German Transplants in Estonian Tort Law: General Duties to Maintain Safety

The jurisprudence and case-law approach of German tort law – and, more broadly, German-school legal thinking in general – has found its way into Estonian case law on torts and into Estonia’s scholarly texts on jurisprudence. From among the catalogue of transplants from German tort law that have reached Estonian law or legal practice, the paper focuses on one whose importance cannot be overestimated: the concept of tort liability based on breach of the general duty to maintain safety. This domain has witnessed remarkable change since the beginning of the 2000s, when an analogous concept of liability was still unfamiliar to many Estonian lawyers. The article examines whether and to what extent the concept of liability based on the general duty to maintain safety has become recognised in Estonian legal practice in the years since. Also assessed is the relevant case law to date, for ascertainment of whether any adoption of an equivalent concept of liability has been successful and, in either event, what problems remain to be resolved. The importance of this issue extends far beyond that of individual questions: the recognition of general duties to maintain safety affects our understanding of the very structure of tort law, of that of the general composition of tort, and of the connections that link the individual prerequisites for tort liability. Furthermore, this constellation influences our thought in the field of tort law more generally and our approach to the cases emerging in real-world legal practice.

Roboter als Rechtssubjekte – Der Streit um die E-Person

The European Parliament has proposed legal personhood for artificial intelligence entities, to ensure honouring of rights and responsibility. The article discusses the question of legal personhood for non-human beings from a legal-historical and legal-sociological perspective. In addition, it examines legal personhood in the modern German legal system and discusses the implementation of a tertium genus for artificial intelligence as proposed by the European Parliament. This analysis leads to the conclusion that introduction of e-personhood would constitute a paradigm shift that blurs the boundaries between humans and machines.

The Applicability of the Digital Content Directive and Sales of Goods Directive to Goods with Digital Elements

There is an ongoing trend to develop inter-connected or ‘smart’ consumer goods, which either contain digital content (such as software) or use digital services for certain of their functions (as with the navigation system of a smart car). The new Digital Content Directive and Sales of Goods Directive create a legal presumption that the seller of smart goods is contractually liable not only for the tangible item and embedded digital software but also for the inter-connected digital services. However, the article shows that much room remains for party autonomy as express agreement in a sales contract may limit the liability of the seller even for the operating system of smart goods and, thereby, override reasonable consumer expectations. The situation becomes even more complicated when the ‘digital element’ of the goods consists of free and open-source software: in these cases, the ‘separately bought’ digital content does not even fall within the scope of the Digital Content Directive, with the result that the seller is not liable for the digital content under the Sales of Goods Directive and the digital content provider is not liable for it under the Digital Content Directive. Therefore, the article argues that the new contract-law package does not raise the level of consumer protection in respect of smart goods as much as it might initially seem to.

Online Hearings in Proceedings before International Commercial Courts

The paper presents analysis of the use of online hearings in proceedings before international commercial courts. International commercial courts are not a new phenomenon, with the Commercial Court of England and Wales having been established in London already in 1895. What is new is the increased prominence of such courts over the last six years. The article focuses on three jurisdictions in Europe: Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The author examines to what extent communication technologies are being used in proceedings before international commercial courts in Europe and also whether – and, if so, how – the COVID 19 pandemic has affected this. The overall finding is that there has been increased demand for video hearings since the beginning of the pandemic, if not earlier. The article is focused primarily on cross-border taking of evidence by means of videoconferencing. In this context, it highlights the changes in the recast of the Taking of Evidence Regulation. The author concludes that the commercial courts presented will most likely not benefit from the recast.

Zum kollisionsrechtlichen Umgang mit sachenrechtlichen Eigentumsvermutungen aus dem Besitz

A presumption is made in the favour of the possessor of a movable thing that he is the owner of the thing, and likewise it is presumed that a former possessor was the owner during the term of his possession. However, legal presumptions such as those behind the German Civil Code’s §1006, subsections 1 and 2 (or §90 of the Estonian Law of Property Act) are shifting the burden of proof to the other party, the one who is not or was not the possessor of the movable. The paper examines the attendant issues with regard to conflict of laws, with the conclusion that it remains unclear whether legal presumptions arising from possession should be qualified by the lex rei sitae doctrine (per the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code, Article 43, Subsection 1), instead as ‘rights over an object’ (under that article’s Subsection 2), or in line with procedural regulations (lex fori).

Zehn Jahre gemeinsame rechtswissenschaftliche Seminare Tartu-Konstanz – eine Erfolgsgeschichte!

