MT    MT  KUMMISSJONI TAL-KOMUNITAJIET EWROPEJ 
Brussel 11.10.2004 
KUMM(2004) 651 finali 
  
KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-KUMMISSJON I LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U 
LILL-KUNSILL 
Il-Liġi Ewropea dwar il-Kuntratti u r-revi żjoni ta’ l-acquis: prospettivi g ħall-futur 
 
MT 2   MT 1. I NTRODUZZJONI  
Din il-Komunikazzjoni tistipol a s-segwitu tal-Kummissjoni g ħall-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni ta’ 
l-20031, fid-dawl tar-reazzjonijiet m ill-istituzzjonijiet ta’ l-UE, l-Istati Membri u l-
partijiet interessati. Tispjega kif il-Q afas Komuni ta’ Referenza (QRK) ser ji ġi 
żviluppat biex titjie b il-koerenza ta’ l- acquis  eżistenti u tal-futur, u tistipola pjani 
speċifiċi għall-partijiet relevanti ta’ l- acquis  għall-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur, skond 
il-Politika ta’ Strate ġija tal-Konsumatur 2002-2006. Ti ddeskrivi ukoll attivitajiet 
ippjanati li jikkon ċernaw il-promozzjoni ta’ termini kuntrattwali standard madwar l-
UE u tipproponi li tkompli sse gwi r-riflessjoni fuq l-o pportunità ta’ strument 
fakultattiv. 
Il-Parlament Ewropew (PE)2 u l-Kunsill3 adottaw ri żoluzzjonijiet li jilqg ħu l-Pjan ta’ 
Azzjoni li fih jenfasizzaw il- ħtieġa li jinvolvu l-partijiet ko llha interessati, b’mod 
partikolari fl-elaborazzjoni tal-QRK. Il -PE talab li l-QRK jitlesta sa tmiem l-2006 u 
jiġi introdott mill-aktar fis. Il-Kunsill g ħaraf ukoll is-siwi ta ’ termini kuntrattwali 
ġenerali madwar l-UE żviluppati mill-partijiet kontraenti fir-rispett tad-
dispożizzjonijiet Komunitarji u nazzjonali. Fl-a ħħar, dawn l-istituzzjonijiet sej ħu lill-
Kummissjoni biex tg ħaddi għal aktar riflessjoni dwar strument fakultattiv. 
Sa llum, ġew irċevuti122 kontribuzzjoni g ħall-konsultazzjoni . Il-Kummissjoni, bil-
kunsens ta’ l-awturi, ppublikat  il-kontribuzzjonijiet tag ħhom u taqsira tag ħhhom 4. 
Sabiex jiżguraw l-involviment tal- partijiet interessati, żewġ gruppi ta’ ħidma dwar il-
liġi tal-kuntratti ġew organizzati f’ Ġunju 20035. Grupp ie ħor ta’ ħidma dwar termini 
u kundizzjonijiet standard ġie organizzat f’Jannar 20046. Barra minn hekk, 
konferenza kon ġunta tal-Kummissjoni u l-PE se ħħet f’April 20047. 
2. P ROSPETTIVI G ĦALL-FUTUR  
2.1 It-titjib ta’ l- aqcuis  preżenti u futur (Mi żura I tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni) 
 Il-kontributuri g ħall-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni sostnew il- ħtieġa li titjieb il-kwalità u l-
konsistenza ta’ l- acquis  fil-qasam tal-li ġi dwar il-kuntratti u sa ħaq li l-QRK 
seta’ jikkontribwixxi g ħal dan il-g ħan. Fid-dawl ta’ dan l-appo ġġ sinifikanti, il-
Kummissjoni ser tkompli ssegw i l-elaborazzjoni tal-QRK. 
2.1.1 Ir-rwol ewlieni tal-QRK 
 Il-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni identifika kategoriji differenti ta’ problemi ta’ l-
acquis . L-ewlenin huma: 
                                                 
1 Id-dokumenti kollha li jikkon ċernaw il-li ġi Ewropea fuq il-kuntratti huma  disponibbli fuq is-sit tal-
Kummissjoni: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/s afe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/index_en.htm   
2 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
3 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
4 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
5 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
6 http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/contractlaw/2004workshop_en.htm  
7 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
 
MT 3   MT ● L-użu ta’ termini legali astratti fid-direttivi li jew mhumiex definiti 
jew definiti b’mod ġenerali. 
● Oqsma fejn l-applikazzjoni tad-direttivi ma ssolvix il-problemi fil-
prattika 
● Differenzi bejn li ġijiet nazzjonali ta’ implimentazzjoni li 
jidderivaw mill-u żu ta’ armonizazzjoni minima f’direttivi dwar il-
protezzjoni tal-konsumatur 
● Inkonsistenzi fil-le ġislazzjoni tal-KE dwar il-li ġi tal-kuntratti 
 L-ewwel trid issir g ħażla politika dwar il- ħtieġa li jiġu modifikati d-
direttivi e żistenti sabiex ji ġu indirizzati dawn il-p roblemi. Jekk hekk, il-
Kummissjoni tu ża l-QRK b ħala kaxxa ta’ l-g ħodda fejn me ħtieġ, meta 
jkunu qed ji ġu ppreżentati proposti biex tittejje b il-kwalità u l-koerenza 
ta’ l- acquis  eżistenti u ta’ strumenti legali futuri fil-qasam tal-li ġi dwar il-
kuntratti. Fl-istess ħin, isservi l-g ħan li tissemplifika l- acquis8. Il-QRK, 
ibbażat fuq l- acquis  tal-KE u fuq l-a ħjar soluzzjonijiet misjuba fl-
ordnijiet legali ta’ l-Istati Membri, g ħandu jipprovdi definizzjoni ċara tat-
termini legali, prin ċipji fundamentali u mudell ta’ regoli koerenti tal-li ġi 
dwar il-kuntratti. 
                                                 
8 Din l-inizzjativa hija inklu ża fl-iskop tal-Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni dwar “L-A ġġornament u s-
simplifikazzjoni ta’ l- acquis  Komunitarju” (KOM(2003)71) u g ħandu l-għan li jikseb simplifikazzjoni 
tal-leġislazzjoni. 
 
