Activites

• 2007/07/31 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Regulation 2007/864
  • OJ L 199 31.07.2007, p. 0040
• 2007/07/11 Final act signed
• 2007/07/11 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2007/07/10 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T6-0317/2007 summary

    The European Parliament approved a conciliation agreement on the proposed regulation on the law applicable on non-contractual obligations ("Rome II"), which aims to facilitate litigation between citizens from different European countries on matters such as traffic accidents, product liability and environmental damage by harmonising Member States' conflict of law rules.The main points of the agreement can be summarised as follows:- road traffic accidents: the general rule introduced by "Rome II" is the "lex loci delicti" whereby the law applicable is the law of the country in which the damage occurs. In the case of cross-border road traffic accidents this broadly accepted rule can lead to unsatisfactory situations due to the widely differing levels of compensation awarded by national courts: when the victim of the accident is resident in another country than the one in which the accident occurred, the amount of the compensation to be awarded will have to be calculated according to the law and standards of the country of the accident and not the country of the residence of the victim, in which however he or she will have to recover from the injuries and possibly also live with the consequences of the accident. One of the EP Delegation's main priorities was therefore 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. It is expected that the findings of the study will make the Commission and Member States realise the need for specific legislation in this field.- unfair competition: at Parliament'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" (i.e. the possibility for plaintiffs to raise their law suit in the Member State of their choice);- environmental damage: the Parliament succeeded in obtaining a definition of "environmental damage" to be introduced into the regulation. The definition is in line with other EU instruments, such as the Directive on Environmental Liability;- defamation by the media: as part of an overall compromise, Parliament had to withdraw its amendments on the inclusion of rules on the violation of personal rights, particularly defamation in the press. However, it was agreed that, as part of the review of the regulation, the Commission would conduct a study by 2008 on the situation in this specific field;- 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 the 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: it was agreed that the treatment of foreign law by national courts would be the subject of a detailed study to be carried out by the Commission as part of its report on the application of the regulation. The Commission pledged to publish the study no later than four years after the regulation's entry into force;- review clause: at Parliament's insistence the review clause was split into two, consisting of a special section with a shorter timetable by 2008 to address the issue of 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.

• 2007/07/09 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• #2812
• 2007/06/28 Council Meeting
• 2007/06/28 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A6-0257/2007
• 2007/06/25 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
• 2007/06/22 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 03619/2007
• #2807
• 2007/06/12 Council Meeting
• 2007/05/15 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #2794
• 2007/04/19 Council Meeting
• 2007/01/18 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
  • T6-0006/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK) and approved a number of amendments that reintroduce the provisions related to violations of privacy, previously deleted in the Council's common position. The key amendments were as follows:- a new recital states that the conflict-of-laws rules set out in the Regulation also coverobligations based on strict liability and the harmonised rules on connecting factors also apply to the question of the capacity to incur liability in tort/delict;- nevertheless, the need to avoid distortions of competition and the requirement of legal certainty must be tempered by the need to do justice in individual cases, and consequently the courts must have a margin of discretion;- as in the Rome Convention, the principle of "iura novit curia" applies. The court itself should of its own motion establish the foreign law. For the purposes of establishing the foreign law the parties should be permitted to assist the court and the court should also be able to ask the parties to provide assistance;- Article 6 on unfair competition and acts restricting free competition was deleted from the text. It was considered that the general rule could cater perfectly well for cases involving unfair competition. Article 6(3) should cover, inter alia, distortion of competition within a Member State or within the internal market, as well as prohibitions on the abuse of a dominant position within a Member State or within the internal market, within the meaning of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty;"Environmental damage" should cover damage to protected species and natural habitats, water damage and land damage as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2004/35/EC;  - Parliament inserted a new article on violations of privacy and rights relating to the personality. (Please see the preceding summary on this point.) As regards the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a violation of privacy or rights relating to the personality, the law of the country in which the most significant element or elements of the loss or damage occur or are likely to occur will be applicable. Where the violation is caused by the publication of printed matter or by a broadcast, the country in which the most significant element or elements of the damage occur or are likely to occur will be deemed to be the country to which the publication or broadcasting service is principally directed or, if this is not apparent, the country in which editorial control is exercised, and that country's law shall be applicable. The country to which the publication or broadcast is directed must be determined in particular by the language of the publication or broadcast or by sales or audience size in a given country as a proportion of total sales or audience size or by a combination of those factors. This provision will apply mutatis mutandis to publications via the Internet and other electronic networks;- with regard to road traffic accidents, Parliament again sought to have the victims' national law applied for the purposes of calculating the quantum of the claim. The amendment states that, in quantifying damages in personal injury cases, the court seised shall apply the principle of restitutio in integrum, having regard to the victim's actual circumstances in his country of habitual residence. This would include the actual cost of after-care and medical attention;- the Commission’s report must pay particular attention to the effects of the way in which foreign law is treated in the different jurisdictions and the question of damages, including the possibility of awarding exemplary or punitive damages in certain jurisdictions. The report shall also include an analytical study of the extent to which courts in the Member States apply foreign law in practice, including recommendations as to the desirability of a common approach to the application of foreign law. The Commission, after extensive consultation with the interested parties, including the Hague Conference on Private International Law, must submit a report on the situation with regard to the law applicable to road traffic accidents. The report must be accompanied by an extensive study of the scale of the phenomenon, the problems and an extended impact assessment. If appropriate, the report will propose amendments to the Regulation and/or the adoption of specific legislation.

