Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.114
Felix Maultzsch
les dispositions pour l’interprétation des conditions de contrat, la détermination unilatérale des limites par une partie ou un tiers, contrats de la durée et des conditions de contrat indéfinies ou perpétuelles en faveur des tiers sont examinées. En outre, les règlements proposés pour des rapports précontractuels, des clauses de fusion, des dispositions de forme, la détermination du prix et de la qualité, la langue et les conditions de contrat pas individuellement négociées sont analysés. En général les propositions se conforment aux dispositions correspondantes du cadre commun de référence. Il y a, cependant, quelques modifications et le groupe d’experts a serré certaines des règles à leurs bases. La comparaison à la loi allemande conduite par l’article montre des parallèles aussi bien que des différences considérables.
{"title":"Die Vorschriften zur Vertragsinterpretation im Common Frame of Reference aus rechtsvergleichender Sicht","authors":"Felix Maultzsch","doi":"10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.114","url":null,"abstract":"les dispositions pour l’interprétation des conditions de contrat, la détermination unilatérale des limites par une partie ou un tiers, contrats de la durée et des conditions de contrat indéfinies ou perpétuelles en faveur des tiers sont examinées. En outre, les règlements proposés pour des rapports précontractuels, des clauses de fusion, des dispositions de forme, la détermination du prix et de la qualité, la langue et les conditions de contrat pas individuellement négociées sont analysés. En général les propositions se conforment aux dispositions correspondantes du cadre commun de référence. Il y a, cependant, quelques modifications et le groupe d’experts a serré certaines des règles à leurs bases. La comparaison à la loi allemande conduite par l’article montre des parallèles aussi bien que des différences considérables.","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":" 20","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120941808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/gpr.2011.8.6.289
K. Sein, P. Kalamees
The ruling of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ECJ”) on the Weber and Putz case has already created lively reflection and partly very critical responses in the legal literature. This article does not purport to contribute to that discussion by analysing whether the arguments of the ECJ in the given case are to be supported or not or what kind of consequences they have for the national contract law. Instead, the authors are interested in the question of how one would solve the Weber and Putz case under the recently published Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (hereinafter the “Proposal”). In other words, the purpose of the article is to analyse the possibilities of recovering the costs of the removal of non-conforming goods and the installation of replacement goods in consumer sales contract under the Common European Sales Law.
{"title":"Recoverability of Removal and Installation Costs in Case of Defective Consumer Goods: How Would the Weber and Putz Case Be Solved under Common European Sales Law?","authors":"K. Sein, P. Kalamees","doi":"10.1515/gpr.2011.8.6.289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gpr.2011.8.6.289","url":null,"abstract":"The ruling of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ECJ”) on the Weber and Putz case has already created lively reflection and partly very critical responses in the legal literature. This article does not purport to contribute to that discussion by analysing whether the arguments of the ECJ in the given case are to be supported or not or what kind of consequences they have for the national contract law. Instead, the authors are interested in the question of how one would solve the Weber and Putz case under the recently published Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (hereinafter the “Proposal”). In other words, the purpose of the article is to analyse the possibilities of recovering the costs of the removal of non-conforming goods and the installation of replacement goods in consumer sales contract under the Common European Sales Law.","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116546421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/GPR.2011.8.5.242
Kathrin Kroll-Ludwigs
{"title":"Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urt. v. 22.12.2010, Rs. C-208/09 – Sayn-Wittgenstein","authors":"Kathrin Kroll-Ludwigs","doi":"10.1515/GPR.2011.8.5.242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/GPR.2011.8.5.242","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131266898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.132b
E. Kocher
{"title":"Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit und Berufsfreiheit Ablaufen der Übergangsfristen am 1.5.2011 – aktuelle Rechtsprechung – Rückzahlung von Aus- und Weiterbildungskosten","authors":"E. Kocher","doi":"10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.132b","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.132b","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114783013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rezension zu Gábor Hamza: Entstehung und Entwicklung der modernen Privatrechtsordnungen und die römischrechtliche Tradition","authors":"C. Baldus","doi":"10.1515/GPR.2011.8.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/GPR.2011.8.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122640964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.106
D. Looschelders, Mark Makowsky
Die Arbeiten an der Erstellung eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (Common Frame of Reference – CFR) sind in eine neue Phase gelangt. Nachdem im Jahre 2009 der wissenschaftliche Entwurf eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (Draft Common Frame of Reference – DCFR) fertiggestellt worden ist, hat die Kommission mit Beschluss vom 26.4.2010 (2010/233/EU) eine Expertengruppe eingesetzt, die die Kommission bei der Vorbereitung eines Vorschlags für den Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen unterstützen soll. Die Expertengruppe hat nach Art. 2 des Beschlusses die Aufgabe, ausgewählte Teile des DCFR zu überarbeiten und zu ergänzen; dabei soll sie auch andere wissenschaftliche Arbeiten auf diesem Gebiet sowie den Aquis berücksichtigen. Erste Teilergebnisse konnten bereits erzielt werden. Der nachfolgende Beitrag befasst sich mit den Vorschlägen der Expertengruppe zur Regelung der Inhalte und Wirkungen des Vertrages (Art. 7/1 – Art. 7/13).
