Conflict of Laws .net

Prof. Rafael Arenas Garcia (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Àrea de Dret Internacional Privat blog) has written an interesting article on the controversial issue of the law applicable to culpa in contrahendo, discussing the conflict rule set out in Art. 12 of the Rome II regulation: “La regulación de la responsabilidad precontractual en el Reglamento Roma II”.

The article (in Spanish) will be published in the forthcoming issue (2007) of the Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado (Spanish Yearbook of Private International Law - AEDIPr.), but it can be downloaded as a .pdf file from the Àrea de Dret Internacional Privat blog.

The English abstract reads as follows:

Article 12 of Rome II Regulation governs the obligations arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract. It establishes that the law applicable to these obligations shall be the law applicable to the contract. Where it is not possible to determine such law, the second paragraph of article 12 establishes the application of the general connecting factors of Rome II Regulation. It is also possible to choose the law applicable to culpa in contrahendo.

These solutions are not problem-free. The application of the law governing the future contract is not suitable in order to forbid the breaking of negotiations, without giving to the parties the possibility to rely on the law of the country in which the party has its habitual residence to establish that he can broke off negotiations without liability. It can also be criticized that there is no provision about the cases in which a contract between the parties has been concluded in order to rule the negotiations. As a result of this lack of provision in these cases the law governing culpa in contrahendo will be the law of the future contract instead of the law of the contract that rules the negotiations.

This article analyses these problems and the difficult delimitation between contractual and non-contractual fields in matters relating to obligations arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract. It also includes de lege ferenda proposals.

A very interesting volume, collecting the contributions presented by prominent European and Japanese scholars at a conference organised in 2007 by the Max Planck Institute for Private Law in Hamburg, has been recently published by Mohr Siebeck: Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective. A presentation of the book, and the TOC, are available on the MPI’s website:

Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Harald Baum und Yuko Nishitani, this conference volume is based on a symposium of the same name that was held in March 2007 at the MPI for Private Law in Hamburg and represents the first comprehensive analysis of the new Japanese private international law in any western language.

The idea of national codification is advancing on a global scale in conflict of laws. A large number of legislative projects dealing with codifying and modernizing private international law, both on the national and the supranational level, have been launched in the past few years. Among such recent initiatives, the advances taken by the European and the Japanese legislators are particularly reflecting these developments. On January 1, 2007, the new Japanese ‘Act on General Rules for Application of Laws’ entered into force replacing the outdated conflict of laws statute of 1898. This major reform finds its parallels in the current efforts of the European Union to create a modern private international law regime for its member states.

This volume presents the first comprehensive analysis of the new Japanese private international law available in any western language and contrasts it with corresponding European developments. Most of the contributors from Japan are scholars who were actively involved in and responsible for preparing the new Act. All of them are renowned experts in the field of private international law. Leading European experts in the conflict of laws supplement the Japanese analyses with comparative contributions reflecting the pertinent discussion of parallel endeavours in the EU. To guarantee better understanding, English translations of both the present and the former Japanese statutes have been added.

Table of Contents:

I. General Introduction
Jürgen Basedow: The Recent Development of the Conflict of Laws - Trevor C Hartley: The Brussels Regulation and Non-Community States - Masato Dogauchi: Historical Development of Japanese Private International Law - Hironori Wanami: Background and Outline of the Modernization of Japanese Private International Law

II. Contractual Obligations
Yuko Nishitani: Party Autonomy and Its Restrictions by Mandatory Rules in Japanese Private International Law - Catherine Kessedjian: Party Autonomy and Characteristic Performance in the Rome Convention and the Rome I Proposal - Fausto Pocar: Protection of Weaker Parties in the Rome Convention and the Rome I Proposal

III. Assignment of Receivables
Aki Kitazawa: Law Applicable to the Assignment of Receivables in Japan (Nihon ni okeru saiken jôto no junkyo-hô) - Eva-Maria Kieninger: General Principles on the Law Applicable to the Assignment of Receivables in Europe

IV. International Company Law
Dai Yokomizo: International Company Law in Japan - Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto: International Company Law in the ECJ Decisions - Daniel Zimmer: The Proposal of the Deutscher Rat für Internationales Privatrecht

V. Non-Contractual Obligations
Toshiyuki Kono: Critical and Comparative Analysis of the Rome II Regulation on Applicable Laws to Non-contractual Obligations and the New Private International Law in Japan - Thomas Kadner Graziano: General Principles of Private International Law of Tort in Europe - Marc Fallon: The Law Applicable to Specific Torts in Europe

VI. International Family Law
Yasuhiro Okuda: Divorce, Protection of Minors, and Child Abduction in Japan’s Private International Law - Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Divorce Cases in Europe - Alegría Borrás: Protection of Minors and Child Abduction under the Hague Conventions and the Brussels II bis Regulation

VII. International Civil Procedure Law
Yoshihisa Hayakawa: International Adjudicative Jurisdiction in Japan - Dieter Martiny: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Germany and Europe

Annex I
Major European Community Legislation in Private International Law

Annex II
Japanese Legislation in Private International Law

Title: Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective, edited by Jürgen Basedow, Harald Baum, and Yuko Nishitani, Mohr Siebeck (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht/48), Tübingen, March 2008, XVIII + 434 pages.

ISBN: 978-3-16-149547-2. Price: euro 89.