MT 4   MT  Eżempju: Revi żjoni ta’ l- acquis  tal-konsumatur  
 L-g ħanjiet ewlenin ta l-Kummissjoni jibqg ħu li jkun hemm żieda fil-
kunfidenza tal-konsumatur u tan-negozju fis-suq intern pe rmezz ta’ livell 
għoli komuni ta’ ħarsien tal-konsumatur u l-el iminazzjoni ta’ barrieri tas-
suq intern u simplifikazzjoni regolatorja9. Tmien direttivi tal-
konsumatur10 għandhom ji ġu riveduti biex ji ġi identifikat jekk humiex 
dawn l-g ħanjiet, b’mod partikolari fid-dawl tal-klaw żoli ta’ l-
‘armonizazzjoni minima’ li fihom.  
 Ir-revi żjoni tevalwa sa liema punt id-d irettivi tal-mument, flimkien u 
individwalment, fi l-prattika jkunux la ħqu l-għanjiet tal-Kummissjoni fl-
oqsma tal- ħarsien tal-konsumatur u tas- suq intern. Dan jimplika anali żi 
mhux biss tad-direttiv i fihom infushom i żda tal-mod kif huma applikati u 
s-swieq li fihom joperaw (ji ġifieri t-traspo żizzjoni tal-li ġijiet nazzjonali; 
il-ġurisprudenza; l-awto-regolamentazzjoni; l-infurzar; livelli ta’ 
konformità fil-prattika; u l-i żviluppi fuq livell ta’ prassi kummer ċjali, 
teknoloġija u stennija tal-konsumatur).  
 B’mod partikolari r-revi żjoni ser te żamina l-mistoqsijiet li ġejjin: 
● Il-livell mitlub mid-direttivi tal- ħarsien tal-konsumatur huwa g ħoli 
biżżejjed sabiex ji żgura l-kunfidenza tal-konsumatur? 
● Il-livell ta’ armonizzazzjoni huwa suffi ċjenti biex jelimina l-
barrieri tas-suq intern u d-dist orsjonijiet fil-kompetizzjoni g ħall-
kummerċ u l-konsumatur?  
● Il-livell ta’ regolamentazzjoni j żomm il-pi żijiet fuq il-kummer ċ 
għal minimu u jiffa ċilita l-kompetizzjoni? 
● Id-direttivi huma applikati effettivament?  
● Globalment, hemm xi differe nzi, inkonsistenzi jew koin ċidenzi 
sinifikanti bejn it-tmien direttivi?  
● Liema minn dawn id-direttivi g ħandhom jing ħataw l-og ħla priorità 
għar-riformi? 
 Jinqalg ħu ukoll ċerti mistoqsijiet spe ċifiċi: 
● L-iskop tad-direttivi huwa korrett? Huma xierqa l- ħtiġijiet ta' l- 
informazzjoni pre-kontrattwali?  
● It-tul ta’ żmien u l-modalitajiet tal-pe rjodi ta’ revoka fid-direttivi 
dwar il-bejg ħ bieb bieb, it- timeshare  u l-bejg ħ mill-bog ħod 
għandhom ji ġu t-tnejn armonizzati kompletament u standardizzati 
                                                 
9 ĠU C 137, tat-8.6.2002, p. 2 
10 Id-Direttivi 85/577, 90/314, 93/13, 94/47, 97/7, 98/6; 98/27, 99/44  
 
MT 5   MT bejn id-direttivi?  
● Hemm ħtieġa li l-liġi dwar il-kuntratti ti ġi aktar armonizzata?  
● Hemm skop li ji ġu inkorporati u ħud mid-direttivi sabiex jitnaqqsu 
l-inkonsistenzi bejniethom? 
 Sa biex ji ġi revedut l- acquis  tal-konsumatur, numru ta’ azzjonijiet huma 
ppjanati: 
● L-iżvilupp ta’ database  pubblika ta’ l- acquis , li tinkludi 
leġislazzjoni nazzjonali u ġurisprudenza. Dan il-pro ġett għandu 
ukoll jipprovdi anali żi komparattiva ta’ l-implimentazzjoni tad-
direttivi fil-prattika.  
● It-twaqqif ta’ grupp ta’ ħidma permanenti ta’ l-Istati Membri li 
jaġixxu bħala forum g ħal skambju ta’ informazzjoni u dibattitu 
dwar l-implimentazzjoni ta’ l- acquis .  
● Rapporti ta’ implimentazzjoni dwar  id-direttivi fuq l-indikazzjoni 
tal-prezz, il-bejg ħ mill-bog ħod, il-bejg ħ ta’ merkanzija destinata 
għall-konsumatur u in ġunzjonijiet. Ir-rapporti jikkonsultaw ukoll 
lill-partijiet interess ati u jkunu segwiti minn seminars xierqa.  
 Fid-dawl tat-tlestija tal-pro ġett u r-rapporti, il-Kummissjoni tqis il- ħtieġa 
ta’ proposti biex ji ġu emendati d-direttivi e żistenti. Din il-fa żi dianjostika 
mistennija li titlesta sa l-a ħħar ta’ l-2006. Kull proposta trid tqis ixog ħol 
fuq l-abbozz tal-QRK, kif xieraq, u trid tkun akkumpanjata valutazzjonijiet ta’ l-impatt regolatorji xierqa. 
 Ikun mixtieq ukoll li l-Kunsill u l-PE jkunu jistg ħu jużaw il-QRK meta 
jqiegħdu fuq il-mejda emendi g ħall-proposti tal-Ku mmissjoni. Tali u żu 
tal-QRK ikun konsistenti ma’ l-g ħan kondivi ż li tinkiseb le ġislazzjoni ta’ 
l-UE11 ta’ kwalità g ħolja u l-weg ħda ta’ l-istituzzjonijiet Ewropej li 
jippromwovu is-sempli ċità, l-kjarezza u l-konsistenza tal-le ġislazzjoni ta’ 
l-UE12.  
2.1.2 Rwoli o ħra possibli tal-QRK 
 Il-le ġislaturi nazzjonali jkunu jistg ħu jużaw il-QRK fit-traspo żizzjoni ta’ 
direttivi ta’ l-UE fil-qasam tal-li ġi dwar il-kuntratti fil-le ġislazzjoni 
nazzjonali. Ikunu jistg ħu wkoll jag ħmlu riferiment g ħall-QRK meta 
jadottaw le ġislazzjoni f’oqsma tal-li ġi tal-kuntratti li mhumiex regolati 
fuq il-livell tal-Komunità. 
 Rwol ie ħor, issuġġerit mill-PE, huwa l-u żu possibli tal-QRK fl-arbitra ġġ. 
L-arbitri jkollhom il-possibiltà li jirreferu g ħall-QRK biex tinstab 
                                                 
11 Pjan ta’ Azzjoni “Is-simplifik azzjoni u t-titjib tar-regolamentazzj oni ambjentali’ (KOM(2002) 278) 
12 Ftehim Interistituzzjonali dwar l-G ħamil ta’ Li ġi Aħjar (ĠU 2003/C 321/01) 
 
MT 6   MT soluzzjoni mhux influwenzata u bbilan ċjata biex ji ġu riżolti kunflitti li 
jinħolqu bejn il-partijiet kontraenti. 
 Il-QRK jista’ ukoll ikollu rwol fl-i żvilupp ta’ mi żuri oħra identifikati fil-
Pjan ta’ Azzjoni. Il-PE, per e żempju, indika li l-QRK jkun jista’ ji ġi 
żviluppat f’korp ta’ termini standard ta’ kuntratti li jkunu disponibbli 
għal min je żerċita l-professjoni legali. Il -Kummissjoni taqbel li jkun 
xieraq li jintu ża l-QRK bil-mod l-aktar estens iv possibbli fit-twettiq tal-
Miżura II tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni. Minbarra  dan, jista’ jkun li l-QRK iservi 
bħala l-bażi għall-iżvilupp ta’ strument fakultattiv possibbli. 
 Il-Kummissjoni qed uko ll tikkunsidra li tissu ġġerixxi li tintegra l-QRK 
fil-kuntratti konklu żi mal-kuntratturi tag ħha. Il-QRK jista’ ukoll jintu ża 
b’żjieda mal-li ġi nazzjonali applikabbli. Il-Kummissjoni tinkura ġġixxi 
wkoll l-istituzzjonijiet l-o ħra u l-korpi biex ju żaw il-QRK meta 
jikkonkludu kuntratti ma’ pa rtijiet terzi  
 Fl-a ħħar il-QRK, ibba żat fuq l- acquis  tal-KE u l-a ħjar soluzzjonijiet 
identifikati b ħala komuni g ħal-liġi tal-kuntratti ta’ l -Istati Membri, taf 
tnebbaħ lill-Qorti Ewropea tal- Ġustizzja meta tinterpreta l- acquis  dwar 
il-liġi tal-kuntratti.  
2.1.3 In-natura legali tal-QRK 
 Bosta kontributuri g ħall-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni qajm u l-mistoqsija tan-natura 
legali tal-QRK. Il-firxa ta’ l-id eat proposti tvarja minn att legali tal-
Kunsill u tal-PE li jorbot, g ħal strument adottat mill-Kummissjoni li ma 
jorbotx. 
 Il-Kummissjoni f’dan l-istadju tq is illi l-QRK huwa strument li ma 
jorbotx. Madankollu, il-Kummissjoni ser tikkonsulta estensivament il-
partijiet kollha interessati meta tela bora l-QRK. F’dak il-kuntest din il-
mistoqsija tista’ ter ġa’ titqajjem. 
2.2 Il-promozzjoni ta’ l-u żu ta’ termini standard u kundizzjonijiet madwar l-
UE (Miżura II tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni) 
2.2.1 Is-su ġġerimenti tal-Kummissjoni fil-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni 
 It-tieni mi żura fittxet li tippromwovi l-i żvilupp min-na ħa tal-privati ta’ 
Termini u Kundizzjonijiet Standard (TKS) g ħall-użu madwar l-Ewropa 
milli biss f’ordni legali wie ħed. Bħalissa, il-partijiet spiss ja ħsbu li jridu 
jużaw settijiet differenti tat-TKS, min ħabba fl-e żistenza ta’ ħtiġijiet 
obbligatorji li jvarjaw fil-li ġijiet ta’ l-Istati Membri, jew fil-li ġi tal-
kuntratti jew f’oqsma o ħra tal-liġi (eż. differenzi fil-li ġi dwar id-delitti 
jistgħu jidhru li je ħtieġu termini kuntrattwali f uq kwistjonijiet ta’ 
responsabbilitajiet). Mada nkollu, hemm numru ta’ e żempji ta’ TKS 
madwar l-UE li qed ji ġu użati b’suċċess, li jkopru kw istjonijiet li 
tipikament iridu ji ġu jitqiesu f’kuntratti o ħra ukoll. 
 