{"title":"Inhalt und Wirkungen von Verträgen Kapitel 7 des Entwurfs der Expertengruppe für einen Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen auf dem Gebiet des Europäischen Vertragsrechts","authors":"D. Looschelders, Mark Makowsky","doi":"10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gpr.2011.8.3.106","url":null,"abstract":"Die Arbeiten an der Erstellung eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (Common Frame of Reference – CFR) sind in eine neue Phase gelangt. Nachdem im Jahre 2009 der wissenschaftliche Entwurf eines Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens (Draft Common Frame of Reference – DCFR) fertiggestellt worden ist, hat die Kommission mit Beschluss vom 26.4.2010 (2010/233/EU) eine Expertengruppe eingesetzt, die die Kommission bei der Vorbereitung eines Vorschlags für den Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen unterstützen soll. Die Expertengruppe hat nach Art. 2 des Beschlusses die Aufgabe, ausgewählte Teile des DCFR zu überarbeiten und zu ergänzen; dabei soll sie auch andere wissenschaftliche Arbeiten auf diesem Gebiet sowie den Aquis berücksichtigen. Erste Teilergebnisse konnten bereits erzielt werden. Der nachfolgende Beitrag befasst sich mit den Vorschlägen der Expertengruppe zur Regelung der Inhalte und Wirkungen des Vertrages (Art. 7/1 – Art. 7/13).","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130853565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/GPR.2011.8.6.277
A. Zaccaria
The first option outlined in the questionnaire (consisting basically in the publication of the results of the work of the group of experts on the Commission’s website, accompanied by efforts aimed at promoting the CFR as source of inspiration for the European legislator as well as point of reference for the study of law at universities) already goes too far. This view can be justified as follows: According to the drafters of the CFR themselves, the CFR is supposed to “help to show how much national private laws resemble one another and have provided mutual stimulus for development and indeed how much those laws may be regarded as regional manifestations of an overall common European legacy”. Although those may have been the intentions of the drafters, the CFR does not always bear witness of those intentions. By way of example, it may suffice to recall the definition the CFR provides for what I believe to be one of the most important elements of the CFR itself, more specifically, the obligation, the definition of which does not compare anymore to the one known to all of us, the origins of which can the traced to Roman law, and upon which the civil law tradition is based. Rather, the CFR defines the obligation as “a duty to perform which one party to a legal relationship, the debtor, owes to another party, the creditor”. “Officially”, this is due to the fact that “Sometimes the word ‘obligation’ is used as the correlative of a right to performance. Sometimes the word ‘obligation’ is used to denote the whole legal relationship between the debtor and the creditor. This usage, although traditional and eminently respectable, appears to be less frequent in modern European and international legal instruments”. It is questionnable, however, whether that is the real reason. It may well be due to the fact that, to use the words employed by Zimmermann, “Today the technical term ‘obligation’ [on the basis of the Justinian definition] is widely used to refer to a two-ended relationship which appears from the one end as a personal right to claim and from the other as a duty to render performance. The party ‘bound’ to make performance is called the debtor (debitor, from debere), whilst at the other end of the obligation we find the ‘creditor’, who has put his confidence in this specific debtor and relies (credere) in the debtor’s will and capacity to perform. As far as the Roman terminology is concerned, ‘obligatio’ could denote the vinculum iuris looked at from either end; it could refer to the creditor’s right as well as the debtor’s duty. This obviously makes it somewhat difficult to render the Roman idea in English, for the English term ‘obligation’ is merely oriented towards the person bound, not towards the person entitled. With the words ‘my obligation’ I can refer only to my duties, not to my rights”. The foregoing remarks allow me to introduce another issue which I believe to be a rather important one, namely that of the language. The CFR was drafted so
尽管如此，CFR包含了一个专门用于授权(或者更准确地说，是“授权合同”)的不同部分。传统上，当各种合同构成同一指定合同的变体时，它们被归为一个单位。就意大利民法典而言，这是正确的，例如关于任务规定的那一章，除了任务规定外，也包括运输合同。至于BGB，不妨回顾一下，专门讨论“Werkvertrag und ähnliche Verträge”的部分也包括“Werklieferungsvertrag”等内容。然而，这并不是CFR中对各类合同进行分类的基本原理。这一点很明显，例如，如果考虑到很难论证提供医疗的合同构成储存合同的一种变体。CFR采取了一种不同于传统的方法。根据契约的对象创建了不同的组