The first issue of French Journal du Droit International (also known as Clunet) will be released shortly. It contains four articles dealing with conflict issues.

The first is authored by Pascal de Vareilles-Sommieres, who teaches at Paris I University, and Anwar Fekini, who is a practising lawyer in Paris and Tripoli. It discusses The New International Oil Exploration and Sharing Agreements in Libya (Les nouveaux contrats internationaux d’exploration et de partage de production pétrolière en Libye. Problèmes choisis). The English abstract reads:

The article intends to study the legal regime of the exploration and production sharing agreements (EPSAs) entered into by the Libyan National Oil Company with foreign oil companies since 2005. In this first part, the authors focus on legal sources governing Libyan EPSAs. Though admitting the prominent part of Libyan law chosen by the parties in a choice of law provision among these sources, the authors wonder whether the parties simultaneously intended to get other possible legal sources combined with it. A possible choice of public international law is first examined. Scrutinising the parties intention, the article comes to the conclusion that no sign pointing to an internationalisation of the EPSAs appears in the agreements. As a consequence, international contract law is not to be combined with Libyan law as far as the legal regime of the EPSAs is concerned. The study then looks for possible hints of the parties intention to get the lex mercatoria involved in the regulation of their agreement along with Libyan law. Several signs are brought to the light showing the parties’ common intention to let international trade usages interfere with Libyan law to be combined with it in order to finally make up the lex contractus.

The second part of this study will be published this year in a forthcoming issue of this Journal.

The second article is a study of the Rome II Regulation (Le règlement (CE) n° 864/2007 du 11 juillet 2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles (« Rome II »)). It is authored by Carine Briere, who lectures at Rouen University. Here is the English abstract:

The aim of this article is to present Regulation (EC) n° 864/2007 known as « Rome II », which is the result of a long process of elaboration. Codecision procedure has been used to adopt this text which harmonises rules of conflict of laws regarding noncontractual obligations to improve predictability concerning the law applicable. It constitutes a new step towards the construction of a private international community law. The Regulation follows current private international law trends that give competence to the law of the country in which the damage arises. Nevertheless, an escape clause introduces a flexible approach when the lex loci damni seems to be inappropriate. Specific rules for certain torts and restitutionary obligations are also laid down. They derogate the general rule. Moreover, the Regulation upholds in an extensive way the choice of law principle and determines the link with other norms such as the Hague Conventions on which it does not take precedence.

However, this Regulation, adopted in order to facilitate correct workings of the internal market, shall not prejudice the application of internal market legislation.

The third article from Moustapha Lô Diatta from HEI in Geneva presents the Evolution of Bilateral Treaties on Migratory Workers (L’évolution des accords bilatéraux sur les travailleurs migrants). The abstract reads:

Bilateral labour agreements represent not only the oldest but also the most important source of international migrant workers law. Since their appearance in earlier twentieth century, they have been changing at contracting parties’ will, by reference to the political and economic context, the developments of international labour migration and the progress made by international legislation in protecting migrant workers. The purpose of this study is to show to what extent the lessons that can be drawn from this evolution could contribute to the ongoing debate and consultations within the international bodies to establish a multilateral framework in which international labour migration would be mutually beneficial.

Finally, Philippe Roussel Galle from Dijon University presents a Few Ideas on the Interpretation of Regulation 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings after the French Circular of 15 December 2006 (De quelques pistes d’interprétation du règlement
(CE) n° 1346/2000 sur les procédures d’insolvabilité : la circulaire du 15 décembre 2006).

The entry into force of law n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005 which institutes, among other things, a safeguard procedure, combined with the first court decisions enforcing regulation (EC) n° 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, have lead the French Ministry of Justice to repel and replace the circular of 17 March 2003 regarding the implementation of the regulation. The new circular, enacted on December 15th 2006, gives precisions and interpretation guidelines on the European text and brings, notwithstanding sovereign judicial appreciation, solutions to the difficulties its implementation might create in France.

Thomas Thiede and Markus Kellner (both Vienna) have written an article on Forum Shopping between Rome II and the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to Traffic Accidents in the legal journal Versicherungsrecht (VersR 2007, 1624 et seq.): “‘Forum shopping’ zwischen dem Haager Übereinkommen über das auf Verkehrsunfälle anzuwendende Recht und der Rom-II-Verordnung”.

The authors argue that Article 28 (1) Rome II, which provides as a general rule that the Regulation shall not prejudice the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are parties and which lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations, leads to the precedence of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents since the exception clause of Article 28 (2) Rome II is – due to the fact that also Non-Member States are parties to the Hague Convention – not applicable.

It is submitted that the subsidiarity of the Rome II Regulation on the one side and the fact that the Hague Convention has not been ratified by some Member States on the other side entails the possibility of forum shopping. Thus, the authors argue, it would have been preferable to give priority to the Rome II Regulation over all Hague Conventions in order to ascertain – at least for intra-EU cases – the applicability of only one law.

Symeon C. Symeonides (Dean, College of Law - Willamette University) has posted Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity (forthcoming on the American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 56, 2008) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article reviews the European Union’s new Regulation on tort conflicts (”Rome II”), which unifies and “federalizes” the member states’ laws on this subject. The review accepts the drafters’ pragmatic premise that a rule-system built around the lex loci delicti as the basic rule, rather than American-style “approaches,” was the only politically viable vehicle for unification. Within this framework, the review examines whether Rome II provides sufficient and flexible enough exceptions as to make the lex loci rule less arbitrary and the whole system more workable.