• 2006/12/22 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
  • A6-0481/2006
• 2006/12/20 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
• 2006/09/28 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2751
• 2006/09/25 Council Meeting
  • 09751/7/2006 summary

    The Council took its decision by qualified majority. The delegations of Estonia and Latvia voted against due to their reservations on Article 9 on industrial action and its implications for the freedom to provide services.The Council’s common position retains the essence of the Commission’s initial proposal as modified by the amended proposal which reflected a number of amendments adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading.The substantive differences in the common position in comparison with the amended proposal of the Commission and the Parliament’s amendment are summarised as follows:As regards the substantive departures from the Commission’s amended proposal:Scope: Article 1(2)(g) reflects the Commission’s amended proposal (Article 1(2)(h)) where the Commission suggested the exclusion from scope of violations of privacy and of rights relating to personality when perpetrated by the media. The common position goes, however, further. It does not limit this exclusion only to non-contractual obligations entered into by the media, but extends it to all and any such non-contractual obligation. The main reason for this approach was the ultimate inability to agree on the scope (definition) of media in this context. This exclusion is mitigated by the wording of the review clause (Article 30) which focuses the attention to this specific area of non-contractual obligation as a specific subject of the report on the application of the future Regulation.Product liability: Article 5 on product liability departs in its drafting approach considerably from the Commission’s proposal (Article 6 of the amended proposal), albeit not in its intention. The common position reflects the need for a specific rule on products liability which strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the victim and the person liable. The Commission continues to regret the approach in the common position which provides for a rather complex system of cascade application of connecting factors. It remains persuaded that its original solution offered an equally balanced solution for the interests at stake, while expressed in much simpler drafting.Unfair competition: Article 6 extends the application of the rule on unfair competition also to acts restricting free competition, while Article 7 of the Commission’s amended proposal applies only to unfair commercial practices. Industrial action: Article 9 introduces a specific rule on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of industrial action. The provision on these lines was part of the Parliament’s amendments which the Commission did not accept and consequently was not included in its amended proposal.The text of the provision in the common position is a redraft which attempts to give effect to the main objections of the Commission during the discussions in the Council. Its scope is now defined more precisely and is, in particular, limited to the issue of liability of employers, workers and/or trade unions in the context of an industrial action. Overriding mandatory provisions: the articles on mandatory provisions have been simplified.Public policy on the forum: the application of a provision of the law of any country specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy ("ordre public") of the forum.Article 27 departs from Article 23 in the Commission’s initial proposal (Article 3 of the amended proposal) which contained a much more detailed rule explaining the relationship between the different sources of Community law (in particular as regards the relationship with specific instruments promoting the proper functioning of the internal market). In view of the recent developments in the European Parliament and the Council in the context of negotiations of other proposals such specifically tailored provision in this instrument seems no longer necessary.Relationship with other international conventions (Article 28) : the 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. 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.New provisions introduced by the CouncilArticle 2 is a provision of a technical nature which intends to provide definition of certain concepts used throughout the Regulation with the intention to simplify the drafting of its individual provisions.At the JHA Council meeting in Luxembourg (27 and 28 April 2006) the Commission made this declaration: "The Commission is prepared, in appropriate cases, to examine the possibility of making proposal to the Council authorising Member States to conclude international agreements concerning specific sectoral matters which contain provisions on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. This remains without prejudice to the possibility of the Community to negotiate and conclude such international agreements in accordance with the provisions of Article 300 EC."Article 12 introduces a specific proposal for non-contractual obligations preceding the conclusion of a contract. Such specific provision was not included in the Commission’s proposal, even though the intention was always to cover this type of obligations by this instrument. This reflected the line taken in the case law of the European Court of Justice in the context of the 1968 Brussels Convention (replaced by Regulation 44/2001), whereby this type of obligations is to be considered non-contractual. The Commission has originally opted for a more flexible solution in the Article 5(3) of its amended proposal, whereas the Council seems to prefer a more detailed provision on the issue. The content of the proposed provision leads, in principle, to the same result as envisaged by the Commission, i.e. to the application of the law of the country which is most closely connected with the non-contractual obligation.

