Source: https://it.b-ok.org/book/988525/437857
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 22:37:52
Document Index: 444176413

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 4', 'Art 10', 'Art 16', 'Art 18', 'Art 28', 'Art 1', 'Art 2', 'Art 3', 'Art 4', 'Art 5', 'Art 6', 'Art 7', 'Art 8', 'Art 9', 'Art 10', 'Art 11', 'Art 12', 'Art 13', 'Art 14', 'Art 15', 'Art 16', 'Art 17', 'Art 19', 'Art 20', 'Art 22', 'Art 23', 'Art 24', 'Art 26', 'Art 27', 'Art 28', 'Art 31', 'Art 32', 'Art 4', 'Art 6', 'Art 9', 'Art 12', 'Art 16', 'Art 100', 'Art 101', 'Art 1384', 'Art 40', 'Art 41', 'Art 42', 'Art 66', 'Art 21', 'Art 39', 'Art 1643', 'Art 5', 'Art 6', 'Art 1219', 'Art 132', 'Art 133', 'art. 6']

The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations | John Ahern, William Binchy | download
Pagina principale The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
John Ahern, William Binchy
ISBN 10: 9004171932
ISBN 13: 9789004171930
A. Walton Litz, Molly Weigel
The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to
The Rome II Regulation on the
The Rome II regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations : a new
international litigation regime / edited by John Ahern, William Binchy.
ISBN 978-90-04-17193-0 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Conﬂict of laws—Torts—European Union countries. 2. Conﬂict of laws—Unjust
enrichment—European Union countries. 3. Conﬂict of laws—Torts—Europe. 4. Conﬂict of
laws—Unjust enrichment—Europe. I. Ahern, John. II. Binchy, William.
KJE983.T67R66 2009
340.9’3094—dc22
2009001104
ISBN 978 90 04 17193 0
Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV
incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoﬀ Publishers
and VSP.
Foreword .................................................................................................
List of Contributors ................................................................................
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................... xxi
Case Index .............................................................................................. xxiii
Legislation Index ..................................................................................... xxxv
Introduction: Rome II – A Parliamentary Tale ......................................
Rome II: A True Piece of Community Law ...........................................
Has the Forum Lost Its Grip? ................................................................
Rome II: Will it Prevent Forum Shopping and Take Account of the
Consequences of Choice of Law? ...........................................................
The Scope of ‘Non-Contractual Obligations’ ..........................................
The Signiﬁcance of Close Connection ....................................................
Freedom to Choose the Applicable Law in Tort – Articles 14 and 4(3)
of the Rome II Regulation .................................................................. 113
The Application of Multiple Laws Under the Rome II Regulation ........ 133
Article 4 and Traﬃc Accidents ............................................................... 153
Product Liability under the Rome II Regulation .................................... 175
Remedies and the Rome II Regulation ................................................... 199
The Treatment of Environmental Damage in Regulation Rome II ........ 219
Rome II and Choice of Law for Unjust Enrichment ............................. 231
Rome II: Implications for Irish Tort Litigation ...................................... 257
Liz Heﬀernan
The Limits of Rome II ........................................................................... 277
Appendices .............................................................................................. 289
Regulation No. 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to NonContractual Obligations (Rome II) ................................................ 291
Commission of the European Communities Proposal for a
Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual
Obligations, COM (2003) 427 ﬁnal 2003/0168 (COD) ............... 301
Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to
Non-Contractual Obligations, COM (2003) 427 ﬁnal 2003/0168
(COD), 2004/C 241/01 ................................................................. 341
European Parliament Committee on Legal Aﬀairs, Report on the
Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations
(“Rome II”) (COM(2003)0427–C5 0338/2003–
2003/0168(COD)), A6–0211/2005 ............................................... 349
Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Obligations, COM 2006 83 ﬁnal ................................................... 393
European Parliament Recommendation for Second Reading on the
Council common position for adopting a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the Law Applicable to
Non-Contractual Obligations, 9751/7/2006–C6–0317/2006–
2003/0168(COD) ........................................................................... 417
Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee of a Regulation
on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations,
2003/0168(COD) C6–0142/2007 PE-CONS3619/07 .................. 439
Index ....................................................................................................... 473
The Rome II Regulation oﬀers a fascinating opportunity for analysis. As the
product of a political process, rather than emerging from an ivory tower, it
lacks the unworldly elegance and sophistication of pure intellect untouched by
the needs and compromises of human life. It deals with a complex area of law
embracing a diversity of normative and policy perspectives within Europe and
throughout the wider world. Those diﬀerences defeated the ingenuity of the
framers of the Regulation in the limited, but important, areas of defamation
and privacy. What remains is still a wide-ranging measure, designed to oﬀer a
workable solution for courts but also for legal advisers who must be in a position to oﬀer clients guidance with some degree of conﬁdence.