{"title":"Presa di posizione sul futuro del CFR","authors":"A. Zaccaria","doi":"10.1515/GPR.2011.8.6.277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/GPR.2011.8.6.277","url":null,"abstract":"The first option outlined in the questionnaire (consisting basically in the publication of the results of the work of the group of experts on the Commission’s website, accompanied by efforts aimed at promoting the CFR as source of inspiration for the European legislator as well as point of reference for the study of law at universities) already goes too far. This view can be justified as follows: According to the drafters of the CFR themselves, the CFR is supposed to “help to show how much national private laws resemble one another and have provided mutual stimulus for development and indeed how much those laws may be regarded as regional manifestations of an overall common European legacy”. Although those may have been the intentions of the drafters, the CFR does not always bear witness of those intentions. By way of example, it may suffice to recall the definition the CFR provides for what I believe to be one of the most important elements of the CFR itself, more specifically, the obligation, the definition of which does not compare anymore to the one known to all of us, the origins of which can the traced to Roman law, and upon which the civil law tradition is based. Rather, the CFR defines the obligation as “a duty to perform which one party to a legal relationship, the debtor, owes to another party, the creditor”. “Officially”, this is due to the fact that “Sometimes the word ‘obligation’ is used as the correlative of a right to performance. Sometimes the word ‘obligation’ is used to denote the whole legal relationship between the debtor and the creditor. This usage, although traditional and eminently respectable, appears to be less frequent in modern European and international legal instruments”. It is questionnable, however, whether that is the real reason. It may well be due to the fact that, to use the words employed by Zimmermann, “Today the technical term ‘obligation’ [on the basis of the Justinian definition] is widely used to refer to a two-ended relationship which appears from the one end as a personal right to claim and from the other as a duty to render performance. The party ‘bound’ to make performance is called the debtor (debitor, from debere), whilst at the other end of the obligation we find the ‘creditor’, who has put his confidence in this specific debtor and relies (credere) in the debtor’s will and capacity to perform. As far as the Roman terminology is concerned, ‘obligatio’ could denote the vinculum iuris looked at from either end; it could refer to the creditor’s right as well as the debtor’s duty. This obviously makes it somewhat difficult to render the Roman idea in English, for the English term ‘obligation’ is merely oriented towards the person bound, not towards the person entitled. With the words ‘my obligation’ I can refer only to my duties, not to my rights”. The foregoing remarks allow me to introduce another issue which I believe to be a rather important one, namely that of the language. The CFR was drafted so","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124047766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/GPR.2011.8.4.166
V. Harsági
{"title":"Hungarian Case Law Relating to European Private Law (2010–2011)","authors":"V. Harsági","doi":"10.1515/GPR.2011.8.4.166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/GPR.2011.8.4.166","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116665661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
dem Inkrafttreten der Brüssel I-VO erlassen werden (d.i. in den alten Mitgliedstaaten nach 1.3.2002). Da zwischen der Tschechischen Republik und der BRD zur betroffenen Zeit ebenfalls kein bilaterales Abkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung der Gerichtsentscheidungen abgeschlossen wurde, musste die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung des deutschen Vollstreckungstitels anhand der §§63 ff. des tschechischen IPR-Gesetzes beurteilt werden, die auch das Berufungsgericht als Grundlage seiner Entscheidung bestimmte. IV. Zusammenfassung
{"title":"Zur Kollision von Informationspflichten aus EU-Richtlinien im Blick auf die Entwürfe zur Verbraucherrechterichtlinie","authors":"M. Schmidt-Kessel","doi":"10.1515/gpr.2011.8.2.79","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gpr.2011.8.2.79","url":null,"abstract":"dem Inkrafttreten der Brüssel I-VO erlassen werden (d.i. in den alten Mitgliedstaaten nach 1.3.2002). Da zwischen der Tschechischen Republik und der BRD zur betroffenen Zeit ebenfalls kein bilaterales Abkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung der Gerichtsentscheidungen abgeschlossen wurde, musste die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung des deutschen Vollstreckungstitels anhand der §§63 ff. des tschechischen IPR-Gesetzes beurteilt werden, die auch das Berufungsgericht als Grundlage seiner Entscheidung bestimmte. IV. Zusammenfassung","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123695721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-24DOI: 10.1515/GPR.2011.8.3.105
M. Schmidt-Kessel
{"title":"Ein Gespenst geht um in Europa – das Optionale Instrument","authors":"M. Schmidt-Kessel","doi":"10.1515/GPR.2011.8.3.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/GPR.2011.8.3.105","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":273842,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122497988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：