MT 7   MT  Soluzzjonijiet a ċċettabli madwar l-UE g ħandhom suppost ikunu wkoll 
disponibbli f'ka żijiet oħra fejn it-TKS ta’ pajji ż speċifiku qed ikunu u żati 
fil-mument. Jidher li hemm nuqqas ta’ g ħarfien tad-disponibbiltà ta’ 
soluzzjonijiet b ħal dawn madwar l-UE, g ħalhekk il-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni 
ssuġġerixxa inizjattiva komprensiva biex i żżid l-għarfien tal-
possibilitajiet e żistenti. 
2.2.2 Ir-reazzjonijiet mill-pa rtijiet interessati u o ħrajn 
 Uħud minn dawk li wie ġbu laqgħu tajjeb l-istrate ġija li ġiet issuġġerita, 
iżda oħrajn kienu xetti ċi dwar l-involviment tal-Kummissjoni f’dan il-
qasam għax ħasbu li l-Kummissjoni ppjanat li t ħejji t-TKS hi stess. Din 
ċertament mhux l-intenzjoni tal- Kummissjoni: l-kontenut tat-TKS huwa 
għal dawk li jie ħdu sehem fis-swieq li jiddeterminaw u d-de ċiżjoni jekk 
jużawx itTKS hija ukoll wa ħda għall-operaturi ekonomi ċi. Il-
Kummissjoni g ħandha biss l-intenzjoni li ta ġixxi bħala faċilitatur u 
“sensar onest”, ji ġifieri li jġib lill-partijiet inte ressati flimkien ming ħajr 
ma jindaħal fis-sustanza. 
 Il-kwistjonijiet kienu es plorati aktar fi grupp ta’ ħidma fid-19 ta’ Jannar 
200413 fejn l-enfa żi kienet fuq l-u żu tat-TKS fi transazzjonijiet minn 
negozju g ħal negozju (B2B) kif ukoll f’ kuntratti bejn is-settur tan-
negozju u l-gvern (B2G). Intla ħqu żewġ konklużjonijiet ewlenin: 
 L-ewwel, kien hemm fehma ġenerali li t-TKS madwar l-UE setg ħu 
jintużaw b’suċċess f’numru sinifikanti ta’ ka żijiet, minkejja l-fatt li u ħud 
mill-ostakli legali u amministrattivi jibqg ħu f’ċertu oqsma. Inventarju ta’ 
l-agħar ostakoli g ħandu jitfassal mill-Kummissjoni bl-g ħajnuna tal-
partijiet interessati. 
 It-tieni, kien miftiehem li żjieda fl-g ħarfien tal-possibilitajiet e żistenti, 
b’mod partikolari billi jipprovdu in formazzjoni strutturata dwar e żempji 
ta’ suċċess tat-TKS madwar l-UE fuq websajt tal-Kumm issjoni tkun ħaġa 
siewja.  
2.2.3 Azzjonijiet: websajt li tippromwovi l-i żvilupp u l-u żu tat-TKS madwar l-
UE 
 Fid-dawl ta’ dawn il-kontribuzzj onijiet, il-Kummissjoni kkonkludiet li 
jkun hemm benefi ċċji biż-żjieda fl-għarfien tal-possibilitajiet e żistenti. Il-
Kummissjoni ser tag ħfas fuq it-TKS marbuta ma’ transazzjonijiet B2B u 
B2G. 
 Fid-dawl ta’ l-evalwazzjoni ta’ dawn l-azzjonijiet, mi żuri oħra jistgħu 
jiġu proposti u aktar konsid erazzjoni tista’ ting ħata għall-estensjoni ta’ 
xogħolu. 
                                                 
13 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 6 
 
MT 8   MT 2.2.3.1 Pjattaforma g ħal tpartit ta’ informazzj oni dwar it-TKS madwar 
l-UE eżistenti u ippjanati 
 Il-Kummissjoni ser tilqa’  websajt, li fih il-parte ċipanti fis-swieq 
ikunu jistg ħu jpartu informazzjoni dwar TKS madwar l-UE li huma 
qegħdin jużaw attwalment jew jippjanaw g ħall-iżvilupp. L-
informazzjoni se tkun ippubblikata ta ħt ir-responsabbilità unika tal-
partijiet li jippublikawha. Tali pubblikazzjoni ma tikkostitwix 
għarfien tal-validità legali jew kummer ċjali ta’ dawk l-TKS. Qabel 
ma tippro ċedi, il-Kummissjoni se tikkonsulta  l-partijiet interessati li 
jiskbu informazzjoni dwar pre ċiżament liema informazzjoni 
jeħtieġu l-utenti u liema informazzjoni l-organizzaturi huma lesti li 
jippublikaw fis-sit.  
 L-informazzjoni g ħandha tag ħti l-opportunità lill-partijiet li jevitaw 
l-iżbalji u jirrepetu l-esperjenzi po żittivi ta’ dawk li marru qabel. 
Għalhekk, il-Kummissjoni m’g ħandiex, l-intenzjoni li tiddefinixxi 
lilha nfusha b ħala sett ta’ “l-a ħjar prassi”.  
2.2.3.2 Linji ta’ gwida dwar ir-rel azzjoni bejn ir-regoli tal-
kompetizzjoni u t-TKS madwar l-UE 
 F’dan l-istadju, il-Kummissjoni m’g ħandiex l-intenzjoni li 
tippubblika linji ta’ gwida se parati relatati ma’ l-i żvilupp u l-u żu 
tat-TKS. Di ġà ġibdet l-attenzjoni g ħall-fatt li ġeneralment tie ħu 
atittudni po żittiva lejn ftehim li jipprom wovi l-interpenetrazzjoni 
ekonomika fis-suq komuni u li tinkora ġġixxi l-iżvilupp ta’ swieq 
ġodda u kundizzjonijiet a ħjar għall-provvista14. Għalkemm ftehim 
fuq l-iżvilupp jew l-u żu tat-TKS madwar l-UE sejjer g ħalhekk jiġi 
ġeneralment ikkunsidrat po żittivament, f’ ċertu każijiet ftehim jew 
prassi miftiehma g ħall-użu tat-TKS jaf ikun inkompatibbli mar-
regoli tal-kompetizzjoni. 
 F’dan ir-rigward il-Kummissjoni ti ġbed l-attenzjoni g ħal “Linji ta’ 
Gwida dwar l-applikabilità ta’ l-Artikolu 81 tat-Trattta KE g ħal 
ftehim ta’ kooperazzjoni orizzontali”15, b’mod partikolari t-taqsima 
6 li tistabbilixxi linji ta ’ gwida dwar ftehim g ħall-
istandardizzazzjoni. G ħalkemm ma japplikawx spe ċifikament g ħal 
ftehim dwar it-TKS, il-partijiet jistg ħu jużawhom biex isibu gwida 
sabiex jevitaw problemi meta jiftiehmu li ju żaw it-TKS. 
2.2.3.3 L-identifikazzjoni ta’ ostakoli le ġislattivi g ħall-użu tat-TKS 
madwar l-UE 
 Il-Kummissjoni ser te żamina, flimkien mal-partijiet interessati, 
jekk, u jekk hu hekk, liema ostakoli le ġislattivi je żistu fl-Istati 
Membri g ħat-TKS madwar l-UE, bil-g ħan li teliminahom fejn 
meħtieġ u xieraq. Dan jista’ jsir permezz ta’ azzjoni volontarja 
                                                 