The author’s answer is negative. For example, the common-domicile exception is too broad in some respects and too narrow in other respects. Likewise, the “manifestly closer connection” escape is phrased in exclusively geographical terms unrelated to any overarching principle and is worded in an all-or-nothing way that precludes issue-by-issue deployment and prevents it from being useful in all but the easiest of cases. The review concludes that, although attaining a proper equilibrium between legal certainty and flexibility is always difficult, Rome II errs too much on the side of certainty, which ultimately may prove elusive.

On the whole, Rome II is a missed opportunity to take advantage of the rich codification experience and sophistication of modern European conflicts law. Nevertheless, Rome II represents a major political accomplishment in unifying and equalizing the member states’ laws on this difficult subject. If this first step is followed by subsequent improvements, Europe would have achieved in a relatively short time much more than American conflicts law could ever hope for.

An interesting comparison can be made with two previous works by Prof. Symeonides, commenting the Rome II Commission’s Proposal and the EP Rapporteur’s Draft: Tort Conflicts and Rome II: a View from Across (published in the Festschrift für Erik Jayme) and Tort Conflicts and Rome II: Impromptu Notes on the Rapporteur’s Draft. Both are available for download on Diana Wallis’ website (Rome II seminars’ page), together with other works by prominent scholars.

Prof. Symeonides has posted a number of interesting articles on tort conflicts on SSRN (see the complete list of his available works on the author page), among which: The Quest for the Optimum in Resolving Product-Liability Conflicts; Territoriality and Personality in Tort Conflicts; Resolving Punitive-Damages Conflicts.

(Many thanks to Prof. Lawrence B. Solum - Legal Theory Blog - for pointing out Prof. Symeonides’ latest article on Rome II)

As we announced in the last posting concerning the CLIP group, they are preparing an international conference on issues arising where in the intersection of intellectual property law and private international law. The conference program includes the following topics and speakers:

Are there any Common European Principles of a Private International Law with regard
to Intellectual Property?
Prof. Dr. Annette Kur, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property Law, Munich

The ALI Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Judgments in
Transnational Intellectual Property Disputes
Prof. Dr. Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, New York University

“Contracts Relating to Intellectual or Industrial Property Rights” under the Rome I
Proposal
Prof. Dr. Matthias Leistner, University of Bonn

The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Arising from an Infringement of
Registered IP Rights
Prof. Dr. Peter Mankowski, University of Hamburg

The Law Applicable to Infringements of Non-Registered IP Rights
Prof. Dr. Haimo Schack, University of Kiel

Extraterritorial Application of IP Law - An American View
Prof. Dr. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Chicago-Kent College of Law

The Private International Law of IP and of Unfair Commercial Practices: Coherence or
Divergence?
Prof. Dr. Pedro Miguel de Asensio, University Complutense of Madrid

Cross Border IP Litigation – Still an Issue under the Brussels I Regulation?
Prof. Dr. Paul Torremans, University of Nottingham/University of Ghent

A Spider without a Web? Multiple Defendants in IP Litigation
Prof. Dr. Marcus Norrgård, Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsinki

The Future of Centralised Patent Litigation in Europe – Between EPLA and the
Community Patent Regulation
Dr. Stefan Luginbühl, European Patent Office

Jurisdiction in Cases Concerning IP Infringements on the Internet
Dr. Axel Metzger, Max-Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private
Law, Hamburg

The opening speach on behalf of the DFG Graduate School n. 1148 “Intellectual Property and the Public Domain”, University of Bayreuth belongs to Prof. Dr. Diethelm Klippel, and the introduction into the conference has been entrusted to Prof. Dr. Stefan Leible and Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly of the University of Bayreuth. The conference will take place in Bayreuth, Germany on 4 and 5 April 2008.

The detailed program of the conference can be downloaded here.

On 11 July 2007, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) has been adopted.

Stefan Leible and Matthias Lehmann (both Bayreuth) have now written an article on Rome II which has been published in the German legal journal „Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft“ (RIW 2007, 721 et seq.):

“Die neue EG-Verordnung über das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht (“Rom II”)”

In their article, Leible and Lehmann give an overview of the scope of application and functioning of the new Regulation and comment on the most important rules by means of several examples.

In principle, the authors welcome Rome II for establishing a uniform measure on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and creating more legal certainty. Nevertheless, it is criticised that non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation are excluded from the scope of application according to Art. 1 (2) (g) Rome II. However, according to Art. 30 (2) Rome II, the Commission shall submit a study on the situation in the field of the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality no later than 31 December 2008. Thus, there is still an option that Community rules on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of rights relating to personality and in particular press offences will be adopted in the future.

See also our previous posts on the adoption of Rome II and on the publication in the Official Journal.

The European Max-Planck-Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, known also as CLIP, has just recently made its website accessible to the public. Under the http://www.cl-ip.eu one may now find the references to the documents they produced and the two pdf. files previously posted here, list of the members with links to their biographical data, events announcements, intranet page accessible only by the members, and links to two parallel projects of the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the American Law Institute.

The novelty on this website concerns the announced conference “Intellectual Property and Private International Law” to be held on 4 and 5 April 2008 at University of Bayreuth (Germany). The program is not available yet but this blog will try to keep its readers informed of the news in this field.

