scholarly journals Rome I Regulation a—Mostly—Unified Private International Law of Contractual Relationships within—Most—of the European Union

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Behr Volker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
One Year ◽  
Rome I

The year 2009 was an important year in the development of unified private international law in the European Union. At the beginning of the year, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)  entered into force. And at the end of the year Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) followed suit. Hence, within one year significant parts of the private international law relevant to international business transactions have been unified within most of the Member States of the European Union. Further segments are to follow up on these developments.

scholarly journals The Impact Of Rome I Regulatıon In Albanıan Prıvate Internatıonal Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Ilda Mucmataj
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I ◽  
The Impact

In terms of globalization, the economic activities have overcome national boundaries of states. So due to people’s mobility and their frequent relations in private field, the number of private international actions has increased as well, and gives in this way the importance of private international law. The conflict of law rules in the national law were not unaffected by European integration. So, the developments that took place in the European Union in the field of private international law over the past years had a large impact on the national conflict of laws rules in Albania, especially on the conflict of laws rules of certain specific areas of law. The aim of this article is to analyze the interaction between European Union law and the Albanian conflict of laws rules in the area of contractual obligations. So on one hand, I have presented a general analysis on the main provisions of the EC Regulation No. 593/2008 of The European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law applicable to contractual obligations, known as (Rome I), as the role of the European Union is becoming increasingly active in PIL. While, on the other hand I have presented a short introduction of the historical development of APIL and its characteristics and then I have given a comparative view of Albanian Private international Law relating to the contractual obligations with the focus on party autonomy provisions. The article concludes with a short conclusion.

Legal Regulation of Adjudication in Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Issues of Conflict Rules)

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

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.

scholarly journals The Limits of Choice of Applicable Law under the European Union Regulation No. 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 “On the Law Applicabl to Non-Contractual Obligations”

2017 ◽  
pp. 76-84
Author(s):  
Кирилл Нам ◽  
Kirill Nam
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Eu

The tendency toward unification of EU countries’ national legal orders is a natural and necessary part of integration processes within the European Union. However, due to the diversity and differences of legal systems and cultures in the European states, the question of establishing a complete uniformity of material legal norms, first of all, in the field of private law, seems to be the one of a remote future. In this regard, a milestone development has been the unification of EU countries’ legal norms of private international law concerning non-contractual obligations, i. e. the adoption and entry into force of the EU Regulation (Rome II). One of the main novelties introduced therein is the principle of parties’ autonomy according to which parties to a non-contractual obligation have the right to choose the law to be applied to their relationship. The author analyzes and systemizes the limits of such a choice contained in the EU Regulation (Rome II). Parties to non-contractual obligations through the choice of applicable law can build their relationships in a way that corresponds to their goals and wishes. However, at the same time they should carefully consider all limitations of their choice of law and possible legal implications of it which are contained in the EU Regulation (Rome II).

THE LAW APPLICABLE TO PRODUCT LIABILITY: THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW IN EUROPE AND CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR REFORM

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 475-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kadner Graziano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present State ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Rome I

The choice of law-rules for contractual obligations is harmonized in the European Union and the system established by the Rome I-Convention has proved its merits.1 The choice of law rules for tortious or delictual liability, on the contrary, is still largely left to the national legislators and courts2 and they differ very much from one country to the other. Two Hague Conventions cover particular issues.3 Neither of them is in force in the UK.

scholarly journals La localizzacione dell’illecito concorrenziale nel regime di Bruxelles: riflessioni alla luce della Sentenza FLYLAL II della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea = The localization of antitrust torts underthe Brussels regime: reflections in the light of the Judgment FLYLAL II of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 693
Author(s):  
Caterina Benini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
State Of Affairs

Riassunto: Nella sentenza flyLAL II la Corte di giustizia dell’Unione Europea ha affermato che un calo delle vendite provocato da un illecito concorrenziale costituisce il “danno” rilevante agli effetti della individuazione del giudice competente ai sensi dell’art. 5 n. 3 del regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 (“Bruxelles I”) e ha ritenuto che tale danno vada localizzato nel paese in cui si trova il mercato inte­ressato dagli effetti dell’illecito. Lo scritto, prendendo spunto da questa sentenza, esamina criticamente la disciplina internazionalprivatistica europea degli illeciti concorrenziali, soffermandosi sulle ricadute negative della stessa in termini di private antitrust enforcement. Dinnanzi a questo stato delle cose, la soluzione della Corte appare perseguire l’obiettivo di garantire coerenza tra la disposizione oggetto di pronuncia e l’art. 6, par. 3, lett. a), del regolamento (CE) n. 864/2007 (“Roma II”) sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni extracontrattuali derivanti da atti limitativi della concorrenza. Essa inoltre agevola il private enforcement del diritto della concorrenza, contribuendo al contempo alla funzione regolatoria del diritto internazionale privato nel contesto regionale dell’Unione Europea.Parole chiave: illeciti concorrenziali, foro speciale degli illeciti, localizzazione del danno, criterio del mercato, private antitrust enforcementAbstract: In the flyLAL II judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the loss of sales incurred as a result of antitrust tort can be regarded as “damage” for the purposes of iden­tifying the competent jurisdictional authority pursuant to Art. 5 n. 3 of the Regulation (EC) n. 44/2001 (“Brussels I”) and ruled that such damage is localized in the country whose market was affected by the anticompetitive conduct. Taking that judgment as point of departure, this article critically analyses the EU private international law regime of antitrust torts, focusing on its negative impact on private antitrust enforcement. Given this state of affairs, the solution adopted by the Court seems to pursue the goal of consistency between the provision under scrutiny and Art. 6, par. 3, lit. a), of the Regulation (CE) n. 864/2007 (“Rome II”) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from acts restricting free competition. It also promotes the private enforcement of antitrust rules, thereby enhancing the re­gulatory function of private international law in the internal market.Keywords: antitrust torts, special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, localization of the loss, market criterion, private antitrust enforcement.

scholarly journals BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Trevor C Hartley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Products Liability ◽  
The Law

Abstract This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

Contractual Obligations

2019 ◽  
pp. 195-243
Author(s):  
Adrian Briggs
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

This chapter discusses the law on contractual obligations. On Exit Day, and unless any further legislative provision is made, the provisions of EU law set out in the Rome I Regulation, Regulation 593/2008, will be retained as the law of the United Kingdom. The adjustments necessary to allow the Rome I Regulation to operate as English private international law are made by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019 No 834: these adjustments are of no substantial importance. It follows that it is possible to refer in this chapter to the Rome I Regulation without needing to draw attention to its status as EU legislation (as it was prior to Exit Day) or as retained EU legislation (as it is on and after Exit Day).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document