14 In-Nota tal-Kummissjoni Nru 2001/C 3/02, ( ĠU C3/2 tas-6 ta’ Jannar 2001) punt 169 
15 Ibid. 
 
MT 9   MT mill-Istati Membri kkon ċernati, pro ċeduri ta’ ksur mill-
Kummissjoni fejn l-ostakoli huma ksur tal-li ġi ta’ l-UE, jew azzjoni 
oħra ta’ l-UE, b ħal miżuri leġislattivi, fejn m’humiex.  
 L-ewwelnett il-Kummissjoni ser torganizza st ħarriġ dwar dan wara 
konsultazzjoni mal-partijiet inte ressati dwar il-kontenut u l-
istruttura, sabiex ti żgura li l-ist ħarriġ jiffoka fuq aspetti relevanti 
għall-parteċipanti fis-suq. 
2.3 Miżura speċifika mhux settorjali – St rument fakultattiv fil-li ġi Ewropea 
tal-kuntratti (Mi żura III tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni) 
 Il-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni kkonkluda, inter alia , li f’dan l-istadju m’hemmx 
indikazzjonijiet li l-istrate ġija settorjali segwita s’issa to ħloq problemi jew li 
għandha tiġi abbandunata. Madankollu tqies xieraq li ji ġi eżaminat jekk mi żuri 
speċifiċi mhux settorjali b ħal mhu strument opzjonali jistg ħux jintalbu sabiex 
isolvu problemi fil-qasam tal-li ġi kuntrattwali Ewropea. 
 Il-Kummissjoni bi ħsiebha tkompli dan il-pro ċess parallelament max-xog ħol ta’ 
żvilupp tal-QRK filwaqt li tie ħu in konsiderazzjoni l-kummenti li r ċeviet s’issa 
mill-partijiet interessati dwar il-preferenzi tag ħhom għall-parametri ta’ kull 
strument tali, jekk ikun hemm il-b żonn ta’ dan. Il-pro ċess ta’ l-i żvilupp tal- 
QRK u b’mod partikolari l-konsultazzj oni tal-partijiet interessati jistg ħu 
jipprovdu informazzjoni relevanti f’dan ir-rigward. 
 Il-Kummissjoni ser tistabbilixxi okka żjonijiet spe ċifiċi għat-tpartit ta’ 
informazzjoni dwar l-opportunità ta’ tali strument. G ħalkemm huwa prematur 
li wieħed jispekula dwar ir-ri żultat possibbli minn din ir-riflessjoni, huwa 
importanti li ji ġi spjegat li la hija l-intenzjo ni tal-Kummissjoni li tipproponi 
“Kodiċi Ċivili Ewropew” li jarmonizza l-li ġi tal-kuntratti ta’ l- Istati Membri, u 
lanqas m’g ħandhom ir-riflessjon ijiet jitqiesu b ħallikieku qed ipo ġġu fid-dubju 
l-istrateġiji tal-ġurnata fil-promozzjoni ta ċ-ċirkolazzjoni ħielsa fuq il-ba żi ta’ 
soluzzjonijiet flessibli u effi ċjenti.  
 Numru ta’ paramentri g ħar-riflessjoni dwar il-b żonn ta’ strument kienu 
determinati fuq il-ba żi tal-kontribuzzjonijiet ta ’ Pjan ta’ Azzjoni u l-
kunsiderazzjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni nfisha. Dawn jinkludu l- ħtieġa li jitiqesu 
d-differenzi bejn transazzjonijiet mal-kons umaturi u dawk bejn in-negozji jew 
ma’ l-awtoritajiet pubbbli ċi, il-grad ta’ soluzzjonijiet o ħra ġa disponibbli, 
inklużi it-TKS madwar l-UE, u l-b żonn li jiġu rrispettati l-kulturi legali u 
amministrattivi differenti fl-Istati Membri. Dawn il-parametri g ħandhom b żonn 
jitqiesu waqt id-diskussjoni futura dwar l-opportunità ta’ dan l-istrument. U ħud 
minn dawn il-paramentri huma mfissra fl-Anness II. 
 Minbarra dan, jekk ji ġu identifikati problemi li je ħtieġu soluzzjonijiet fuq livell 
ta’ l-UE, il-Kummissjoni jkollha tippro ċedi għal evalwazzjoni ta’ impatt esti ż 
sabiex tiddetermina n-natura u l-kon tenut ta’ dawk is-soluzzjonijiet. 
 
MT 10   MT 3. T ĦEJJIJA  U ELABORAZZJONI TAL -QAFAS KOMUNI TA ’ REFERENZA  
3.1 Tħejjija: ri ċerka u parte ċipazzjoni ta’ istituzzjo nijiet ta’ l-UE, Stati 
Membri u partijiet interessati o ħra 
3.1.1 Deskrizzjoni fil-qosor  Sabiex ji żguraw li l-QRK huwa ta’ kwalità g ħolja, li-Kummissjoni ser 
tiffinanzja tliet snin ta’ ri ċerka taħt is-Sitt Programm ta’ Qafas g ħar-
riċerka u l-i żvilupp teknolo ġiku
16. Proposti g ħar-riċerka ġew evalwati u 
x-xogħol huwa mistenni li jibda dalwaqt.  
 Sa l-2007, ir-ri ċerkaturi huma mistennija jippre żentaw rapport finali li 
jkun jipprovdi l-elementi kollha me ħtieġa għall-elaborazzjoni tal-QRK 
mill-Kummissjoni. G ħalhekk ser tinkludi abbozz tal-QRK li r-ri ċerkaturi 
jemmnu li huwa xieraq g ħall-għanjiet stipulati fil-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni.  
3.1.2 Il-parte ċipazzjoni tal-partijiet interessati 
 Il-parte ċipazzjoni tal-partijiet interessati fil-pro ċess hijaa essenzjali, kif 
kien enfasizzat min dawk kollha li rrispondew g ħall-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni. 
 Fil-konferenza kon ġunta tal-PE/Kummissjoni ta’ April 2004, erba’ 
kriterji ewlenin g ħall–parteċipazzjoni b’su ċċess ġew proposti u appo ġjati: 
• Id-diversità tat-tradizzjonijiet legali: trid titqies il-firxa tat- 
tradizzjonijiet legali differenti fl-UE. 
• Il-bilan ċ ta’ interessi ekonomi ċi: iridu jitqiesu l-interessi ta’ firxa 
wiesgħa ta’ negozji f’setturi ekonomi ċi diversi mill-SMEs g ħall- 
multi-nazzjonali, kif ukoll il-konsumaturi u min je żerċita l-
professjoni legali; 
• Impenn: il-partijiet interessati g ħandhom jiddedikaw ri żorsi reali 
sabiex jipprovdu kontribut kostanti u konkret. 
• Il-kompetenza teknika: sabiex ji ġu pprovduti feedback  dettaljat u 
sfida għar-riċerkaturi akkademi ċi. 
 Dawn il-kriterji se j itqiesu waqt li jkunu qed ji ġu stabbiliti l-istrutturi 
spjegati hawn ta ħt. L-istrutturi fl-ewwel modulu jiffurmaw parti mill-
ftehim bejn il-Kummissjoni u r-ri ċerkaturi: 
 L-ewwel modulu: il -kontribut tekniku 
• Il-Kummissjoni ser tistabbilixxi netwerk ta’ esperti tal-partijiet 
interessati sabiex jag ħtu kontribuzzjoni regola ri u dettaljata g ħax-
xogħol preparatorju ta’ ri ċerka. 
                                                 