The main features of the Regulation therefore tend more towards the black
letter than broad judicial discretion. The general rule, in Article 4, prescribing the
lex loci damni as the applicable law, may be displaced in only limited circumstances. Dépeçage is frowned on. Rules for speciﬁc torts and other non-contractual obligations do not open the door for discretion very far. Underlying state
policies, whilst not completely ignored, are not given a central role. Speciﬁcity,
the Regulation’s strength, also represents a weakness. The Regulation’s troubled
gestation has left obvious deﬁciencies, particularly in the lack of positive provision for a number of potentially signiﬁcant cross-border torts: defamation and
nuclear damage, for example.
If the Regulation tilts towards speciﬁcity, this does not mean that it has resolved
all questions. The Regulation inevitably provokes questions of interpretation and
invites debates about the merits of policy choices. The contributors to this book
have accepted these challenges. They provide expert analysis of the provisions
of the Regulation and expose the text to rigorous interrogation.
We are very grateful to Diana Wallis, M.E.P., for her insights as Rapporteur
into the highly political process whereby the original Commission proposal
ultimately emerged, somewhat transformed, as a Regulation. She reminds readers of the unﬁnished business in relation to defamation, unfair competition and
traﬃc accidents.
Johan Meeusen assesses the Regulation as a piece of Community law. In an
elaborate analysis, he commends it for developing choice-of-law rules which
range well beyond a simple aﬃrmation of the ‘country of origin’ rule.
Janeen Carruthers examines the nooks and crannies of the Regulation to
discover the extent to which the lex fori has a role. As well as the patent areas
of forum power, she identiﬁes a number of examples of latent forum power, in
relation to characterisation, interpretation and proof of foreign law. She probes
the frontiers between the lex causae and lex fori in the several paragraphs of
Article 15, paying particular attention to paragraph (c), relating to damages.
She provisionally concludes that the forum ‘has not lost its grip’.
Russell J. Weintraub, continuing the examination of the role of the forum,
praises Article 15(c) as “a revolutionary improvement in choice of law”, which
“will do more than any other single facet of private international law to deter
forum shopping”. He apprehends a potential disagreement among courts as to
which domestic rules are ‘mandatory’ under Article 16 but acknowledges that
it may not have been politically feasible for the Regulation to have provided
some guidance in this regard. He advocates a consequences-based interpretation
of the ‘more closely connected’ exception in Article 4(3).
Andrew Scott provides a comprehensive analysis of the scope of ‘non-contractual obligations’. He argues that one must ﬁrst take a position on the Regulation’s
approach to characterisation:
Whilst Community law supplies the deﬁnition of ‘non-contractual obligations’
national laws still have a signiﬁcant role to play, providing the data which explain
exactly what is claimed by a claimant.
When deﬁning ‘non-contractual’, he submits that one should look to the Rome
Contracts Convention, which ‘should enjoy a broad scope, applying to obligations that arise from consent, whether in the form of agreement or voluntary
undertaking’. On that basis, the Regulation ‘will apply to obligations arising
non-consensually’. Thus, in claims under the Hedley Byrne principle, ‘the obligations alleged may not attract the Regulation’s rules’.
With regard to independent rights such as property and contract upon whose
existence a non-contractual obligation depends, he tentatively submits that issues
relating to the existence, incidents and nature of these rights may be entirely
outside the scope of the Regulation, even where those issues arise in the context
of non-contractual obligations. Although this may be thought to introduce a
dépeçage, he suggests that the complexity of having multiple laws apply to a
dispute concerning a single non-contractual obligation “would undermine the
principles of a Regulation which aims at predictability and simplicity”.