Im Sommer des Jahres 2020 jährte sich der Beginn der Zusammenarbeit unserer Universitäten zum 10. Mal. Die enge rechtswissenschaftliche Kooperation mit gemeinsamen Seminaren von Professoren, Studierenden und Doktoranden nahm im Juni 2010 mit dem ersten vom DAAD geförderten Seminar in Tartu seinen Anfang – ins Leben gerufen von den Professoren Paul Varul, Rainer Hausmann und Astrid Stadler. Für mich war es die erste Reise nach Estland und es sollten noch einige in dieses kleine, aber faszinierende Land folgen. Das erste Seminar wurde unter dem Obertitel „Die Harmonisierung des Europäischen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” abgehalten und bot auch für die Gruppe von deutschen Studierenden erstmals die Gelegenheit, Estland und einer der ältesten ehemals deutschsprachigen Universitäten in Europa kennenzulernen. Wie auch später waren wir alle vom Charme der Stadt und der Universität begeistert und unsere Studierenden machten die für viele überraschende Entdeckung einer gemeinsamen Geschichte und rechtlichen Tradition. Es folgten in fast jährlicher Abfolge weitere Seminare, die abwechselnd in Konstanz und Tartu bzw. Tallinn (Konferenzsprache überwiegend Englisch) abgehalten wurden und von dem „Kern“ Irene Kull, Merike Ristikivi, Marju Luts-Sootak, Astrid Stadler und den jeweiligen Nachfolgern auf dem Konstanzer Lehrstuhl von Rainer Hausmann, zunächst Christoph Althammer, dann ab 2014 Michael Stürner und dem Konstanzer Rechtshistoriker (bis 2020) Matthias Armgardt durchgeführt wurden: im Frühjahr 2011 in Konstanz unter dem Titel „Die schwächere Partei – ein wechselvolles Konzept des Privatrechts“; 2013 in Tartu/Tallinn („Handelsbeziehungen in Europa: die Perspektive des Privatrechts und Internationalen Privatrechts“); im Herbst 2014 in Konstanz („Neue Wege zur Harmonisierung des Privatrechts in Europa – Lehren aus dem Einheitlichen Europäischen Kaufrecht und künftige Herausforderungen“); im Dezember 2016 in Konstanz („Privatrecht im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung“); im November 2017 in Tartu/Tallinn („Vergleichendes Privatrecht und EU- Recht“); im Dezember 2018 in Konstanz („Vertrag und Delikt“) und zuletzt im Winter 2019 in Tartu/Tallinn („Personen und persönliche Freiheit im Privatrecht“). Die Veranstaltung im Oktober 2014 wurde ausnahmsweise in größerem Format und unter Beteiligung weiterer Professoren (Burckhard Hess, MPI Luxemburg; Soazick Kerneis, Paris; Nils Janssen, Münster; Pascal Pichonnaz, Fribourg) durchgeführt – wie es sich für das große Thema der Harmonisierung des europäischen Privatrechts gehörte. Die für den Herbst 2020 in Konstanz geplante Jubiläumsveranstaltung war schon genau geplant, wurde aber bedauerlicher Weise wie so vieles in 2020 ein Opfer der Covid19-Pandemie. Die Veranstaltung kann hoffentlich schon in 2021 nachgeholt werden. Die Seminare waren für die deutschen Teilnehmer immer ein großer persönlicher und wissenschaftlicher Gewinn, da sich immer schnell ein freundschaftliches Miteinander der Seminarteilnehmer einstellte und die Gastfreundschaft der Kollegen überwältigend war. Manche Doktoranden beider Seiten begegneten sich in den Seminaren wiederholt und wir konnten miterleben, wie sie zu erfolgreichen jungen Wissenschaftlern und Wissenschaftlerinnen heranwuchsen. Abgerundet wurden die Veranstaltungen stets auch von Vorträgen der beteiligten Professoren mit aktuellen Einblicken in deren Forschungsaktivitäten. Thematisch waren die Seminare bewusst breit angelegt und erlaubten Präsentationen zu hochaktuellen Themen mit innovativen Ideen der jeweiligen Studierenden und Doktoranden. Dies bot gerade den deutschen Studierenden, deren engmaschiges Studium bis zum Staatsexamen sich in einem eher traditionellen Kanon von Themen und Fächern bewegt, schon in einer frühen Phase ihres Studiums interessante Einblicke in neue und gesamteuropäische Entwicklungen. Themen wie die Digitalisierung, die heute in aller Munde sind, waren dank der Vorreiterrolle Estlands in diesem Bereich schon früh auch ein Thema in den Seminaren, ebenso wie alle rechtlichen Probleme rund um Bitcoins, smart contracts etc., aber auch methodischen Fragen der Rechtsvergleichung und europäischen Harmonisierung. Neu war für die deutschen Teilnehmer/innen insoweit häufig der völlig andere und offenere Blick eines Landes wie Estland auf die Harmonisierungsbemühungen in der Europäischen Union. Sie erfuhren, dass man in Estland aufgrund der wechselvollen Geschichte und einer noch eher jungen Tradition autonomer Rechtssetzung nach Loslösung von der Sowjetunion, deren Teil die Estnische Sozialistische Sowjetrepublik von 1940−1991 gewesen war, viel aufgeschlossener ist gegenüber neuen Ideen und einer Harmonisierung als in Deutschland, wo häufig der Reflex in Wissenschaft und Politik überwiegt, das lieb gewonnene BGB zu bewahren. Ebenso konnten sie darüber staunen, dass es in einem Land wie Estland ohne weiteres möglich war, schon als junge/er Rechtswissenschaftler/in an landesweiten Kodifikationsprojekten mitzuarbeiten und Universität, Gerichte und Ministerien generell einen engen personellen Austausch pflegen und Wissenschaft und Praxis viel enger verbunden sind als in Deutschland. Die Kooperation mit Tartu ist für den Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft der Universität Konstanz die längste und traditionsreichste Beziehung zu einer ausländischen Universität. In deren Mittelpunkt stehen zwar die gemeinsamen Seminare, aber darüber hinaus besteht auch ein reger Austausch durch Forschungsaufenthalte und wissenschaftliche Vorträge zu verschiedenen Anlässen. Die über die Jahre gewachsenen freundschaftlichen Beziehungen zu den Kollegen und Kolleginnen in Tartu sind eine einzigartige Basis, aufgrund derer sich den Studierenden an beiden Universitäten Möglichkeiten bieten, die sie sonst nicht wahrnehmen könnten. Dies alles wäre nicht möglich gewesen, ohne den enormen persönlichen Einsatz von Irene Kull, Marju Luts-Sootak und Merike Ristikivi, aber auch nicht ohne die stets wohlwollende finanzielle und organisatorische Unterstützung des DAAD und unserer beider Universitätsverwaltungen, insbesondere dem International Office der Universität Konstanz. Ihnen allen sei an dieser Stelle ganz herzlich gedankt – auch im Namen aller Kollegen und Studierenden. Am Fortbestand der Kooperation, die auf beiden Seiten auch von den jüngeren Kollegen mit großem Engagement getragen wird, besteht kein Zweifel und wir freuen uns auf den weiteren Austausch.

