bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
General Principles of Law in Administrative Law under European Influence
Authors: Widdershoven Rob , Remac Milan 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: Since 1935, general principles of law have represented an important feature in the face of Dutch administrative law and its development. Dutch administrative courts have played and still play an important role in the development of these principles and in bringing them to life. Although the evolution of legal principles has, in the past, depended mainly on the decision-making of national administrative courts, today we can see a shift from national courts to the European ones. European influence whether it is influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union or of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cannot be overlooked and has today a deep and indisputable impact on changes in the content of several national principles. In the last decade, we have also noted the emergence of a new type of normative standards - principles of good administration. All these changes are often reflected in existing national legal principles and the general principles of administrative law in the Netherlands are not an exception. Because of these reasons, we will discuss in the following article the essential features of the development of general principles of law in Dutch administrative law, while pinpointing the importance of European influences and the possible future of the principles. Résumé: Depuis 1935, les principes généraux du droit ont représenté une caractéristique importante de l'aspect du droit administratif néerlandais et de son évolution.Les tribunaux administratifs néerlandais ont joué et jouent encore un role important dans le développement de ces principes et dans leur création. Quoique l´évolution des principes légaux dépendait autrefois principalement des décisions des cours administratives nationales, on peut voir aujourd´hui un changement de direction partant des tribunaux nationaux vers les tribunaux européens. L´influence européenne, que ce soit l´influence de la Cour de Justice de l´Union européenne ou de la Cour européenne des Droits de l´Homme, ne peut être ignoréeet elle a aujourd´hui un impact profond et incontestable sur les changements du contenu de plusieurs principes nationaux. Durant la dernière décennie, on a pu également remarquer l´émergence d´un nouveau type de modèle normatif - les principes de bonne administration. Tous ces changements se reflètent souvent dans les principes légaux nationaux existants, et les principes généraux de droit administratif aux Pays-Bas ne font pas figure d'exception. Pour ces raisons, nous discuterons dans cet article des aspects essentiels de l´évolution de principes généraux de droit en droit administratif néerlandais, tout en mettant l´accent sur l´importance des influences européennes et sur l´avenir possible de ces principes.
Is It Legitimate and Beneficial for Judges to Use Comparative Law?
Authors: Kadner Graziano Thomas 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: In many European jurisdictions, the courts use the comparative method when applying domestic law. In some countries, they use this method occasionally; in others, the highest courts use comparative law in the field of private law in between 10 per cent and more than 30 per cent of all cases. However, it is sometimes still questioned whether it is legitimate for courts to use the comparative methodology, alongside the traditional methods of interpretation, when determining and interpreting domestic law. A very animated discussion among judges of the US Supreme Court has helped put this issue on the agenda of comparatists, lawyers, and judges. The following contribution analyses the arguments against and for the use of comparative law by the courts. On the basis of court decisions, the numerous benefits that judges and courts derive when using the comparative method are demonstrated. Résumé: Dans de nombreux pays européens, les tribunaux utilisent aujourd'hui la méthode comparative. Dans certains Etats, les tribunaux y font recours occasionnellement; dans d'autres, les arrêts des tribunaux suprêmes comportent des références comparatives à d'autres ordres juridiques dans 10% à plus de 30% des cas en matière de droit privé. Pourtant, certaines voix remettent toujours encore en question la légitimité de l'emploi de la méthode comparative par les tribunaux. Une discussion très animée entre différents juges de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis a contribué à remettre cette question sur l'agenda des comparatistes et des juristes en général. La contribution suivante analysera la question de savoir s'il est légitime pour le juge, dans son raisonnement et lors de son interprétation de la loi nationale, de recourir à la méthode comparative en plus des méthodes classiques d'interprétation. Ensuite, à l'aide de nombreux exemples pratiques issus de la jurisprudence des tribunaux en Europe, les divers buts que poursuivent les juges en utilisant cette méthode et les multiples bénéfices de cette méthode pour les tribunaux seront exposés. Zusammenfassung: In zahlreichen europäischen Staaten bedienen sich die Gerichte der rechtsvergleichenden Methode. In manchen Rechtsordnungen geschieht dies gelegentlich; in anderen vergleichen die obersten Zivilgerichte in den letzten Jahren in zwischen 10% und über 30% der Fälle. Andererseits wird auch im 21. Jahrhundert immer noch gelegentlich bezweifelt, ob es für die Gerichte legitim ist, sich bei der Interpretation des nationalen Rechts neben den klassischen Auslegungsmethoden auch der rechtsvergleichenden Methode zu bedienen. In den USA hat diese Frage kürzlich zu einer intensiven und vielbeachteten Diskussion zwischen den Richtern am Supreme Court geführt. Der folgende Beitrag untersucht zunächst die Argumente gegen und für den Einsatz der rechtsvergleichenden Methode durch die Gerichte. Auf der Grundlage einer Vielzahl von Urteilen zeigt er im Anschluss den vielfältigen Nutzen auf, den die Gerichte aus dem Einsatz der rechtsvergleichenden Methode in der Praxis ziehen.