Article 4(3) of the Regulation provides that, where it is clear from all the
circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is manifestly more closely connected
with a country other than that indicated in paragraph 1 (where the damage
occurs) or paragraph 2 (the parties’ common habitual residence), the law of
that other country shall apply. Richard Fentiman provides a comprehensive
analysis of the signiﬁcance of close connection. He raises the question whether
the exception contained in Article 4(3) may not be available to mediate between
Articles 4(1) and 4(2) but may serve only to engage a third law. He examines
the meaning of ‘close connection’ and assesses the threshold for displacing the
rules embodied in Articles 4(1) and 4(2). He goes on to suggest that the Article
4(3) exception may have less signiﬁcance than might be supposed. The exclusion of dépeçage and the opportunity to assess conduct by reference to Article
17 reduce its potential application. Moreover, the common habitual residence
rule coupled with the privileging in Article 4(3) of an existing relationship as a
connecting factor may well have the eﬀect of rendering redundant the scope of
operation of Article 4(3) in all but the most unusual cases.
Thomas Kadner Graziano examines the extent to which the Regulation confers
freedom to choose the applicable law in tort. This involves a nuanced analysis of
the relationship between Articles 14 and 4(3). He concludes that, since Article
14(1)(b) rules out ex ante agreements on the applicable law for parties not pursuing a commercial activity, for consumer and employment contracts that do
not fulﬁl the conditions set down in Article 6(1) of the Rome I Regulation, an
accessory connection under Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation should, in
principle, be excluded. He reaches the same conclusion where the choice of the
applicable law was made in standard terms of business annexed to a contract
unless the terms are expressly accepted by the other party.
Alex Mills examines the application of multiple laws under the Regulation.
He notes that the needs of the internal market and economic analysis of choice
of law are behind the application of a ﬁxed and predictable lex loci delicti rule
in Article 4(1). By selecting a strict lex loci damni rule, however, the Regulation
provides for multiple applicable laws where damage is suﬀered in more than
one country, under the mosaic eﬀect of Article 4(1). He discusses in detail the
Regulation’s rejection of dépeçage. He notes that the policy of giving eﬀect to
party autonomy under Article 14, which will often increase certainty by ensuring
that a single law governs both contractual and non-contractual claims between
the parties, can itself work to introduce greater fragmentation into the applicable
law, if that is what the parties choose.
Jan von Hein addresses the subject of traﬃc accidents. He scrutinises the
relationship between the Regulation and the 1971 Hague Convention on the
law applicable to traﬃc accidents. He goes on to analyse the general conﬂicts
rules contained in Articles 4 and 14 of the Regulation and brieﬂy considers the
scope of the applicable law, under Article 15, which has particular relevance
in relation to the quantiﬁcation of damages. He also deals with rules of safety
and conduct and other pervasive issues such as direct actions against insurers,
subrogation and multiple liability.
Peter Stone provides a critical analysis of the provisions of the Regulation dealing with product liability. He identiﬁes a number of uncertainties relating to Article 5 and suggests possible interpretations. The very concept of product liability
is less than clear. He suggests that Article 5 should probably be construed as
limited to claims for injury, death or damage to property other than to the
product itself and as not extending to claims for pure economic loss. The range
of prospective defendants is equally uncertain. Professor Stone considers it clear
that Article 5 does not extend to claims against a current user or possessor of a
product at the time of the incident from which the claim arises. He identiﬁes
practical diﬃculties with applying the exception to the general rule prescribed in
Article 23(1) in regard to the habitual residence of companies. The concept of
marketing also presents problems of interpretation, in his view. Professor Stone
presents a detailed evaluation of the merits of the solutions oﬀered by Article 5.
He questions whether the complexities of the text adopted are really necessary
and argues that a simpler approach, deleting Article 5, would have speciﬁed that,
in applying Article 4(1) to a product liability claim brought by the acquirer of
a product (or person associated with the acquirer), reference should be made to
the law of the place of acquisition rather than of injury.
Adam Rushworth examines the theme of remedies and the Regulation. He
ﬁrst seeks to provide an answer to how courts applying the Regulation will deal
with issues relating to remedies. He notes that non-compensatory awards are
clearly a matter for the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, subject
to the possibility of the forum’s refusing to apply that law on the grounds of
public policy. Interim remedies are more problematic. If they seek to give partial
judgment on the merits, they are clearly governed by the law applicable to the
non-contractual obligation; if their function is merely to preserve the status quo,
however, that law does not control. He considers that the ‘preferred view’ is
that proprietary remedies arising from non-contractual obligations fall within the
scope of the Regulation, even where the defendant may hold title to the property under the lex situs. An order for transfer of property in such circumstances
does not seek to challenge the defendant’s title; it is simply part on the remedial
repertoire of the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation.