• #2732
• 2006/06/01 Council Meeting
• #2725
• 2006/04/27 Council Meeting
• 2006/02/21 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2006)0083 summary

    The Commission accepts 16 amendments presented by Parliament since they make improvements relating either to the clarity of the instrument or to questions of detail, or add material that will be potentially useful in implementing the initial proposal.The amendments accepted by the Commission in substance and  subject to redrafting aim to:- makereference to the Rome I Regulation. But until the Regulation has been adopted, it would be preferable to refer to the future Community instrument that will replace the Rome Convention of 1980;- bring non-contractual obligations based on strict liability and the capacity to incur liability in tort/delict within the scope of the Regulation. While the Commission can accept this analysis, it prefers to combine all the points concerning the scope of the Regulation in a single recital – recital 5 – without repeating all the questions already covered expressly by Article 12 (scope of the applicable law);- specify that unjust enrichment and administration of others' affairs without a mandate are to be considered as breaches of non-contractual obligations for the purposes of the Regulation. The Commission agrees with this. But to avoid making the text more cumbersome, it prefers to combine all the points concerning the scope of the Regulation in a single recital. Above all the Commission feels it is preferable to restate that there should be an autonomous and coherent interpretation of the legal concepts used in the Brussels I and Rome II instruments and the Rome Convention of 1980 – or the Community instrument that will replace it – by the Court of Justice rather than a long but inevitably incomplete list of details. This amendment also aims to exclude the liability of public administrations in respect of acts or omissions occurring in the performance of their duties from the scope of the Regulation. The Commission accepts the amendment as regards the substance but prefers the forms of words commonly used in international conventions.- exclude non-contractual obligations governed by specific provisions of company law or specific provisions applicable to other bodies corporate such as associations. The Commission accepts this amendment as regards the substance but proposes drafting it in simpler terms;- exclude non-contractual obligations arising from a trust. The Commission accepts the principle of the amendment but prefers to adopt the wording of the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985;- exclude liability for acts of public authority, including liability of publicly appointed office-holders;- allow certain parties who are already in a contractual relationship to choose the law applicable to their non-contractual obligation before the loss or damage is sustained. The Commission can accept the principle of an ex ante choice and agrees that the choice should be subject to strict conditions, in particular to protect the weaker party. But the conditions for the choice should be expressed in clear and simple terms. If the legal terms are not precise enough, parties might feel they were being given an incentive to litigate, which would make the procedure more cumbersome in terms of duration and cost and thus run counter to the objective pursued by the Regulation. The wording proposed by the Commission would both protect consumers and employees from ill-thought-out choices and exclude thepossibility of such choices being imposed in standard contracts;- the Commission can accept the principle of the amendmentswhich would change the structure and title of the sections to make a clearer distinction between the general rule and special rules for certain categories of liability. To reflect proceedings in the Council and the differences between the Member States’ legal systems, the Commission proposal makes an additional distinction between the special rules applicable to certain categories of liability and the specific rules governing unjust enrichment and administration of others' affairs;- replace the single rule of Article 9 of the initial Commission proposal, applicable to all quasi-contracts, by two specific rules, one applying to unjust enrichment and the other to administration of others' affairs. The Commission can accept this additional distinction. In its amended proposal, however, it wishes to reflect certain technical improvements in the text emerging from Council proceedings;- seek to clarify the rule on direct actions against the insurer of the person liable without modifying it as to the substance. The Commission can accept the principle of redrafting the rule to make it easier to understand. But it prefers the form of words that emerged from the Council, which pursues the same objective;- seek to clarify the place where a natural person working from home has his habitual residence. The Commission can accept the principle of this clarification, but it prefers a form of words that is closer to what emerged from the Council, whereby the court would prefer the actual place where an occupation is exercised rather than an official address which might turn out to be purely fictitious.As regards the amendments accepted by the Commission in part, these refer to the following:- adapting recital 7 of the initial proposal to the changes made by an amendment relating to the general