Search result: 7 articles

x

    The Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations contains several provisions aimed explicitly at the protection of ‘weaker’ contracting parties, such as consumers and employees. However, in addition to this, the interests of weaker parties are sometimes also safeguarded through the application of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’, which are superimposed on the law applicable to the contract to protect a fundamental interest of a Member State. This article is an attempt to clarify the extent to which the concept of overriding mandatory provisions may serve as a vehicle for weaker party protection. To do this, it examines the definition and limitations of the concept and its relation to conflict of laws rules based on the protective principle. Finally, the article seeks to establish whether the doctrine of overriding mandatory provisions remains relevant in the case of harmonisation of substantive law at the EU level, for which it will differentiate between full and minimum harmonisation.


Laura Maria van Bochove Ph.D.
Assistant professor in the Department of Private International and Comparative Law at the Erasmus School of Law. The author would like to thank the reviewers for their comments.
Article

The Impact of Europeanization of Contract Law on English Contract Law

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2012
Keywords Rome I and II Regulations, Europeanization, contract law, Common European Sales Law, faulty goods
Authors Omar Abdelaziz
Abstract

    The ongoing process of Europeanization for promoting cross-border transactions and conferring better protection for consumers and small businesses has had its impact all over Europe. It represents a new step towards a harmonized set of legal rules to govern cross-border transactions in the field of contract law. So what is its exact scope? Who will benefit from it? What are its risks? What is its methodology? Does it represent a codification of common law rules? What will be its impact especially on common law countries such as the United Kingdom? The effectiveness of Europeanization depends almost entirely on the correct implementation into national law of the various directives; every member state is obliged to fully implement a harmonized measure into its domestic laws. This is accomplished by ensuring that (1) the relevant legal framework meets the requirements of the harmonized measure and (2) the application of the domestic rules giving effect to a harmonizing measure does not undermine the effectiveness of the European measure. English contract law is largely an uncodified law. Accordingly, the approach taken and the methods used by this jurisdiction to implement European directives into its national laws with the aim of harmonization are different. How did the English courts interpret legislations that implement EU legislations? Will Europeanization affect the deep-rooted principles and doctrines of English contract law (issues of commercial agency), good faith in pre-contractual obligations, unfair contract terms and specific performance? Finally, what could be the clash between European contract law, Rome I Regulations and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods? Could this optional instrument be an exclusive law to either national or international mandatory rules for consumers in member states? What will be the qualification for a genuine consent of consumers in cross-border contracts? Will it lead to the development of the internal market as envisaged by the Commission?


Omar Abdelaziz
Article

Access_open Introduction: Insurance Law and Evolving Sanctions

About a new balance in the mutual obligations of both parties to a contract of insurance and a new system of sanctions

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2012
Authors Mop van Tiggele-van der Velde
Author's information

Mop van Tiggele-van der Velde
Professor of Insurance Law, Erasmus School of Law; and Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Helmut Heiss
Dr. iur. (University of Innsbruck), LL.M. (University of Chicago); Professor of Law (University of Zurich); Chairman of the Project Group on a Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law; of counsel, gbf attorneys-at-law, Zurich.

Heiss Helmut
Dr. jur. (Innsbruck), LL.M. (Chicago); Professor of Law; Chair for Private Law, Comparative Law and Harmonization of Laws in the Baltic Sea Area (Gerd-Bucerius-Foundation Chair), University of Greifswald/Germany.

Anna Suproń-Heidel
Mag. jur. (Poznan), LL.M. (Kiel); Academic Assistant; Chair for Private Law, Comparative Law and Harmonization of Laws in the Baltic Sea Area (Gerd-Bucerius-Foundation Chair), University of Greifswald/Germany.

Christiana Fountoulakis
Dr. iur., Assistent Professor of Private Law, University of Basel, Switzerland. I would like to sincerely thank lic. phil. stud. iur. Ronald Kunz, Mariel Dimsey, LL.M., and dr. iur. Michael Mraz for their final critical review of this paper.
Article

Access_open Is de vrijheid van godsdienst in de moderne multiculturele samenleving nog een hanteerbaar recht?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2010
Keywords freedom of religion, human rights, human dignity, traditional religion, unequal treatment
Authors Koo van der Wal
AbstractAuthor's information

    There are two fundamental problems with regard to the freedom of religion. The first concerns the content and scope of the right; the second, a possible unequal treatment between population groups. The first problem can only be dealt with by a preliminary analysis of the religious phenomenon, which precedes a legal definition. It turns out that there is a range of different types of religion, with on the one hand traditional forms of religion which are narrowly interwoven with the culture in question (all kinds of ‘cultural’ practices possessing a religious dimension), and on the other forms of religion which loosen to a considerable extent the ties between culture and religion. Evidently, the former types of religion cause problems in modern society. An additional problem is that freedom of religion as a modern basic right rests on a view of human being – including the idea of the inherent dignity and autonomy of the human person – which is at odds with the symbolic universe of traditional religion. The conclusion of the article is that in the modern pluralist society freedom of religion is on its way to becoming, or already has become, an unmanageable right. So the problems arising around this right (including that of unequal treatment) can only be solved in a pragmatic, not really satisfactory way. In that context, modern humanitarian standards should be observed in the implementation of the right of freedom of religion because fundamental human rights are connected with a specific concept of humanity.


Koo van der Wal
Koo van der Wal is emeritus professor of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam and the Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Showing all 7 results
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.