Questions and comments on CLIP and their project are to be addressed to:

Professor Dr. Annette Kur
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law
Marstallplatz 1
80539 Munich/Germany
Phone: + 49 (89) 24 24 6 404
Fax: + 49 (89) 24 24 6 501
Email: annette.kur@ip.mpg.de

Antonio Nicita (Professor of Economic Policy at University of Siena) and Matteo Winkler (LLM, Yale Law School; Ph.D., Bocconi University) have written an interesting paper on the economic analysis of the conflict of laws rules concerning transnational accidents, in particular domestic and supranational rules on tort liability. A preliminary version of the paper (”The Cost of Transnational Accidents: Evolving Conflict Rules on Torts“) was presented on September 13th at the annual conference of the European Association of Law & Economics (EALE), held in Copenhagen.

An abstract has been kindly provided by the authors:

The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, the authors show the main conflict rules concerning torts at the domestic level: loci commissi delicti (place of accident), lex loci laesionis (place of injury), forum shopping and forum non conveniens, parties’ freedom of choice (before and after the accident), victim’s freedom of choice. Then, the authors describe the problems pertaining to each of these rules. In the second part, they analyse two cases, Bhopal and Amoco Cadiz, and conclude that when State courts are called to settle disputes concerning transnational accidents, they tend to protect their own community from the accident’s consequences, if negative, or alternatively, to discharge the accident’s negative externalities to other States’ community. Both approaches raise problems from the standpoint of externalities regulation: they lead either to underregulation or overregulation.

In particular, Nicita and Winkler maintain that when, like in Bhopal, State courts strictly enforce the lex loci rule, they might both favor the flux of investment towards developing countries - although the damages in favor of these countries’ victims are likely to be undercompensated, or protect the delocalized activities of multinational enterprises, while when courts refer to the lex loci laesionis rule, they are likely to regulate the transnational activity and therefore to increase the costs of compliance borne by multinational enterprises.

As a third case study, finally, the authors examine the EC Regulation on the law applicable to torts, Rome II. According to this Regulation, they point out that there are some underlying policies, that attempt to supersede the policies enforcement by State courts.

The paper is available on the EALE Conference’s website, and will be revised by the authors according to the observations coming from the conference’s public.

On the economic analysis of conflict of laws, see also some of our previous posts at the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

From the conference website: The European Traffic Law Days have established themselves as a forum for professional training and the exchange of experience between traffic law experts. The congress will provide experts in liability and insurance law with an opportunity to obtain a comprehensive overview of current developments in European traffic law relevant to daily practice.

The main emphasis of this year’s event will be on the development of case law in the European Union on punitive damages. A working group will be set up, initially to determin the status quo, on the basis of which the fundamental problems involved in punitive damages will be discussed. Further topics are: Experience of the implementation of the fifth Directive; Elements of a sixth Directive (discussion on the progress achieved with the suggestions made during Trier VII); Minor accidents (improved enforcement of low-value claims involving traffic accidents abroad); The statute of limitations (European Parliament initiative); Rome II, the Regulation that governs the law applicable to traffic accidents abroad; The introduction of the recording of accident data Europe-wide; Simpler registration of motor vehicles abroad. Finally, current developments in European law and initiatives and developments in the harmonisation of European civil law will be discussed.

Target audience: All persons professionally involved in traffic law.

This conference to be held in Trier, 17-19 October 2007, is organised by ERA in cooperation with the Institute for European Traffic Law. This event will take place for the eighth time and will continue to be organised on an annual basis. The conference programme can be downloaded from the conference website.

The conference website informs: This conference to be held in Lisbon, 12-13 November 2007, is organised by the Portuguese Presidency of the EU, in conjunction with the preceding German and the subsequent Slovenian Presidencies, and ERA. The conference will provide participants with an in-depth analysis of the future Rome I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. The objective of the seminar is to promote a far-reaching and thorough debate concerning the most important or complex issues inherent to the regulations regarding law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations.

Concerning Rome I, the seminar will highlight in particular: (a) scope of application, (b) choice of law and applicable law in the absence of choice, (c) consumer contracts, (d) employment contracts, and (e) assignment. In case the legislation process in view of the Rome I Regulation will not be completed by 2007, the following Slovenian Presidency will be able to use the conclusions of this conference in the further adoption procedure.

Furthermore, the Rome II Regulation (OJ L 199/40 of 31 July 2007) will be presented. It shall apply from 11 January 2009. The discussion will concentrate on the following topics: (a) general rules, (b) product liability, (c) the violation of the environment, (d) unfair competition, and (e) infringement of intellectual property rights.

The seminar will provide a forum for debate between legal practitioners, namely judges and lawyers, experts in member states’ ministries and EU legislators on the practical implementation of these two instruments of European private international law.

The conference programme can be downloaded from the conference website.

The Rome II Regulation (see the dedicated section of our site) and the Regulation establishing a European Small Claims Procedure have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union n. L 199 of 31 July 2007. The official references are the following:

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) (OJ n. L 199, p. 40 ff.): pursuant to its Articles 31 and 32, the Rome II Regulation will apply from 11 January 2009, to events giving rise to damage occurred after its entry into force (the twentieth day following its publication in the O.J., according to the general rules on the application in time of EC legislation).

Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ n. L 199, p. 1 ff.). The text of the Regulation is accompanied by four annexes, containing the standard forms to be used by the parties and the court in the procedure, as follows:

• Annex I: Form A - Claim form, to be filled in by the claimant (see Art. 4(1) of the Reg.)
• Annex II: Form B - Request by the Court or Tribunal to complete and/or rectify the claim form (see Art. 4(4) of the Reg.);
• Annex III: Form C - Answer form, containing information and guidelines for the defendant (see Art. 5(2) and (3) of the Reg.);
• Annex IV: Form D - Certificate concerning a judgment in the European Small Claims Procedure (to be filled by the Court/Tribunal: see Art. 20(2) of the Reg.).

According to its Art. 29, the ESCP Regulation will enter into force today (1 August 2007, the day following its publication in the O.J.), and will apply from 1 January 2009.

A critical article on the Rome II Regulation has been written by Helmut Koziol and Thomas Thiede (both Vienna) and is published in the latest issue of the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZVglRWiss 106 (2007), 235 et seq.):

“Kritische Bemerkungen zum derzeitigen Stand des Entwurfs einer Rom II-Verordnung”

Koziol and Thiede criticise the general rule provided in Art.5 of the Proposal (COM(2006) 83 final (now Art.4 of the Regulation)) for focusing solely on the interests of the injured party by designating the law of the country in which the damage arises or is likely to arise and not taking into account the interests of the liable party sufficiently.

The authors argue that this rule neglected the basic principles of liability law, the main purpose of which is the compensation of the damage suffered by the injured party. Since - according to the rule of casum sentit dominus - everybody has to bear the risk within one’s own sphere, a special justification was necessary to transfer liability to others. This was only the case if the other party is “closer” to the damage. Thus, not only the interests of the injured party, but also the interests of the liable party should be taken into account and should be balanced. Further, special rules derogating from the general rules in a large number of cases, as provided in Art.5 (2) and (3) of the Proposal (now Art.4 (2) and (3) of the Regulation), are not regarded as desirable since those might result in the consequence that either the general rule was applied in cases not included in the special rules without good reason or that the special rules were applied analogously which might lead to the result that the general rule is not applied anymore.

Therefore, the authors conclude that a general rule which designates in principle the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occured - except cases where the occurrence of the damage could have been foreseen by the liable party - would have been preferable. As an alternative, which is more similar to the existing rule, the authors suggest a rule which designates the law of the country where the damage occurs, providing for an exception for cases where the damaging effects were not foreseeable for the tortfeasor.

Burgundy University in Dijon will host a conference on the Rome II Regulation on September 20th, 2007.

Speeches will be delivered in French. The speakers will be mostly French academics, but will also include a member of the European commission. The program can be found here.

The conference will take place in the castle of Saulon-la-Rue, in the vicinity of Dijon.

After the adoption by the Council in the session of 28 June, the joint text of the Rome II Regulation has been approved on 10 July 2007 by the plenary session of the European Parliament, in a vote by a show of hands on the legislative resolution attached to the Report prepared by Diana Wallis (the debate held in the EP’s session is available here: it is worth mentioning that the Rapporteur and other MEPs consider the text agreed upon in the conciliation stage as “an initial roadmap”, stressing the importance of the review clause and of the studies that shall be submitted by the Commission on the matters that were set aside in the conciliation stage).

The Rome II Regulation, after the signing of the Presidents of the Council and of the Parliament, will be soon published in the Official Journal.

It will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the O.J., and will apply, to events giving rise to damage occurred after its entry into force (Art. 31), from 18 months after the date of its adoption (Art. 32).

The Council, in the meeting held by the “Environment” configuration in Luxembourg on 28 June 2007, has adopted the Rome II joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee, with the Latvian and Estonian delegations voting against (see the concerns regarding the conflict rule on industrial action - art. 9 - that these Member States had expressed in a joint declaration issued in the Council’s vote on the Common position).

An addendum to the minutes of the Council’s meeting contains three statements by the Commission on the studies regarding the controversial issues that were set aside in the conciliation (violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, level of compensation awarded to victims of road traffic accidents, treatment of foreign law), to be submitted in the frame of the review clause of Art. 30. These statements will be published in the Official Journal with the legislative act.

The Parliament’s vote on the joint text, that will formally end the codecision procedure by adopting the Rome II Regulation, is scheduled on 9 July 2007. With a view to the final vote, Rapporteur Diana Wallis has prepared a Report of the EP Delegation to the Conciliation Committee, summarizing the legislative procedure and presenting to the Parliament’s plenary the agreement reached with the Council.

Here’s a substantial part of the EP’s Report (for further details on the previous stages of the procedure, see the Rome II section of our site):

The codecision and conciliation procedure

The Commission submitted on 22 July 2003 a proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable on Non-Contractual Obligations. Following Parliament’s first reading on 6 July 2005 (54 amendments adopted) the Council adopted its common position on 25 September 2006. Parliament then concluded its second reading on 18 January 2007 adopting 19 amendments to the Council’s common position. The main issues at stake were: violation of personality rights (”defamation”); road traffic accidents; unfair competition; the definition of “environmental damage” the relationship with other Community instruments; the treatment of foreign law; the review clause.

The Council informed with letter from 19 April 2007 that it could not accept all of Parliament’s amendments and that conciliation was necessary. Conciliation was then formally opened on 15 May 2007. […]

Three trilogues held between 6 March and 24 April 2007 […], followed by subsequent meetings of the EP Delegation […], lead to provisional agreement on 5 amendments. The Conciliation Committee met then in the evening of 15 May 2007 in the European Parliament with a view to formally opening the conciliation procedure and possibly reaching agreement on the outstanding issues. After several hours of deliberations an overall agreement was reached at midnight. It was unanimously confirmed by the EP Delegation with 17 votes in favour.