16 Id-De ċiżjoni Nru 1513/2002/KE ( ĠU L 232, 29.8.2002 p. 1) 
 
MT 11   MT • Gruppi ta’ ħidma regolari dwar it-temi kollha tar-ri ċerka se jkunu 
organizzati sabiex jag ħmluha possibli g ħall-partijiet interessati li 
jidentifikaw kwistjonijiet pratti ċi li għandhom ji ġu kkunsidrati u 
sabiex jag ħtu l-f eedback . Dwar kull su ġġett, ser ikun hemm gruppi 
ta’ ħidma ħalli l-partijiet interessati u l-Kummissjoni jkunu jistg ħu 
jsegwu l-evoluzzjoni tax-xog ħolijiet. Is-su ġġetti tal-grupp ta’ 
ħidma se jkunu spe ċifiċi u n-numru ta’ parte ċipanti għal kull grupp 
ta’ ħidma ikun limitat sabiex ji żgura l-effi ċjenza.  
• Dan il-pro ċess ser ikun sostnut minn websajt iddedikat, a ċċessibbli 
għar-riċerkaturi, esperti tal-partijiet interessati, il-Kummissjoni, 
esperti ta’ l-Istati Membri u l-PE. L-abbozzi se jkunu a ġġornati fuq 
is-sajt hekk kif ir-ri ċerka tevolvi u fid-da wl tal-kummenti tal-
partijiet interessati. 
• Darba li d-de ċiżjonijiet dwar kif g ħandhom jinqasmu l-aspetti 
differenti jkunu ttie ħedu, jaf ikun siewi li ji ġu stabbiliti linji ta’ 
gwida għall-operazzjoni tal-modulu tekniku, sabiex ji ġi żgurat li r-
riċerkaturi u l-partijiet interessati ikollhom g ħarfien ċar u kondivi ż 
tal-proċess. Dawn jafu jinkl udu struttura biex ti żgura 
koordinazzjoni totali tal-kontribut  tal-partijiet interessati, b ħal 
grupp ta’ ġestjoni li jinvolvi kemm membri tar-ri ċerka akkademika 
kif ukoll esperti tal-partijiet interessati. 
 It-tieni modulu:anali żi u reviżjoni politika 
 Il-Kummissjoni ser: 
• Tipprovdi a ġġornamenti regolari lill-PE u l-Kunsill dwar il-
progress, kif talbu 
• Torganizza regolarment avvenimenti ta’ l-og ħla livell li jinvolvu l-
PE u l-Istati Membri 
• Twaqqaf grupp ta’ ħidma ta’ esperti mill-Istati Membri sabiex 
jiżguraw li jkunu infurmati dwar il- progress u jkollhom opportunità 
li jagħtu feedback . 
 Barra minn hekk, i ż-żewġ moduli jistg ħu jingħaqdu flimkien 
perjodikament f’ forum ta’ diskussj oni, sabiex jippermettu diskussjoni 
f’kuntest usa’. 
3.1.3 Stuttura u kontenut possibli tal-QRK 
 Ir-ri ċerka li t ħejji l-QRK g ħandha l-g ħan li tidentifika l-a ħjar 
soluzzjonijiet, billi tqis il-li ġijiet nazzjonali tal- kuntratti (kemm il-
każistika u l-prassi stabbilita), l- acquis  tal-KE u strumenti internazzjonali 
relevanti, b’mod partikolari il-K onvenzjoni tan-NU dwar Kuntratti g ħall-
Bejgħ Internazzjonali ta’ O ġġetti ta’ l-1980. Materjal ie ħor eżistenti 
huwa relevanti ukoll u ser jitqies, waqt li ji żgura li l-QRK huwa tajjeb 
għar-rekqiżiti speċifiċi tal-UE. 
 
MT 12   MT  L-istruttura prevista g ħall-QRK (e żempju għal struttura possibli hu 
pprovdut fl-Anness I) hi li l- ewwel tistipola l-prin ċipji fundamentali 
komuni tal-li ġi tal-kuntratti, inklu ż gwida għal meta e ċċezzjonijiet g ħal 
prinċipji fundamentali tali jafu jkunu rikjesti. It-tieni, dawk il-prin ċipji 
fundamentali jkunu sostnuti minn definizzjonijiet ta’ kun ċetti ewlenin. It-
tielet, il-prin ċipji u d-definizzjonijiet ikunu kompletati minn regoli 
mudell, li jiffurmaw il-parti l-kbira tal-QRK. Jistg ħu jiġu previsti 
distinzjoni bejn ir-regoli mudell applikabbli g ħal kuntratti konklu żi bejn 
negozji u persuni privati u regoli ta’ mudell applikabbli g ħal kuntratti 
konklużi bejn negozju u konsumatur . 
 Uħud minn dawk li wie ġbu identifikaw żoni li huma sostnew li setg ħu 
jiġu inklużi fil-QRK. Ħafna minn dawn jirrelataw mal-kun ċetti ġenerali, 
li mhumiex spe ċifiċi għal tipi partikolari ta ’ kuntratt jew partijiet 
kontraenti. Il-kriterju primarju li jiddetermina liema zoni huma koperti 
għandu jkun l-utilità f’termini ta’ żjieda fil-koerenza ta’ l- acquis . 
 Madankollu, żewġ tipi ta’ kuntratti li kienu spe ċifikament msemmija 
kienu kuntratti g ħal konsumatur u kuntratti ta’ assigurazzjoni. Il-
Kummissjoni tist enna li t-t ħejjija tal-QRK tag ħti attenzjoni spe ċifika lil 
dawn iż-żewġ oqsma. Oqsma o ħra speċifikament msemmija li l-QRK 
seta’ jkopri kienu l-kuntratti ta’ bejg ħ u servizzi u klaw żoli relatati ma ż-
żamma tat-titlu u t-trasferiment tat-titlu ta’ l-o ġġetti.  
 Il-Kummissjoni ukoll qieset studju li tnieda, wara t-talbiet mill-PE u l-
Kunsill, biex je żamina jekk inqalg ħux problemi mid-differenzi fl-
interazzjoni bejn il-li ġi tal-kuntratti u l-li ġi tar-responsabbiltà 
extrakuntrattwali ( tort law ), u bejn il-li ġi tal-kuntratti u l-li ġi tal-
proprjetà17. Fid-dawl ta’ dan l-istudj u, l-Kummissjoni kkonkludiet li 
m’hemm l-ebda problema rilevanti li ġejja mid-differenzi fl-interazzjoni 
bejn il-li ġi tal-kuntratti u l-li ġi tad-delitti fl-Istati Membri differenti 
Problemi aktar sinifikanti jidher li jin ħolqu mill-interazzjonijiet differenti 
bejn il-liġi tal-kuntratti u l-proprjetà fl-Istati Membri. It-t ħejjija tal-QRK 
għanfha tqis kif issolvi dawn il-problemi, kemm hemm b żonn biex 
jittejjeb l- acquis  preżenti u futur. 
3.2 Elaborazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni tal-Qafas Komuni ta’ Referenza 
3.2.1 Kongruenza ma’ l-g ħanijiet tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni 
 Il-Kummissjoni mhux mar buta mar-rapport finali tar-ri ċerkaturi u ser 
temendah fejn me ħtieġ sabiex tikseb l-g ħanjiet tal-Pjan ta’ Azzjoni. 
3.2.2 Test tal-prattikabilità 
 Fl-evalwazzjoni tag ħha tar-rapport finali tar-ri ċerkaturi, il-Kummissjoni 
ser tiżgura li l-abbozz QRK huwa su ġġett għal test ta’ prattikabilità fuq 
il-bażi ta’ eżempji konkreti g ħall-użi antiċipati mill-QRK. 
                                                 