Dear reader,

This is the thirtieth issue of Juridica International. The first was published back in 1996, and, in general, one issue has been published each year since then. While 2007, 2008, 2014, and 2017 saw the publication of two issues each, no year has failed to feature. Though serving as a journal of the University of Tartu, Juridica International is also the only peer-reviewed legal journal published in Estonia to enjoy broad international distribution. Thus, for 26 years, it has been the calling card of Estonian jurisprudence on the world stage. However, it has been more than that. The involvement of foreign authors is just as important as the aim of providing Estonian authors with an opportunity to participate in international scientific discussion. There is every reason to be proud of the fact that the journal’s 30 issues have featured authors from 25 other countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, United Kingdom, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the USA. Among the authors are many who are in the uppermost echelon of the world’s leading professors in their field. In its first years, one of the main goals for Juridica International was to introduce and analyse the legal reforms carried out in Estonia, which were of vital interest to foreign readers as well; however, this has not been the case for a long time now. Today, the primary focus is on participation in international legal discussion, wherein, alongside the development of national law, great emphasis is placed on European Union law and other cross-border regulation whose reach extends between countries. That said, the purpose of introducing the development of Estonian law and legal thinking at international level has not been discarded. After all, Estonia is still highly noteworthy as a country of successful reforms, not least legal reforms. Therefore, a matter of ongoing interest is whether this country, which has succeeded so well with groundbreaking reforms, can be as successful in a stable situation across the board. The range of topics covered in the 30 issues of Juridica International is very wide; no important area of law has been neglected, and listing all of them would take too long. What could be highlighted above all are topics related to European Union law and the Constitution of Estonia, but also crucial are the writings on many issues related to aspects of the law of obligations, property law, company law, penal law, competition law, personal data protection, media law, medical law, international law, and several other fields. Significant attention has been paid to the possibilities for harmonisation of law and mutual interactions, both between countries and between distinct branches of law. Likewise, the writings have considered key general issues of law, such as its interpretation, the effect of justice policy on legislative drafting, and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. The ability to publish a journal – and a reason to do so – exists only if readers are interested in that journal. What makes me the happiest is that, over the years, readers’ interest has increased and the geographical area within which people read Juridica International has grown. Most certainly, the fact that for quite some time the journal has been available online has contributed to this. A big ‘thank you’ to all of the readers! I also want to thank every one of the authors, the members of the editorial board, and my colleagues who have made it possible to publish 30 quality issues of Juridica International. I especially wish to highlight the contribution of the foreign members of the editorial board – professors Christian von Bar, Werner Krawietz (1933–2019), Erik Nerep, and Thomas Wilhelmsson – whose participation in the board’s work has played an important role in securing the solid international reputation of the journal. I hope for continued enthusiasm on the writers’ part and interest among readers for the next 30 issues!

