Party Autonomy: Removing Obstacles to Legal Diversity in the European Market

Afonso Patrão
{"title":"Party Autonomy: Removing Obstacles to Legal Diversity in the European Market","authors":"Afonso Patrão","doi":"10.7559/mclawreview.2019.316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the main obstacles to the internal market is legal diversity: Member States often adopt different legal standards not only within public and economic law but also with regard to private law. The traditional approach of European Institutions (harmonising legislation among Member States) was soon complemented by the principle of mutual recognition; these two methodologies embodied the European strategy for minimising the problem. However, a third European tool is becoming obvious: to give private parties the ability to choose the applicable law. This new approach enhances regulatory competition among Member States and turns unessential the unification of national rules, which suits best the proportionality principle. Party autonomy as a means for overcoming the difficulties of legal diversity is not only a reality in European statutory law – which already brought the ability for choosing the applicable law to contracts, torts, divorce, inheritance, alimony, matrimonial property – but is also highlighted in ECJ’s case-law, which declared legal diversity is not a barrier to the basic freedoms as long as parties may choose the applicable rules. The article will focus on the grounds and advantages of this method to address the issue of legal diversity, advocating its use in areas where the traditional approach is ineffective or impossible (such as some rights in rem, within the scope of the freedom of movement of capital).","PeriodicalId":309646,"journal":{"name":"Market and Competition Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Market and Competition Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2019.316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the main obstacles to the internal market is legal diversity: Member States often adopt different legal standards not only within public and economic law but also with regard to private law. The traditional approach of European Institutions (harmonising legislation among Member States) was soon complemented by the principle of mutual recognition; these two methodologies embodied the European strategy for minimising the problem. However, a third European tool is becoming obvious: to give private parties the ability to choose the applicable law. This new approach enhances regulatory competition among Member States and turns unessential the unification of national rules, which suits best the proportionality principle. Party autonomy as a means for overcoming the difficulties of legal diversity is not only a reality in European statutory law – which already brought the ability for choosing the applicable law to contracts, torts, divorce, inheritance, alimony, matrimonial property – but is also highlighted in ECJ’s case-law, which declared legal diversity is not a barrier to the basic freedoms as long as parties may choose the applicable rules. The article will focus on the grounds and advantages of this method to address the issue of legal diversity, advocating its use in areas where the traditional approach is ineffective or impossible (such as some rights in rem, within the scope of the freedom of movement of capital).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政党自治:消除欧洲市场法律多样性的障碍
内部市场的主要障碍之一是法律的多样性:会员国不仅在公法和经济法方面,而且在私法方面往往采用不同的法律标准。欧洲机构的传统做法(协调成员国之间的立法)很快得到相互承认原则的补充;这两种方法体现了欧洲将问题最小化的战略。然而,欧洲的第三个工具正变得显而易见:赋予私人各方选择适用法律的能力。这种新办法加强了会员国之间的管制竞争,使最符合比例原则的国家规则的统一变得不必要。当事人自治作为克服法律多样性困难的一种手段,不仅在欧洲成文法中是一种现实——它已经使当事人能够选择合同、侵权、离婚、继承、赡养费、婚姻财产的适用法律——而且在欧洲法院的判例法中也得到了强调,它宣布只要当事人可以选择适用的规则,法律多样性就不会成为基本自由的障碍。本文将重点介绍这种方法解决法律多样性问题的依据和优势,主张在传统方法无效或不可能的领域使用这种方法(例如在资本自由流动范围内的某些对物权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Big Data Competition and Market Power The Very Essence of the Internal Market Freedoms State Aids and Tax rulings: an assessment of the Commission’s recent decisional practice The Role of Innovation in the Analysis of Abuse of Dominance in Digital Markets: The Analysis of Chosen Practices of Google Search Room to Manoeuvre for Member States: Issues for Decision on the Occasion of the Transposition of the Damages Directive
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1