17 Ara nota ta’ qieg ħ il-paġna 1 
 
MT 13   MT  L-ewwelnett dan ikun jinvolvi l-veri fika li l-abbozz tal-QRK ikun xieraq 
għall-użu fit-titjib ta’ l- acquis  u t-tħejjija tal-le ġislazzjoni. Dan jista’ 
jfisser l-u żu ta’ l-abbozz QRK f’proposta biex timmodifika direttiva 
eżistenti.  
 Dan jista’ ise ħħ, per eżempju, fil-kuntest tal-pjan ijiet tal-Kummissjoni 
biex jirrivedu l- acquis  tal-liġi tal-konsumatur u f’kull azzjoni li tirri żulta 
mir-reviżjoni tad-Direttiva 2000/35/KE g ħal ġlieda kontra ħlasijiet tard fi 
transazzjonijiet kummer ċjali18. 
 Kull esperjenza utli li wie ħed jista’ jitg ħallem se ti ġi inkorporata qabel l-
adozzjoni tal-QRK finali tal-Kummissjoni. 
 It-tieni, l-abbozz QRK jaf ikun u żat minn istituzzjonijiet o ħra fuq prova. 
Din il-fażi taf ukoll tinvolvi li wie ħed jistaqsi lill-Istati Membri biex 
jeżaminaw it-transpo żizzjoni ta’ kampjun ta’ le ġislazzjoni e żistenti u 
jikkunsidraw sa liema punt l-abbozz ikun ikkontribwixxa g ħalih. Il-
kapaċità ta’ l-abbozz tal-QRK g ħall-użu mal-Mi żuri II u III, g ħal 
darb’oħra bl-użu ta’ eżempji pratti ċi, jaf ukoll ikun irid ji ġi ttestjat. Modi 
biex tiċċekkja l-kapa ċità ta’ l-abbozz QRK b ħala għodda fl-arbitrazzjoni 
internazzjonali jew fir-re lazzjonijiet kuntra ttwali tal-Komunità nfusha 
ukoll jkunu mfitxxija. 
3.2.3 Konsultazzjoni dwar il-QRK tal-Kummissjoni 
 Dan il-pro ċess elaborattiv ser jirri żulta f’ QRK tal-Kummissjoni li se ji ħi 
ppreżentat għal konsultazzjoni finali. Il-PE, il-Kunsill u l-Istati Membri 
se jkunu mistiedna biex je żaminaw ir-rapport finali tar-ri ċerkaturi u l-
evalwazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni. Grupp ta’ ħidma interistituzzjonali jaf 
ukoll isir u żu minnu biex ji ġi diskuss l-u żu tal-QRK matul il-pro ċess 
leġislattiv. Konsultazzjoni ta’ l-Istati Membri jista’ jitkompla permezz ta’ 
l-istess grupp ta’ ħidma ta’ esperti nazzjonali li ser isegwu x-xog ħol ta’ 
tħejjija. 
. Il-pass li jmiss t kun konsultazzjoni miftu ħa fil-forma ta’ White Paper , li 
tagħti lill-partijiet in teressati l-opportunità  li jikkontribwixxu. G ħal dan 
il-għan, il-QRK tal-Kummissjoni se  jkun tradott fil-lingwi uffi ċjali kollha 
ta’ l-UE. Il-partijiet interessati se jkollhom g ħallinqas sitt xhur biex 
jikkummentaw fuq l-abbozz tal-Ku mmissjoni. Il-konsultazzjoni tag ħti 
lok għal kunsiderazzjoni de ttaljata dwar il-konte nut tal-QRK u tipprovdi 
opportunità biex tindirizza d-differenzi bejn il-ver żjonijiet lingwisti ċi, 
biex tiżgura li l-ver żjoni finali tkun kompatibbli kollha kemm hi u 
miftiehma b’mod ċar fil-lingwi kollha. 
3.2.4 Adozzjoni tal-QRK mill-Kummissjoni 
 L-adozzjoni tal-QRK mill-Kummissjoni hija prevista g ħall-2009. Il-QRK 
ikun ippubblikat fil-wisa’. Inklu ż fil-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta’ l-Unjoni 
                                                 
18 ĠU L 200, tat-8.8.2000, p. 35 
 
MT 14   MT Ewropea u rivedut kif xieraq. Mekkani żmi għall-aġġornament tal-QRK 
ikunu identifikati.  
 
MT 15   MT ANNEX I  
Possible structure of the QRK 
The main goal of the QRK is to serve as a tool box for the Commission when preparing 
proposals, both for reviewing the existing acquis  and for new instruments. To that aim, the 
QRK could be divided into three parts: fundamental  principles of contract law; definitions of 
the main relevant abstract legal terms and model rules of contract law. 
CHAPTER I – Principles 
The first part of the QRK could provide some  common fundamental prin ciples of European 
contract law and exceptions for some of these pr inciples, applicable in limited circumstances, 
in particular where a contract is  concluded with a weaker party. 
Example: Principle of contractual freedom; exception: application of mandatory rules; 
Principle of  the binding force of contract ; exception: e.g. right of withdrawal; principle of 
good faith 
CHAPTER II – Definitions 
The second part of the QRK co uld provide some definitions of abstract legal terms of 
European contract law in partic ular where relevant for the EC acquis . 
Examples: definition of contract, damages. Concerning the definition of a contract, the 
definition could for example also explain when a contract should be considered as concluded.  
CHAPTER III – Model rules 
SECTION I – Contract  
1. Conclusion of a contract: i. e. notion of offer, acceptance,  counteroffer, revocation of 
an offer, time of conclusion of a contract. 
2. Form of a contract: i.e. written contract, oral contra ct, electronic contract and 
electronic signature. 
3. Authority of agents: direct  and indirect representation. 
4. Validity: i.e. initial impossibility, incorrect information, fraud, threats. 
5. Interpretation: i.e. general rules of interpretation, reference to all relevant 
circumstances. 
6. Contents and effects: i.e. statements gi ving rise to contractual obligation, implied 
terms, quality of performance, obligation to  deliver the goods / provide the services, 
conformity of the performance with the contract. 
 