Are Class Actions Finally (Re)conquering Europe? Some Remarks on Directive 2020/1828

The article provides a brief overview of the background of the new European Union directive on representative actions for protection of the collective interest of consumers (Directive 2020/1828). It describes the basic elements of the directive and explains the major changes that have occurred since the European Commission issued its Recommendation document on collective redress in 2013. The author highlights the issues of the scope of application of the directive, of legal standing to bring a representative action, of collective settlements, and of the problem of funding for collective actions. This discussion puts emphasis on the need to extend legal standing to individual members of the group and articulates an appeal to national legislatures, particularly in Germany, to be more open-minded towards commercial litigation funding and the establishment of a public access-to-justice fund designed to guarantee the effectiveness of Directive 2020/1828 and its implementation.

The Electronic Seal as a Solution to Prove the Intent of a Legal Entity

Because the digital environment does not recognise national borders and with transactions increasingly taking place across them, an electronic environment that affords interoperability is important for the competitiveness of the European Union. Debate about whether the identification of individuals in the digital environment should be a norm and obligation or, instead, the digital environment should be available as a form of expression of our privacy and anonymity has not waned. Although legal entities act through natural persons, solutions are available whereby a natural person’s e-signature may be replaced in an electronic environment by an electronic seal, or e-seal, of a legal entity. Although the general requirements related to e-seals were established in Estonian legislation already in 2009 and on EU level with the eIDAS Regulation in 2016, the legal meaning of an e-seal has remained unclear in most EU countries, even Estonia, where the uptake of such solutions is widespread. In light of this context, the article examines in which cases the e-seal of a legal entity could be equal in legal meaning to a hand-written signature or an e-signature of a natural person. Thus, the article addresses challenges visible in Estonian and EU-level legal acts that have left the legal meaning of the e-seal unclear. As some EU member states have declared a legal meaning for e-seals divergences among the regulatory approaches examined lead to issues that erode interoperability and the mutual recognition of e-seals in cross-border transactions, both of which would be expected from a genuine digital single market. From the examples of other Member States, a recommendation that the Estonian legislator amend the private-law acts is offered, with recommended wording that should eliminate the gaps in law. In private-law transactions, non-compliance with the form requirements provided by law or agreed upon between the parties generally results in the nullity of the transaction. According to the law currently in force, failure to comply with a requirement for a hand written signature (written form) or with equivalent requirements connected with electronic form as provided for by law constitutes non-compliance with a formal requirement. Should the Estonian legislation be changed in accordance with the suggestions presented, paying attention to its level when using the e-seal remains crucial. At the same time, it is important to take into account the purpose of the formal requirement, the actual intention of the parties, and the principle of good faith when deciding on the consequences, whether of the current law or of potential changes. When one is using a tool other than the parties' agreement (be it an e-signature or an e-seal), it is important to consider the purpose of the agreement if wishing to determine the parties' actual intention and analyse the legal entity's behaviour and, hence, whether the transaction has been performed.

Die Transplantate vom deutschen Recht für die Reform des Privatrechts in Estland. Am Beispiel des Abstraktionsprinzips

Estonia is one of the few countries where the abstraction principle (Abstraktionsprinzip) is recognised as the basis for title transfer in property law. Derived from the works of Savigny and from Germany’s strong land-register system, it is also among the basic principles of property law in Germany (the foundations of the BGB). In most countries, however, transfer of title is causal. The article describes how Estonia adopted and adapted German legal doctrine and thinking in this important field of law. This path was a long one, even though Estonian law has deep connections to German traditions. Before 1940, Estonia’s most important legal act was the Baltic Private Law Act, wherein the abstraction principle clearly was not recognised and the causal transfer of title formed the grounds in property law. In the Soviet era, though property law was given far less emphasis, the causal approach still served as its basis. When Estonia became independent, in the early 1990s, a new system of property law was urgently needed for purposes of land reform and for implementing the land-register system. German support for preparing the new Law of Property Act along the lines of German law was accepted, and the new law entered into force in 1993. Remarkably, at the beginning of this process it was not certain whether the abstraction principle would get implemented, but it became accepted through almost a decade of case law, and the new laws were later amended such that the principle was – unlike in German law – clearly formulated (in the General Part of the Civil Code). The abstraction principle has been an important part of Estonian property law and legal thinking ever since, firmly established both in legal theory and in case law. This process demonstrates well how a legal transplant from a given legal system can work in another.