The Hidden Potential of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) in the Private Law Acquis
Authors: Van Schagen Esther 
Published: April 2022

Summary: This article argues that regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are an important method to improve the private law acquis that are currently overlooked. Many problems of unpredictability and inconsistency can be traced to poor regulatory choices in the private law acquis, including the overenthusiastic use of blanket clauses and the lack of coordination in the development of the acquis. RIAs are a very suitable means to prompt the legislator to reconsider these choices. The use of RIAs however currently shows severe shortcomings. Particularly, RIAs frequently contain doubtful and unsubstantiated assumptions, and they do not neutrally assess the benefits and detriments of all possible ways to develop the acquis. These shortcomings should be addressed if RIAs are to contribute to the quality of the private law acquis. A more thorough evaluation of past and future measures such as minimum and maximum harmonization, guidance, databases, and self-regulation and more coordination would contribute to the predictability and consistency of the private law acquis. Résumé: Cet article propose que les analyses d'impact sont un moyen important pour améliorer l'acquis de droit privé qui est maintenaint négligé. Beaucoup des problèmes d'imprévibilité et inconsistance peuvent être attribués aux mauvais choix politiques, ainsi que le trop enthousiast emploi des clauses générales et l'absence de coordination dans la formation de l'acquis. Les analyses d'impact sont un moyen apte à inciter le législateur à réviser ces choix. Toutefois, des erreurs graves se présentent dans l'emploi des analyses d'impact, en particulier les hypothèses douteux et le défaut d'une analyse neutre des bénéfices et des détriments de tous moyens possibles pour développer l'acquis. Si les analyses des impacts pourraient s'améliorer la qualité del'acquis de droit privé, il faut que ces fautes seront rectifiés.
The Disabling of the EC Disability Regulation: Stott v. Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd in the Light of the Exclusivity Doctrine
Authors: Koning Ingrid 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: The (contractual) relationship between passengers and airlines is regulated on an international as well as a European level. However, problems arise in the demarcation between these levels. The cause of these demarcation problems lies, on the one hand, in the strict 'exclusivity doctrine' under which only the Montreal Convention can serve as a basis for any claim arising out of international carriage by air and, on the other hand, the refusal of the CJEU to deal with the matter. In Stott v. Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd, the UK Supreme Court has unequivocally confirmed the Exclusivity Doctrine to the detriment of the EC Disability Regulation. In this article, the decision of the UK Supreme Court will be discussed in the broader context of the problematic relationship between the international convention and European passenger rights regulations.
Transparency of Standard Terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law
Authors: Loos Marco B.M. 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: This paper discusses whether and to what extent the transparency principle is applicable to standard contract terms legislation under European Union law and what the consequences are when the principle, in so far as it is recognized, is breached. To that extent, it focuses first on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and second on the proposal for a Common European Sales Law. Résumé: Cet article traite si et dans quelle mesure le principe de transparence s'applique à la législation européenne de conditions générales et quelles sont les conséquences lorsque le principe, dans la mesure où il est reconnu, a été violé. Dans cette mesure, il se concentre d'abord sur la Directive concernant les clauses abusive dans les contrats conclus avec les consommateurs et d'autre part sur la proposition d'un Droit Commun Européen de la Vente. Zusammenfassung: Dieser Aufsatz beschreibt, ob und inwieweit der Grundsatz des Transparenzgebots gilt nach das europäischen AGB-Recht und was die Konsequenzen sind, wenn das Gebot verletzt wird. Der Aufsatz konzentriert sich zunächst auf die Klauselrichtlinie und zweitens über den Vorschlag für einen Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrechts.