rule in Article 3;- the rules of safety and conduct in the country where the loss or damage is sustained serves two purposes: first, to add the words “in so far as is appropriate” so as to emphasise even further that the application of these rules is in the discretion of the court, and second, to exclude this possibility in matters of defamation and unfair competition. The Commission can accept the proposed clarification for the first sentence of the recital. But Parliament’s report offers no justification for excluding the rule in matters of defamation and unfair competition. The Commission accordingly sees no reason for depriving the perpetrators of these two categories of liability of the protection which this rule gives them;- the amendment relating to the general rule in Article 3 of the initial Commission proposal can be accepted as regards the drafting improvements to paragraph 1, which confirms the rule proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission cannot accept the changes to paragraphs 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 brings in a specific rule concerning traffic accidents which would subject to two different laws the non-contractual obligation and the amount of damages. The Commission appreciates Parliament’s efforts to find a fair solution for so many people who are the victims of traffic accidents but this solution, which would diverge sharply from the law in force in the Member States, cannot be adopted without prior in-depth analysis. It is accordingly proposed that the question be considered in detail in the report on the application of the Regulation. As regards paragraph 3, the amendment would substantially alter the spirit of the instrument. While it is specified that the exception clause available to the court really would be applied “by way of exception”, the current wording runs the risk of sending a message that is contrary to the foreseeability objective pursued by the Regulation. The mere fact that the paragraph lists no less than 5 factors that can be taken into consideration to justify activating the exception clause means that the parties and the courts will routinely check the justification for the solution that the general rule would have generated even where it is at first sight satisfactory. The Commission therefore cannot accept this part of the amendment and maintains its initial approach, which the Council also appears to have endorsed. But the Commission does acknowledge the significance of some of the factors listed in paragraph 3, in particular as regards the parties’ shared habitual residence, a pre-existing de facto or de jure relationship or the legitimate expectations of the parties. As the first two of these are already mentioned expressly in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the initial proposal, Article 5(3) of the amended proposal now contains an express reference to the legitimate expectations of the parties;- the mechanism for the public policy (ordre public) exception, first inserts a new paragraph 1a) to spell out the concept of public policy of the forum by listing reference instruments. Even though the public policy of the Member States will inevitably contain common elements, there are variations from one to another. Consequently the Commission cannot accept such a list. The proposed new paragraph 1b) addresses the issue of damages in amounts regarded as excessive, such as certain types of exemplary or punitive damages, already covered by a specific rule in Article 24 of the initial Commission proposal. Subject to drafting changes to make clear that punitive damages are not ipso facto excessive, the Commission can accept this rule being incorporated in the Article concerning the public policy of the forum. Under the proposed new paragraph 1c), only the parties would be able to rely on the exception clause. But it is for the court to ensure compliance with the fundamental values of the forum, and that task cannot be delegated to the parties, especially as they are not always legally represented. The Brussels I Regulation provides for the possibility for the court to withhold the exequatur from a judgment given in another Member State if it would be contrary to the public policy of the forum. The Commission accordingly cannot accept the proposed paragraph 1c);- the provision of an obligation for the Commission to report on the application of the Regulation after it is in force. While the Commission acknowledges the value of such a report, it cannot accept all the conditions provided for by the amendment. For one thing, the period of 3 years after adoption of the Regulation would not allow an adequate number of judgments to be given as the basis for an effective evaluation. As in the Brussels I Regulation, the Commission proposes a period of 5 years after the Regulation enters into force. As for the content of the report, the question of the amount of damages awarded by the courts and the elaboration of a code of ethics for the European media are way out of place in a conflict-of-laws regulation. The Commission accordingly cannot accept that these questions should be dealt with in a report on the application of this Regulation. On the other hand the Commission agrees with Parliament on the need to consider how to achieve a more uniform approach to applying foreign law in the courts of the Member States. It does not believe that the time is ripe for a legislative initiative in this