He concludes that recital (33) is merely an invitation to the forum court to
take account of facts rather than constituting a choice-of-law rule. He goes on
to consider the merits of the Parliament’s suggestion that there ought to be
a choice-of-law rule for remedies separate to that of the underlying right and
advocates its rejection on grounds of principle and practice.
Michael Bogdan analyses, in detail, the treatment of environmental damage in
the Regulation. Article 7 prescribes the law determined pursuant to Article 4(1)
as the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation ‘arising out of environmental
damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage,’
unless the claimant chooses the law of the country in which the event giving rise
to the damage occurred. Professor Bogdan examines the scope of ‘environmental
damage’ and how it diﬀers from resultant damage. He notes that injunctions
may come within the scope of Article 7 but that penal or administrative mea-
sures taken by national authorities to prevent or terminate ecological injury or
damage fall outside the scope of the Regulation. He discusses how courts are
likely to apply Article 17 in the context of environmental damage claims and
suggests how courts might best deal with the potential overlap of Article 7 with
other provisions such as Article 5, dealing with product liability, and Article 9,
dealing with damage caused by an industrial action.
Stephen G.A. Pitel examines, in great detail, the provisions in the Regulation
dealing with choice of law for unjust enrichment. This is a subject of considerable
uncertainty and debate in common law jurisdictions. Professor Pitel acknowledges
that the Regulation oﬀers a degree of certainty and stability, though he expresses
regret that Article 10 ‘closes the door on the common law’s opportunity to
formulate a true proper law rule for choice of law for unjust enrichment’.
Liz Heﬀernan closely examines the implications of the Regulation for Irish
tort litigation. The failure of the bold, if controversial, approach advocated by
Walsh J. in Grehan v Medical Incorporated [1986] IR 528 to command a subsequent judicial consensus has left the pre-Regulation status of Irish choice-of-law
rules in tort in a state of complete uncertainty. Dr. Heﬀernan contrasts the highly
discretionary approach of Grehan with the black-letter rules of the Regulation.
Gernot Biehler discusses the limits of the Regulation. He addresses the difﬁculties that can arise where there is a clash of jurisdiction between courts in
the United States of America and courts in an EU member state.
All contributors to this book participated in a lively conference on the Regulation held at Trinity College Dublin on 21st June 2008. We are most grateful
to them for their involvement and for the range, novelty and depth of issues
that they have raised and sought to resolve.
John Ahern is a Ph.D. candidate, Undergraduate Teaching Assistant and parttime lecturer at Trinity College Dublin. His research and teaching interests
include Private International Law, Tort and European Law. His doctoral research
focuses on the Choice of Law in Tort at a European level and its interaction
with existent common law regimes.
Gernot Biehler is Lecturer in Public and Private International Law in Trinity
College Dublin. His interests comprise international law, both public and private.
A former delegate to UNIDROIT and the Hague Conference on International
and Private Law, his focus is on jurisdiction and procedures. He has lectured at
the universities of Heidelberg, Cologne, Kiev and now Trinity College and has
authored numerous books and articles in public and private international law.
William Binchy is Regius Professor of Laws at Trinity College, Dublin. He
is a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission. He has authored and
co-authored books on private international law, torts and family law. He has
represented Ireland at the Hague Conference on Private International Law on
the themes of marriage and inter-country adoption.
Michael Bogdan Dr. jur. (Prague), jur. kand., ﬁl. kand. and jur. dr. (Lund). He
is associate Professor of International Law in 1978, Professor of Private Law in
1985 and Professor of Comparative and Private International Law since 1995
(all at the University of Lund). He has authored numerous books and articles,
mainly in the ﬁelds of comparative law and private international law. He is
President of the Groupe européen de droit international privé (GEDIP) since
2006. E-mail: Michael.Bogdan@jur.lu.se.
Janeen Carruthers is a Reader in Conﬂict of Laws at the University of Glasgow,
Scotland. She is the co-editor, with Professor J.J. Fawcett, of Cheshire, North &
Fawcett’s Private International Law (OUP, 14th edition, 2008); co-author, with
Professor E.B. Crawford, of International Private Law in Scotland (W. Green/
Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd edition, 2006); and author of The Transfer of Property
in the Conﬂict of Laws (OUP, 2005). Dr Carruthers has acted as a research
consultant on private international law matters for organisations including the
Scottish Government Justice Department, the Law Commission for England
and Wales, and the TMC Asser Institute for Private and Public International
Law, The Hague.