Online Platforms as Providers of Transnational Payments Law
Authors: Janczuk-Gorywoda Agnieszka 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: This article uses the example of one of the best-known global payment systems provided by an online platform, PayPal, to analyse the role of private legal orders in creating new markets beyond jurisdictional borders. It shows that a relatively uniform legal order reduces risks involved in cross-border transactions and in this way enables transnational markets. While transnational law is more easily created by private entities rather than states, it remains embedded in state laws. The continuous role of state law in shaping transnational private legal orders is guaranteed because the latter operate with the endorsement and support of states. In this way states facilitate globalization. At the same time, the impact of state laws is fragmentary and disintegrates the applicable global private legal framework. Finally, the scattered influence of state laws undermines the protection offered to consumers. This is particularly important, because mutual rights and obligations between transnational private rule-makers, like the online platform PayPal, and their ‘users’ tend to be strongly biased in favour of the former. Résumé: Cet article se sert de l’exemple de l’un des systèmes mondiaux de paiement les plus connus fourni par une plateforme en ligne, PayPal, pour analyser le rôle de systèmes juridiques privés dans la création de nouveaux marchés au-delà des frontières juridictionnelles. Il montre qu’un système légal relativement uniforme réduit les risques impliqués dans des transactions transfrontalières et favorise de cette manière des marchés transnationaux. Alors qu’une règle transnationale est plus facilement créée par des entités privées que par des états, elle reste incorporée dans les lois étatiques. Le rôle constant du droit étatique dans la formation de systèmes juridiques privés transnationaux est assuré parce que ces derniers opèrent avec l’approbation et le support d’états. De cette manière, les états facilitent la globalisation. En même temps, la portée de lois étatiques est fragmentaire et désintègre le cadre juridique privé mondial applicable. Finalement, l’influence éparse de lois étatiques fragilise la protection offerte aux consommateurs. Ceci est particulièrement important dans la mesure où les droits et obligations réciproques entre les décideurs privés transnationaux tels que la plateforme en ligne PayPal, et leurs ‘utilisateurs’ tendent à être fortement déséquilibrés en faveur des premiers.
Dispute Resolution in Telecommunications: A Commitment to Out-of-Court
Authors: Gamito Marta Cantero 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: The EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications has for long favoured extrajudicial settlement for the resolution of sector-related contractual disputes. Different entities and procedures have been put in place as a way not only to enhance access to justice but also to strengthen the effectiveness of EU telecoms rules. This article argues that these out-of-court dispute procedures contribute to bridging the gap in the enforcement of EU rules concerning private relationships, allowing the integration of EU policy objectives by means of dispute resolution, at the expense of domestic fundamental rules and principles of contract law. Resumé: Le cadre réglementaire européen des communications électroniques a consolidé l’existence de mécanismes extrajudiciaires de résolution des litiges spécifiques au secteur. Des institutions et procédures ont été instituées non seulement comme un moyen de faciliter l’accès à la justice, mais aussi dans le but de renforcer l’effectivité des normes de télécommunication de l’UE. Cet article soutient que ces procédures ‘out-of-court’ contribuent à réduire le déficit concernant l’application de règles de l’UE, ce qui permet l’intégration des objectifs de la politique de l’UE par la résolution extrajudiciaire des conflits, aux dépens des règles et des principes généraux du droit des contrats.
Concurrent Claims in Contract and Tort: A Comparative Perspective
Authors: De Graaff Ruben 
Published: April 2022

Abstract: This contribution analyses whether, and to what extent, the law permits a choice between finding liability in contract and in tort. The answer to this question is important because the outcome of a case may differ depending on whether the claim for damages is based on a breach of contract or on a violation of a tortious duty. The contribution examines the approaches in several European jurisdictions. French law is straightforward: finding liability in tort is not possible if the damage is caused by or related to the (non-) performance of a contractual obligation. German, Dutch and English law take the opposite point of view: finding liability in tort is not precluded if the damage is caused by or related to the (non-) performance of a contractual obligation. This contribution traces the historical development of these approaches and explains their differences by looking at the underlying structure of these systems of private law. It also shows that the resoluteness of both solutions has softened over time, as a result of judicial and legislative interventions. To support this argument, recent developments in case law and legislation are discussed. Résumé: Cette contribution s’interroge sur la question de savoir si – et alors dans quelle mesure – le droit offre un choix entre les actions en responsabilité contractuelle et extracontractuelle. La réponse à cette question est importante car l’issue du litige peut varier selon que la demande en dommages-intérêts est fondée sur la violation d’une norme contractuelle ou extracontractuelle. La présente contribution examine cette question au sein des différents systèmes juridiques. En droit français, la réponse est univoque: la responsabilité extracontractuelle comme base de l’action en justice est impossible si le dommage est causé par ou lié à l’(in)exécution d’un contrat. Les droits allemand, néerlandais et anglais optent pour la solution inverse: utiliser la responsabilité extracontractuelle est possible même si le dommage a été causé par ou lié à l’(in)exécution d’un contrat. La présente contribution analyse le développement historique de ces approches et explique leurs différences en recourant aux structures sous-jacentes des systèmes de droit privé. Il se trouve que la détermination de chacune de ces solutions s’est atténuée avec le temps, à la suite des interventions du juge et du législateur. Pour soutenir cet argument, les développements récents dans la jurisprudence et la législation sont discutés.
Legal Narratives and Compensation Trends in Tort Law: The Case of Public Apology
Authors: Brutti Nicola 
Published: April 2022

The metanarrations about legal concern reached an increasing role in criticizing overcompensation cases. Litigation-adversarial system is perceived as too expensive for private and public finances. Someone underlined that emphasis on communication and voluntariness renders mediation more likely to resolve disputes.