The main points of the agreement reached can be summarised as follows:

Road traffic accidents

[…] One of the EP Delegation’s main priorities was […] to ensure that the individual victim’s actual circumstances are taken into consideration by the court seized when deciding on the level of the compensation to be awarded.

For the short term, the EP Delegation succeeded in including a reference in the recitals of the Regulation whereby judges when quantifying personal injuries will take account of all relevant actual circumstances of the specific victim, including in particular the actual losses and cost of after-care and medical attention.

For the long term, the EP Delegation succeeded in securing a public commitment by the Commission for a detailed study on all options, including insurance aspects, on the specific problems faced by victims of cross-border road traffic accidents. The study will be presented by 2008 the latest and would pave the way for a Green Paper. […]

Unfair competition

On the EP Delegation’s insistence the Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal for a specific rule on unfair competition that respects the principle of the application of one single national law (an important point for judges and lawyers) while at the same time limiting to a large extent the danger of “forum shopping” (the possibility for plaintiffs to raise their law suit in the Member State of their choice).

Environmental damage

The EP Delegation succeeded in obtaining a definition on “environmental damage” - a term used but not defined in the common position. The definition is in line with other EU instruments, such as the Directive on Environmental Liability.

Violation of personal rights (”defamation”)

In view of an overall compromise the EP Delegation had to withdraw its amendments on the inclusion of rules on the violation of personal rights, particularly defamation in the press. Though Parliament managed to overcome the national differences and various conflicts of interests and to adopt its amendments by a large majority, the Member States were unable until the very end to agree on a common approach. The issue however is considered as a “left-over”: as part of the review of the Regulation the Commission will draw up a study by 2008 on the situation in this specific field. The findings of the study can serve as a basis for the adoption of relevant rules at a later stage.

Relationship with other Community instruments

On the controversial issue of the relationship between the “Rome II” Regulation and other provisions of Community law it was agreed that the application of provisions of the applicable law designated by the rules of this Regulation should not restrict the free movement of goods and services as regulated by Community instruments such as the e-Commerce Directive.

Treatment of foreign law

The issue of the treatment of foreign law by national courts - especially how often and how well national courts apply the law of another country - is also settled on the basis of a detailed study to be carried out by the Commission as part of its report on the application of the Regulation. […]

Review clause

On the insistence of the EP Delegation the review clause was split into a special section with a shorter timetable by 2008 as regards violation of privacy rights (”defamation”) and a general section with the standard timetable whereby the Commission will present a report on the application of the Regulation four years after its entry into force. As part of the general review clause the Commission will also carry out a study on the treatment and application of foreign law by the courts of the Member States and a second study on the effects of Article 28 of the Regulation (”Relationship with existing international conventions”) with regard to the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 on the law applicable to traffic accidents.

[Update: following a comment by M. Winkler on a previous item on Rome II, Mrs Wallis has posted on our site a reply providing some clarifications on the Parliament’s approach to the conflict rule on environmental damage. Any further comment, on this or other provisions of the Regulation, is welcome]

A final version of the Rome II joint text, resulting from the legal and linguistic revision, is available in all languages of the EU in the Register of the Council (doc. PE-CONS 3619/07).

According to current forecasts (see the Rome II OEIL page), the joint text should be officially approved today (25 June 2007) by the Conciliation Committee. Pursuant to Art. 251(5) of the EC Treaty, the Parliament and the Council shall adopt the Regulation in accordance with the joint text within a period of six weeks (that can be extended to eight weeks) from this approval.

Further details on the joint text and the conciliation stage are available on the Rome II section of our site.

A provisional version of the Rome II joint text which was agreed upon by the European Parliament and the Council in the meeting of the Conciliation Committee held on 15 May 2007 has been made available on the Rome II page of the EP’s Conciliations & Codecision website.

The text has been released only in English, and subject to further legal linguistic verification.

A first glance at the text reveals that the general rule in Art. 4, and the special rules set out in Articles 5 (Product liability), 7 (Environmental damage), 8 (Infringement of intellectual property rights), 9 (Industrial action), 10 (Unjust enrichment), 11 (Negotiorum gestio) and 12 (Culpa in contrahendo) are almost identical to the corresponding provisions of the Council’s Common Position, adopted in September 2006.

The Council’s text has been retained also in respect of the provision on party autonomy (Art. 14): accordingly, an ex ante agreement on the applicable law is allowed, “where all the parties are pursuing a commercial activity” and such an agreement is “freely negotiated”. The law designated by the conflict rules on unfair competition and infringement of IP rights cannot be derogated from by the parties.

As regards the most controversial issues, on which the Parliament had proposed a number of amendments in its Legislative Resolution at Second Reading of January 2007, here’s the outcome of the Conciliation:

Unfair competition and acts restricting free competition (Article 6):

While the conflict rule governing an act of unfair competition is unchanged (application of the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected; application of the law determined pursuant to the general conflict rule of Art. 4, where an act of unfair competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor: see Art. 6(1) and (2)), a more complex provision, allowing the application of the lex fori in case of multi-state torts, is set out by Art. 6(3) for non-contractual obligations arising out of a restriction of competition:

(a) The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a restriction of competition shall be the law of the country where the market is, or is likely to be, affected.