respect, but it can accept the idea of looking into the question in depth in the application report.The Commission has rejected the amendments aiming to:- adapt the recitals to reflect the removal of several special rules for specific forms of liability;- abolish the special rule for product liability; - abolish the special rule for anti-competitive practices;- change the substance of the rule applicable to violations of privacy, particularly by the press;- bring in a new special rule concerning damage arising from the exercise of the right to strike by employed people;- restate that, until such time as the Community adopts detailed legislation on the law applicable to traffic accidents, Member States will either apply the 1971 Hague Convention or the general rules of the Rome II Convention;- delete the special rule for damage to the environment. The Commission cannot accept this amendment as the proposed rule reflects the “polluter pays” principle promoted by the Community and already applied in several Member States. The Greens, incidentally, abstained from voting on this amendment in plenary;- raise the question of the evaluation of the damages, which would generally (except as regards traffic accidents) be governed by the lex fori;- address the question of the application of foreign law by the court.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, FRATTINI Franco
• 2005/07/06 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T6-0284/2005 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Diana WALLIS (UK, ALDE,) and made some amendments to the Commission’s proposal. The principal amendments are as follows:- The parties may agree, by an agreement entered into after their dispute arose or, where there is a pre-existing arms-length commercial relationship between traders of equal bargaining power, by an agreement freely negotiated before the dispute arose, to submit non-contractual obligations to the law of their choice.- In the absence of such an agreement and unless otherwise provided for in the Regulation, the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or a delict will be the law of the country in which the damage occurs or is likely to occur.- Notwithstanding the general rule on freedom to choose the applicable law and by way of exception, where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the non-contractual obligation is manifestly more closely connected with another country, the law of that other country shall apply. Parliament sets out the factors that may be taken into account as manifestly connecting a non-contractual obligation with another country. They include protection of legitimate expectations;- The choice of law made by the parties will not deprive an employee who is a party to a contract of employment of the protection that would be afforded to him by the mandatory rules under certain conditions;- For violation of privacy and defamation cases, the country in which the most significant element or elements of the damage occur or are likely to occur should be deemed to be the country to which the publication or broadcasting service is principally directed, or if this is not apparent, the country in which editorial control is exercised, and that country's law should be applicable.  The country to which a publication or broadcast is directed should be determined in particular by the language of the publication or broadcast or by sales or audience size in a given country as a proportion of total sales or audience size or by a combination of those factors. Similar considerations should apply in respect of publication via the Internet or other electronic networks. The Commission had proposed a different formula, under which the law of the country where the damage occurs would apply unless this breaches the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and information.- Special rules are laid down for liability arising out of unjust enrichment or agency without authority.- Parliament clarified that the Regulation does not apply to non-contractual obligations arising out of matrimonial property regimes, property regimes of relationships deemed by the law applicable to such relationships as having comparable effects to marriage.- Parliament deleted specific choice of- law rules for environmental offences, product liability and unfair competition, opting instead for a general rule that the law applicable shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs.- On road traffic accidents, for the purposes of determining the type of claim for damages and calculating the quantum of the claim, the court must apply the rules of the individual victim's place of habitual residence unless it would be inequitable to the victim to do so. With regard to liability, the applicable law will be the law of the place where the accident occurred.- The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of industrial action will be the law of the country in which the action is to be taken or has been taken.- The court seised will establish the content of the foreign law of its own motion. To this end, the parties' collaboration may be required. If it is impossible to establish the content of the foreign law and the parties agree, the law of the court seised shall be applied. However, the rules of the Regulation do not apply to evidence and procedure.- The Commission must report on certain specified matters within three years of the date of adoption of the Regulation.