Today public apology is playing a positive role in policies centered on alternative-informal dispute resolution, due to a restorative justice model. A public gesture of apology by the wrongdoer could help to prevent litigation expecially in moral or punitive damages cases. The article suggests that a different narrative of facts by legal means can be achieved.
Different legal meanings of public apology in eastern and western legal traditions are here investigated. According to a comparative analysis, the article focuses on different solutions issued by case law and legal transplants. It points out that the situation is very patchworked, although some jurisdictions have provided a specific legal framework for apologies.
However, its proper legal effects could shift in a wide range of solutions depending on certain circumstances: shaming sanction, mitigating factor on damages assessment, admission against interests, moral redress, self-reputation healing. Some criticisms referred to each specific meaning are here underwrited. In particular, the threat about apologies as metanarrations enforced by Courts concerns: insincerity, rule of law violations, harm to freedom of expression, mediatic manipulation.
The End of Bankers Bonus Cap: How Will the UK Regulate Bankers
Authors: Lu Longjie 
Published: April 2022

In response to the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the EU has launched significant regulatory reforms on the Capital Requirement Directives and introduced many tougher rules on bankers’ remuneration. Particularly, bankers’ remuneration across the EU should be subject to a ratio between the fixed and variable components, which is usually known as bankers’ bonus cap. On the issue of applying bankers’ bonus cap to local financial institutions, the UK government has always held an opposite stance against the EU.
This article analyses the deep reasons behind the conflicts between the UK and the EU on the issue of capping bankers’ bonuses, namely, the UK’s political economic interests in the global financial market and the opposite philosophies on bankers’ remuneration regulations. Furthermore, the article tries to predict the influences of Brexit on the regulations of bankers’ remuneration in the UK. Specifically, the artile argues that bankers’ bonus cap will eventually be removed and the UK will get back to its free market-based approach whereby the market plays the primary role in deciding bankers’ remuneration and enhanced regulations compensate the market deficiencies.
Unification, Harmonisation and Competition in European Company Forms
Authors: Ghetti Riccardo 
Published: April 2022

The main tools for the convergence of company law are full legal unification, mere harmonisation, and regulatory competition. The article uses this framework to study both the existing and the proposed European company forms (ECFs): the European Company, the European Cooperative Company, the European Private Company and the Single Member Company.
All ECFs aim at legal unification, but none of them are endowed with comprehensively unified legal regimes; their regulation is patchy and stratified and suffers from heavy referencing to national law in crucial areas such as corporate governance and corporate groups. It is therefore no surprise that ECFs have failed to win the favour of European entrepreneurs, and the data on the diffusion of ECFs are not encouraging: a large proportion of the few registered ECFs are in fact only shell companies, and most of the operating ECFs are found only in selected parts of central Europe. This failure is the result of high setup, legal and reputational costs, not offset by sufficiently important benefits. The roots of the fiasco go deeper, however, as regulatory protectionism impedes the adoption of attractive supranational company forms.
While acknowledging that forcing further cooperative convergence could be not only costly but also ineffective, it must be noted that to some extent non-cooperative convergence is already occurring, at least with reference to national company forms suitable for small companies. Here, in contrast with the cooperative/supranational level, the non-cooperative mechanism of regulatory competition needs not inevitably turn into regulatory protectionism but can instead be a positive source of emulation, causing the diffusion of effective national company forms and leading ultimately to spontaneous legal convergence without supranational intervention.
EU company law makers should consider that in the field of ECFs no law might be better than bad law, thus avoiding the path of cooperative adaptation and trusting the uniforming force of regulatory competition instead.
De Jure Convergence, De Facto Divergence: A Comparison of Factual Implementation of Shareholder Derivative Suit Enforcement in the United States and the United Kingdom
Authors: Gibbs-Kneller David , Gindis David 
Published: April 2022

Many legal systems have been converging toward a US shareholder-centric model of corporate law and governance. This includes de jure rules relating to derivative enforcement. Despite convergence of the UK system towards the US model, each system continues to diverge as regards levels of shareholder enforcement. This article suggests that this divergence can be explained by the way the courts implement the derivative procedure de facto. A comparative assessment of de facto implementation in the US and the UK reveals that while courts in both systems are reluctant to interfere with the business judgment of the board, the US courts are willing to analyse whether board decisions were substantively reached, contributing to the levels of enforcement based on the way costs are allocated. Conversely, ingrained traditions of the UK courts place a high evidentiary burden on the shareholder, which they are unlikely to meet. Since costs are allocated to the loser in the UK, the factual implementation continues to serve as a strong disincentive for private shareholder enforcement and good governance.
Derivative claims, enforcement, costs, civil procedure, judiciary, directors, shareholders, company law, corporate governance, convergence