MT 16   MT SECTION II  – Pre-contractual obligations 
1. Nature of pre-contractual ob ligations (mandatory or not) 
2. Pre-contractual information obligations:  
a. General/Form: i.e. written information, by any clear and comprehensible way. b. Information to be given before the conc lusion of the contract: i.e. information 
regarding the main charact eristics of goods or servic es, price and additional 
costs, regarding the rights of the consumer, specific information for e-contracts. 
c. Information to be given at the conc lusion of the contract: i.e. information 
regarding the right to  ask for arbitration. 
d. Information to be given after the conclu sion of the contract: i.e. obligation to 
notify any modification of the information. 
SECTION III – Performance / Non-Performance:  
1. General rules: i.e. place and time of performance, performance by a third party, time 
of delivery, place of delivery, costs of performance. 
2. Non-performance and remedies in general: 
a. Non-performance : notion of breach of contract b. Remedies in general: i.e. remedies av ailable, cumulation of remedies, clause 
excluding or restricting remedies. 
3. Particular remedies for non-performance: i. e. right to performance, to terminate the 
contract (right of rescissi on), right of cancellation, right for a price reduction, repair, 
replacement, right to damages and interest.  
SECTION IV – Plurality of parties  
1. Plurality of debtors 2. Plurality of creditors 
SECTION V – Assignment of claims   
1. General principles: i.e. contractual claims  generally assignable, partial assignment, 
form of assignment. 
 
MT 17   MT 2. Effects of assignment as be tween Assignor and A ssignee: i.e. rights  transferred to 
assignee, when assignment takes effects. 
3. Effects of assignment as between Assignee and Debtor: i.e. effect on debtor’s 
obligation, protection of debtor. 
SECTION VI – Substitution of new debtor - Transfer of contract  
1. Substitution of new debtor: i.e. effects of substitution on defences and securities 2. Transfer of contract 
SECTION VII – Prescription  
1. Periods of prescription and their commencement 2. Extension of period 3. Renewal of periods 4. Effects of prescription 
SECTION VIII – Specific rules for contract of sales  
SECTION IX – Specific rules for insurance contracts  
 
MT 18   MT ANNEX II  
Parameters concerning the optional instru ment – For further discussion on the 
opportuneness of this instrument 
This annex presents some parameters concer ning an optional instru ment which should be 
taken into account during the furthe r discussion on its opportuneness.  
1. Concerning the general contex t of an optional instrument: 
The existing legal framework, in particular existing European legislation relating to 
contract law and the ongoing work regard ing the future Re gulation on the law 
applicable to contractual obligations should be taken into account within this 
reflection process. The results of meas ure I regarding the improvement of the acquis  
as well as those of measure II will have to be considered.  
Moreover, an extended impact assessment will have to be carried out regarding this 
measure. Such an exercise implies that , among others, the following questions are 
considered before any decision on the adoption of an optional instrument:  
● What problem(s) are being addressed? 
● What is the overall policy objective,  in terms of the desired impacts? 
● What would happen under a ‘no change’ scenario? 
● What other options are available to m eet the objectives? (eg different types of 
action, more or less ambitious options) 
● How are subsidiarity and pr oportionality taken into account? 
● What are types and the scale of positiv e and negative impacts associated with 
each option – whether economic, social, environmental – and are there tensions/trade offs between them? 
● How can the positive impacts be maximi sed and negative impacts minimised? 
Are any associated measures needed to achieve this? 
● Who is affected? Are any specific groups particularly affected? 
● Are there impacts outside the EU? 
● How will the instrument be implemented and the impact in practice monitored 
and evaluated? 
● What were the views of stakeholders? 
2. Concerning the binding nature of an optional instrument 
In the Action Plan, the Commission pres ented different possible approaches 
concerning the binding nature of an optional instrument. This instrument could either 
be a set of rules on contract law which w ould apply unless its application is excluded 
 
MT 19   MT by the contract of  the parties (“ opt out ”) or a purely optional model which would 
have to be chosen by the parties through a choice of law clause (“ opt in ”). The latter 
would give parties the greatest de gree of contractual freedom.  
Respondents’ positions on this issue were clear, with most favouring an “ opt in ” 
model. The governments which expressed an  opinion on this po int, supported the 
“opt in ” model which they consider being of great importance in  preserving the 
principle of contractual freedom. Businesse s also supported such a voluntary scheme 
and again stressed the importance of the ge neral principle of contractual freedom. 
Further, almost all legal practitioners called for an “ opt in ” solution. Finally, a 
majority of academics seemed also to prefer this solution. 
The Commission shares stakeholders’ view of the importance of the principle of 
contractual freedom and had al ready underlined in the Actio n Plan that the principle 
of “contractual freedom should be one of the guiding principles of such a contract 
law instrument” and that consequently  “ it should be possible for the specific rules of 
such a new instrument, once it has been chosen by the contracting parties as the 
applicable law to their contract, to be adapted by the parties according to their 
needs ”. A limit to contractual freedom would only be acceptable in relation to some 
mandatory provisions contained in the opti onal instrument, particularly provisions 
aiming to protect consumers (see point 4  below). 
In that context, and as suggested by c ontributors, the Commission considers that 
future consultations and de bates should follow this dir ection and should take into 
account the coherence of such  an optional instrument with the Rome Convention of 
1980 on the law applicable to the contractua l obligations and the subsequent Green 
Paper of January 2003 on the conversion of  the Rome Convention into a Community 
instrument and its modernisation. This latt er point was underlined by all respondents. 
Contributors to the Action Plan mentioned di fferent approaches which could be used 
as a basis for further reflection on the que stion of the articulation of an optional 
instrument and the successor of the Ro me Convention (“Rome I”). The first 
suggestion, as put forward by some contri butors, would be to adopt the optional 
instrument as international uniform law. Th e main example of an instrument adopted 
as international uniform law is the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of 
Goods (CISG). Within that  approach, the optional in strument would contain a 
provision relating to its scope19 and Rome I would not then apply to matters 
regulated by the optional instrument. Moreover,  for all the aspects of contract law not 
provided by the optional instrument, th e parties would use the national law 
applicable according to the provisions of Rome I. The second approach presented by 
respondents to ensure such coherence w ould be through Article  20 of the Rome 
Convention20. In this case, the optional instru ment would again contain a clause 
relating to its scope  and Rome I would not then apply to matters regulated by the 
optional instrument. An adaptation of Artic le 20 could be envisaged. Finally, the 
                                                 
19 The scope clause could provide that the optional instru ment is applicable to contracts where at least one 
of the parties is established in a Member State. 
20 Article 20 of the Rome Convention: “This Conventio n shall not affect the application of provisions 
which, in relation to particular matters, lay down ch oice of law rules relating to contractual obligations 
and which are or will be contained in acts of th e institutions of the European Communities or in 
national laws harmonized in implementation of such acts”. 
 
