based on the “cascade” system of norms which allows to take into account various cases of causing of harm. It was concluded that, despite some differences, generally there is a trend towards harmonization of regulation of the relations concerned in the legislation of various countries.

ECONOMIC TORTS IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-243
Author(s):  
Pippa Rogerson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
German Law ◽  
English Court ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Investment Advice ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Law Of Delict ◽  
Harmful Event

IN AMT Futures Ltd. v Marzillier [2017] UKSC 13; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 853, the Supreme Court had to decide where a “harmful event” occurred in order to determine whether the English court had jurisdiction over the defendant, Marzillier, a German lawyer. AMT brought an action in England against Marzillier for inducing breaches of contracts made between AMT and their European clients. Although the client contracts contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts, Marzillier had encouraged the clients to bring actions against AMT in Germany. The claims were made under German law of delict alleging that AMT were accessory to the bad investment advice given by the clients’ brokers. The brokers were insolvent. The German claims were brought directly against AMT and AMT settled. It had lost on the jurisdiction question in Germany because the exclusive jurisdiction clause did not bind the clients. They were consumers. Additionally, the actions were in tort and therefore did not fall within the scope of the clause. AMT brought this action in England after paying over £2m in settlement and costs in Germany. AMT argued that Marzillier had deprived AMT of the benefit of the contractual exclusive jurisdiction agreement by inducing the clients to sue in Germany. Marzillier, a defendant domiciled in Germany, could only be sued in England if the harmful event occurred here. Lord Hodge J.S.C., giving a beautifully clear judgment, held that the case could not be heard in England. England was not the place where the harm occurred, despite payment out of an account in England and the alleged breach of the exclusive English jurisdiction agreement. He held that Germany was the place where the harm occurred under what is now Article 7(2) (ex Article 5(3)) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast (Regulation EC No 1215/2012).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document