(b) When the market is, or is likely to be, affected in more than one country, the person seeking compensation for damage who sues in the court of the domicile of the defendant, may instead choose to base his or her claim on the law of the court seised, provided that the market in that Member State is amongst those directly and substantially affected by the restriction of competition out of which the non-contractual obligation arises on which the claim is based;

where the claimant sues, in accordance with the applicable rules on jurisdiction, more than one defendant in that court, he or she can only choose to base his or her claim on the law of that court if the restriction of competition, on which the claim against each of these defendants relies, directly and substantially affects also the market of the country of that court.

Violation of privacy and rights relating to the personality (including defamation):

This issue, that has been by far the most controversial in the codecision procedure (a specific rule - Art. 6 - was proposed by the Commission in its initial Rome II Proposal, and strongly advocated by the Parliament, in a very different text, both in its First and Second Reading - see Art. 5 and Art. 7a respectively), has been excluded from the material scope of application of the Regulation (see Art. 1(2)(g)). It is dealt with in the review clause provided by Art. 30(2):

Not later than 31 December 2008, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a study on the situation in the field of the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, taking into account rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media, and conflict of law issues related with the Directive 95/46/EC.

Damages in personal injury cases and traffic accidents:

The issue of quantifying damages in personal injury cases (especially in, but not limited to, case of traffic accidents) has been one of the main concerns of the EP Rapporteur Diana Wallis, who supported the application of “the principle of restitutio in integrum, having regard to the victim’s actual circumstances in his country of habitual residence” (see Art. 21a of the EP’s Second Reading).

Due to the disagreement of the Commission and the Council, such a provision has not been inserted in the Regulation, but Recital 33 of the joint text states:

According to the current national rules on compensation awarded to victims of road traffic accidents, when quantifying damages for personal injury in cases in which the accident takes place in a State other than that of the habitual residence of the victim, the court seised should take into account all the relevant actual circumstances of the specific victim, including in particular the actual losses and cost of after-care and medical attention.

As regards the law applicable to road traffic accidents, the Regulation does not prejudice the application of the Hague Convention of 1971 on the law applicable to traffic accidents (see Art. 28): however, the review clause calls on the Commission to prepare a study on the effects of the Convention’s supremacy, that will be included in the Report on the application of the Regulation to be submitted not later than four years after its entry into force (Art. 30(1), second indent).

Treatment of foreign law:

This issue was raised by the European Parliament (see Art. 12 and 13 of the First Reading and Recital 29b and 30a of the Second Reading), but given its general relevance in a private international law system, it has not been regulated in the context of a specific instrument such as Rome II. The review clause in Art. 30(1) provides that the Report to be prepared by the Commission shall include

a study on the effects of the way in which foreign law is treated in the different jurisdictions and on the extent to which courts in the Member States apply foreign law in practice pursuant to this Regulation.

Public policy and overriding mandatory provisions:

The public policy clause (Art. 26) does not include any reference to the question of punitive damages, nor any reference to a special concept of EC public policy, in its content and vis-à-vis the application of the law of a Member State. Punitive damages are addressed in Recital 32, according to which

Considerations of public interest justify giving the courts of the Member States the possibility, in exceptional circumstances, of applying exceptions based on public policy and overriding mandatory provisions. In particular, the application of a provision of the law designated by this Regulation which would have the effect of causing non compensatory exemplary or punitive damages of an excessive nature to be awarded may, depending on the circumstances of the case and the legal order of the Member State of the court seised, be regarded as being contrary to the public policy (”ordre public”) of the forum.

As regards overriding mandatory provisions, only the provisions of the lex fori are taken into account by Art. 16 (whose text is almost identical to Art. 7(2) of the Rome Convention). While the exclusion of the overriding mandatory provisions of a law different from the lex causae and the lex fori has been criticized, problems may arise if a different compromise is finally found in Rome I (the issue is currently under debate in the Council: see the title of Council doc. n. 9765/07, not accessible to the public).

As a last point, Articles 27 and 28 deal with the relationships with other provisions of Community law and with existing international conventions (as the above mentioned Hague Convention of 1971 on the law applicable to traffic accidents, or the Hague Convention of 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability), in a traditional way, if compared with the coordination clauses that were proposed in earlier stages of the procedure (see for instance Art. 1(3) and Art. 25 of the EP’s First Reading):

Article 27 - Relationship with other provisions of Community law

This Regulation shall not prejudice the application of provisions of Community law which, in relation to particular matters, lay down conflict of law rules relating to non contractual obligations.

Article 28 - Relationship with existing international conventions

1. This Regulation shall not prejudice the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are parties at the time when this Regulation is adopted and which lay down conflict of law rules relating to non contractual obligations.

2. However, this Regulation shall, as between Member States, take precedence over conventions concluded exclusively between two or more of them insofar as such conventions concern matters governed by this Regulation.

Pursuant to Art. 251(5) of the EC Treaty, the European Parliament (by an absolute majority of the votes cast) and the Council (by a qualified majority) must adopt the Regulation within six weeks from the date of approval of the joint text.

The vote in the European Parliament is expected in the plenary session on 9-10 July in Strasbourg (see the OEIL page on Rome II). The JHA Council, under the German Presidency, is scheduled in Luxembourg on 12-13 June.