• 2005/07/05 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2005/06/27 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0211/2005
• 2005/06/21 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• #Prés
• 2004/12/02 Council Meeting
• 2004/09/16 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2003/09/04 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2003/07/22 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2003)0427 summary

    PURPOSE : to present a proposal for a Regulation aimed at harmonising the rules on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ("Rome II"). CONTENT : the purpose of this proposal for a Regulation is to standardise the Member States' rules of conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations and thus extended the harmonisation of private international law in relation to civil and commercial obligations which is already well advanced in the Community with the "Brussels I" Regulation and the Rome Convention of 1980. This measure is being taken as part of ongoing efforts by the EU to create a genuine European area of freedom and justice. The goal is to ensure that courts in all the Member States apply the same law to cross-border disputes involving non-contractual obligations, thereby facilitating mutual recognition of court rulings in the European Union. The rules proposed by the Commission strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the parties involved in a cross-border dispute. They also aim at applying a law that reflects the centre of gravity of the situation. There is a substantial difference in scope between the Brussels and Rome conventions. The former covers both contractual and non-contractual obligations whereas the latter covers only contractual obligations the proposed Regulation, commonly know as the "Rome II", will be the natural extension of the unification of the rules of private international law relating to contractual and non-contractual obligations in civil or commercial matters in the Community. The initiative focuses on the question of civil liability for damage caused to others, particularly in case of accidents such as traffic accidents or accidents caused by a defective product, or in case of invasion of privacy. With increased trade and movement within the Union, this kind of litigation will become more widespread. Member States do not at present have common rules for deciding which law should apply in cases concerning non-contractual obligations, so each court applies its own national rules. Consequently, the outcome of cases can vary widely from one Member State to another, prompting plaintiffs to bring their actions before the courts which will apply the most favourable legislation ("forum shopping"). The conflict of laws' rules proposed by the Commission strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining the damage. Since the basic rule leads, in general, to the application of the law of the place where the damage is sustained, the proposal reflects the legitimate expectations of the victim, who - in particular in the case of an accident - never intended to enter into relation with the author of the damage. The proposed regulation also contains specific rules for particular matters in which the basic rule does not allow for striking such a balance. The solutions proposed by the Commission, which reflect the recent developments of the rules on conflict of laws' in the Member States, also lead to the application of a law that corresponds to the centre of gravity of the situation. They will also serve to strengthen legal certainty: many Member States have not codified their private international law rules, and as a result solutions emerge fromthe decisions of the courts which are generally not well known by the public. Thus the present proposal contributes to better transparency and foreseeability of how these types of disputes are resolved. International jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in another Member State is already dealt with in Council Regulation 44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, which applies to both contractual and non-contractual obligations. As regards applicable law, the rules on contracts were harmonised by the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. This initiative will complete the harmonisation at Community level of the rules of private international law on civil and commercial obligations. This proposal was the subject of a large-scale public debate based on a written consultation on a preliminary draft proposal for a Regulation in 2002 and a public hearing in Brussels in January 2003. The final Commission proposal takes due account of the numerous comments made.�

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, FRATTINI Franco

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2003)0427
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0211/2005
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0284/2005
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2006)0083
• Council position published: 09751/7/2006
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A6-0481/2006
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T6-0006/2007
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 03619/2007
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A6-0257/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T6-0317/2007
• : Regulation 2007/864
• : OJ L 199 31.07.2007, p. 0040

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)