MT 20   MT third possibility suggested by stakeholders w ould be to adopt the optional instrument 
as a Community instrument, which would not  benefit from any priority over Rome I 
and that the parties could c hoose as applicable law to th eir contract on the base of 
Article 321 of the Rome Convention. In this cas e, the optional instrument would not 
contain any scope clause but  only provisions of substa ntive law. As suggested by 
stakeholders, Article 3, pa ragraph 1 could be interpre ted in a way to leave the 
possibility for the parties to choose the opti onal instrument as applicable law to their 
contract. The possibility of  such interpretation could be clarified in Rome I. 
It is clear from the approaches suggeste d by respondents that the works undertaken 
on the conversion of the Rome Convention into a Community instrument and its 
modernisation and those on European Contract Law need to be coherent. Even if it is 
too premature to take any decision on th e opportuneness and adoption of the optional 
instrument, it is important to ensure that  the future Community instrument “Rome I” 
takes into account the possibility of a cohe rent articulation of its provisions with a 
possible future optional instrument. 
3. Concerning the legal form of an optional instrument 
In the Action Plan, the Commi ssion suggested that an optio nal instrument could take 
the legal form of a regulation or a recommendation which would exist in parallel with, rather than instead of, national contract laws. 
As we have seen above, a great majority of respondents expressed its preference for 
an “opt in ” instrument. If this approach is fo llowed, there is significant support for a 
regulation. However, among the academics’ c ontributions, some are in favour of a 
non-binding instrument, for example a recommendation.  
For an “opt-out” instrument a regulation would be more appropriate as, unlike a 
recommendation, it is directly applicable. For an “opt-in” instrument, the choice of 
its legal form will depend on the approach chosen for the articulation of this 
instrument with the successor of the Rome  Convention (see point 1 above). In this 
context, in the light of the three approach es suggested by stakeholders, the form of a 
Regulation may seem more appropriate. 
4. Concerning the content of an optional instrument 
In its Action Plan, the Commission made clear  that in reflecting on the content of a 
non-sector-specific instrument, the future  QRK should be taken into account. The 
content of this QRK would be likely to serve as a basis for the discussions on the optional instrument. On that point, most of the stakeholders agreed with the 
Commission view even if the question of whether the new instrument should cover 
the whole scope of the QRK or only parts of it was left open. 
The question of whether this optional inst rument should contain only some general 
contract law components or also component s for specific contracts which are of a 
                                                
 
21 Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention: “A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. 
The choice must be expressed or demonstrated with r easonable certainty by the te rms of the contract or 
the circumstances of the case. By their choice the par ties can select the law applicable to the whole or a 
part only of the contract. 
 
MT 21   MT great economic importance in the internal mark et, i.e. contract of sale or services, 
was also left open in the Action Plan. Many stakeholders agreed on the fact that an 
optional instrument should contain some pr ovisions of general contract law as well 
as provisions relating to sp ecific contracts which have significant importance for 
cross-border transactions . Concerning provisions of general contract law, 
stakeholders suggested that the optional instrument could contain, for instance, 
provisions relating to the conc lusion, validity and interpretation of contracts as well 
as performance, non-performance and reme dies. Concerning specific contracts, 
several suggestions were made: the optiona l instrument should contain rules relating 
to contract of sale, exchange, donation, leas e, cross-border financ ial transactions and 
contracts of insurance. Some stakeholders also expressed the view that the optional 
instrument should cover areas of law linked to  contract law, i.e. security law, unjust 
enrichment as well as rules on cr edit securities on movable goods.  
Thus, according to these contributions, an optional instrument could have different 
components, i.e. parts relating to genera l contract law and/or certain specific 
contracts. However, the exact content of an optional instrument and which sectors 
should receive special atten tion will need to be further discussed. An optional 
instrument should only contain those areas of contract law, whether general or 
specific to certain contracts, which clear ly contribute to addressing identified 
problems, such as barriers to the smooth functioning of the internal market.  
5. Concerning the scope of  an optional instrument 
Concerning the scope of an optional instru ment, two main issues can be identified 
which would need to be addre ssed through furthe r reflection. 
Firstly, in the Action Plan, the Commissi on raised the question of whether an 
optional instrument should cover solely bu siness-to-business tran sactions or also 
business-to-consumer contracts. In the latt er case, the new instrument would contain 
mandatory provisions concer ning consumer protection.  The Commission underlined 
the importance of the principle of contractua l freedom that allows parties, once they 
have decided to apply the optional instru ment to their contract, to adapt this 
instrument according to their needs. Howeve r, it also noted that this freedom could 
be restricted by the mandatory characte r of some limited provisions of the new 
instrument, e.g. those relati ng to consumer protection.  
In answering this question, it is important to remember th e main goal of the optional 
instrument, namely the smoother functioning of  the internal market. It is clear that 
including business-to-business transactions  would facilitate th at goal. However, 
business-to-consumer transactions are also of great economic importance for the internal market and, to that  extent, their inclus ion would be justif ied. In this case, 
consumers would need to be afforded a suffi ciently high level of protection to ensure 
benefits for the demand-side of the market  (consumers) as well as the supply-side 
(businesses). In that context, most stakeh olders considered that a new instrument 
should apply to business-to-consumer transac tions as well and so include mandatory 
rules to ensure a high leve l of consumer protection.  
Here it should be noted that national ma ndatory rules, applicable on the basis of 
Articles 5 and 7 of the Rome Convention,  can increase transaction costs and 
constitute obstacles to cross-border contract s. In that context, the introduction in the 
 
MT 22   MT optional instrument of mandatory provisions in the meaning of in Articles 5 and 7 of 
the Rome Convention could represent a grea t advantage: the parties, by choosing the 
optional instrument as appli cable law to their contract, would know from the moment 
of the conclusion of the c ontract which mandatory rules are applicable to their 
contractual relationship. That would pr ovide legal certainty in cross border 
transactions and the relevant  providers of services an d goods could market their 
services or products throughout the whole Eu ropean Union using one single contract. 
The optional instrument would then become  a very useful tool for the parties. 
However, in such a situation, it would need to be  certain that, where the parties have 
chosen the optional instrument as applic able law, other national mandatory rules 
would no longer be applicable. That woul d depend on the solution chosen for the 
articulation of the optional instrument  with Rome I (see point 1 above). 
Secondly, the introduction of the business-to-business tran sactions within the scope 
of the optional instrument raises another i ssue. It concerns the articulation of the 
optional instrument and the Vienna Conven tion on the International Sale of Goods 
(CISG). In its Action Plan, the Commission asked for some comments on the scope of the optional instrument in relation to the CISG. Many stakeholders presented their 
view on this issue. All of them agreed on the necessity to ensure coherence between 
an optional instrument and the CISG. However, there was less consensus on how to ensure such coherence: while some consid ered that the optiona l instrument should 
only provide for complementary rules to th e CISG, others proposed that the CISG 
should become part of the optional instrument.  
The question of the relationship between the optional instrument and the CISG 
would depend, on the one hand, on the scope of the optional instrument
22, and, on the 
other hand, on the binding nature of this new instrument, i.e. “ opt in ” or “ opt out ”. 
As noted in point 1, the major ity of respondents favoured an “ opt in ” instrument. In a 
scenario where the optional instrument was an “ opt in ” instrument applicable to 
business-to-business international sa les of goods, by choosing the optional 
instrument as applicable law to their cont ract, the parties would have tacitly excluded 
the application of the CISG on th e base of Article 6 of the CISG23. However, in the 
alternative scenario of an “ opt out ” instrument applicable to business-to-business 
international sales of goods, the problem of  determining the appropriate application 
of the two instruments could be more difficu lt to solve. That would be an argument 
in favour of an “ opt in ” instrument, an approach pref erred so far by stakeholders. 
6. Concerning the legal base of an optional instrument 
In its Action Plan, the Commission launched the reflection on the legal base of a new 
instrument and welcomed comments fr om stakeholders. However, very few 
contributors expressed their view on that issue. While one Member State proposed 
Article 308 of the TEC for an “ opt in ” instrument and Article 95 TEC for an “ opt 
out” scheme, a group of academic lawyers preferred Article 65 TEC.  
                                                 
22 If the optional instrument is not applicable to international sales of goods, there is no problem of 
competition between this optional instrument and the CISG. 
23 Article 6 of the CISG: “The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to 
article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions.” 
 
MT 23   MT The question of the legal base is closely linked with the questions of the legal form 
of the optional instru ment (see point 2 above), of its content (see point 3 above) and 
its scope (see point 4 above). More reflect ions on the important issue of the legal 
base will be necessary within a larger debate on the parameters of an optional 
instrument.