[Update 9 June 2007: as stated on a Press release by the Council, the Presidency will deliver an oral report about the result of the conciliation with the European Parliament in the JHA session of Wednesday 13 June 2007]

A very interesting article on Rome II written in German by Thomas Thiede and Katarzyna Ludwichowska (both Vienna) has been published recently in the “Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft” (106 ZVglRWiss (2007), 92 et seq.):

“Die Haftung bei grenzüberschreitenden unterlaubten Handlungen” (Liability for cross-border torts).

An abstract has kindly been provided by the authors:

The article is a critical analysis of a proposal to apply the law of the victim’s place of habitual residence to the compensation for personal injuries arising out of tort. The proposal, which was introduced by the European Parliament in the course of work on the EU regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), originally concerned only traffic accidents, but was later modified and extended to all personal injury cases. The authors of the article show the proposal of the European Parliament against the background of solutions accepted in Germany and England. They present the arguments given by the supporters of the proposal and then proceed to strongly criticise the parliamentary solution, inter alia by showing the negative consequences of splitting an otherwise uniform legal relationship as a result of subjecting the prerequisites of liability and part of its consequences (compensation for damage to property) to lex damni and the other part of the consequences of liability (compensation for personal injuries) to the law of the victim’s place of habitual residence.

Following the agreement on a joint text of the Rome II Regulation reached in the first meeting of the Conciliation Committee, on 15 May (see our post here), Diana Wallis MEP, Rapporteur on Rome II in the European Parliament, has held a press conference to comment the successful outcome of the negotiations.

Excerpts from Mrs Wallis’ statements have been published on her website and on the website of her political group, ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe):

Speaking after last night’s Conciliation meeting between the three EU institutions to hammer out the final text on the Rome II Regulation (the law applicable to non-contractual obligations), the European Parliament’s Rapporteur, Diana Wallis MEP, proclaimed it ‘a first’ - in many senses.

Diana Wallis said, “This is the first time that the EU has put into a Regulation an extensive area of private international law where there was previously no pre-existing international Convention. It is the first time that the European Parliament has had co-decision in this area of civil law - moreover certainly a first in terms of conciliation. Also, a new experience for all the institutions involved in the process - the European Parliament has left its clear mark on the final text agreed last night.”

Diana Wallis was particularly pleased with the result on road traffic accidents, often involving personal injury - the most common and frequent form of tort (non-contractual obligation) that touches the lives of many citizens as they go about their business and leisure pursuits across Europe. She went to say, “The European Parliament has underlined the right of citizens to be fully reimbursed for their loss in such cases despite the national differences in compensation levels, whatever country they come from, whilst also extracting from the Commission a full study in the area by 2008 that ‘would pave the way for a Green paper’.”

“The European Parliament has also sought to introduce some further clarity into the fuzzy thinking as to the relationship between this Regulation relating to choice of law rules and other Internal Market instruments such as the e-commerce Directive. We have certainly ended in a better position than where we started from.”

Diana Wallis welcomed the fact that the Conciliation was also instructive in bringing together three different Commission departments around the table to support the same text in relation to a number of issues. “This coherent joint working across the area of civil and commercial law is to be much welcomed and better late than never.”

Finally Diana Wallis concluded that: “The European Parliament has left its imprint on several other issues, including party autonomy and flexibility to the general rule. It also insisted on several studies being undertaken by the Commission, notably on defamation and the treatment of foreign law, which may leave the way open for future legislation.”

Mrs Wallis’ focus on the role of the European Parliament in drafting legislation in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters has been stressed several times (on Rome II, see our posts here and here), and it is particularly meaningful since at present she is perhaps the most influential MEP involved in the legislative process of EC private international law instruments: she is shadow rapporteur, appointed by the ALDE group, for Rome I, and draftswoman on the maintenance regulation (see her Draft opinion on the Commission’s proposal here).

As regards substantive law, she has been draftswoman for the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) for the opinion on the Commission Communication “European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward”, and has prepared for the JURI Committee a Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on limitation periods in cross-border disputes involving injuries and fatal accidents.

As stated on press releases published by the Council and the Commission (DG Freedom, Security and Justice), an agreement has been reached on the text of the Rome II Regulation, during the first official meeting of the Conciliation Committee that was held yesterday evening (the Conciliation Committee had been convened, pursuant to Art. 251(3) of the EC Treaty, after the formal rejection by the Council of the Parliament’s Legislative resolution at second reading: for further details on the steps of the complex procedure that has lead to the agreement, see the Rome II section of our site).

According to a statement by Diana Wallis, Rapporteur on Rome II in the European Parliament, prior to the official meeting of yesterday the institutions involved in the codecision procedure (Council and Parliament, the Commission playing a mediating role) had held six informal meetings in order to facilitate the negotiations (so called “trialogues”: for an overview of the conciliation stage, see the “codecision” section of the Commission’s website).

The content of the agreement is summarized as follows in the Council’s press release, with particular reference to the controversial issues (that were emphasized by the Commission in its opinion on the EP Second reading):

As a general rule, the draft Regulation sets out that the law applicable to a tort/delict is the law of the country where damage occurred. Only in certain limited, duly justified circumstances, the general rule will be derogated from and special rules applied. The draft Regulation contains special rules in matters of product liability, unfair competition, environmental damage, infringements of intellectual property and industrial action. In the context of a global compromise package, the Conciliation Committee s