Richard Fentiman is Reader in Private International Law at the University of
Cambridge, and a Fellow of Queens’ College. He is a member of the American
Law Institute, and the International Academy of Comparative Law. In 2002
he delivered a course at the Hague Academy of International Law on ‘The
Appropriate Forum in International Litigation’. He held the Ganshof van der
Meersch Chair at the University of Brussels in the academic year 2001–2002,
and has been a visiting professor at Cornell Law School. He is the author of
Foreign Law in English Courts: Pleading, Proof and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Liz Heﬀernan is a Fellow of Trinity College Dublin where she lectures in the
Conﬂict of Laws. Previously she taught at Washington and Lee University
School of Law, Lexington, Virginia and University College Dublin Law School.
Dr Heﬀernan’s doctoral research at the University of Chicago focused on comparative federal court systems. She is a former law clerk to Judge Richard D.
Cudahy at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and to
Judges William T. Hart and John F. Grady at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
Jan von Hein is Professor of German, Comparative and Private International
Law at the University of Trier since October 2007. Before that, he was a
Research Fellow at Harvard Law School (1997–98), at the Max-Planck-Institute
for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg; 1998–2007) and an
Acting Professor at the University of Bonn (spring term 2007). He holds both
German state examinations and a Ph.D. as well as a Habilitation in Law from
the University of Hamburg. He is also a contributor to two forthcoming commentaries on the Rome I and the Rome II Regulations.
Thomas Kadner Graziano Dr. iur. (Goethe-University Frankfurt), LL.M. (Harvard), habil. (Humboldt-University zu Berlin). – Professor of Law at the University of Geneva and Director of the faculty’s program on Transnational Law;
Member of the DUKE-Geneva Institute in Transnational Law (2004), Visiting
professor at the Universities of Poitiers (2006) Florida (2006, 2007/08, 2008),
and Exeter (2007–08); Fellow at the European Centre of Tort and Insurance
Law (ECTIL), Vienna. Thomas is widely published, particularly in the ﬁelds of
comparative tort and contract law, European private international law of torts, as
well as the harmonisation of these areas of law within the European Union.
Johan Meeusen (LL.M. University of California at Berkeley, 1993; Dr. iur. University of Antwerp, 1997) is Vice-rector and Professor of European Union law
and Private International Law at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He has
published numerous articles and books on issues of EU Law and (European)
private international law, and also lectured extensively at universities world
wide. In 2002, the European Commission granted him an ad personam Jean
Monnet Chair. From 2006 until 2008, he served as Dean of the Antwerp Law
Alex Mills is the Slaughter and May Lecturer in Law at Selwyn College, University
of Cambridge, where he teaches Conﬂict of Laws, Public International Law and
Constitutional Law. He has degrees in philosophy and law from the University
of Sydney, and practiced as a solicitor in Sydney before completing an LL.M.
and Ph.D. in Law at Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge. A
book based on his Ph.D. thesis has been published, entitled “The Conﬂuence of
Public and Private International Law: Justice, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in the
International Constitutional Ordering of Private Law”, Cambridge University
Stephen Pitel is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of
Western Ontario. His teaching and research is focused on international commercial litigation, civil procedure, torts, unjust enrichment and legal ethics. His
articles on private international law have been published in the Canadian Bar
Review, Canadian Business Law Journal, Journal of Private International Law and
Advocates’ Quarterly. He has won several teaching awards and has co-authored,
edited or co-edited six books since 2004 including Litigating Conspiracy: An
Analysis of Competition Class Actions and Emerging Issues in Tort Law.
Adam Rushworth is a Senior College Lecturer in Private Law at Keble College,
Oxford. His research and teaching interests are centred around the conﬂict of
laws, international trade and contract law. In particular, he is currently writing
a D.Phil. on ‘Remedies and the Conﬂict of Laws’. He has recently co-authored
(with Andrew Scott) a commentary on the Rome II Regulation which was
published in the 2008 Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
Andrew Scott is a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. His research concerns
private international law and particularly jurisdiction and choice of law in
civil and commercial matters. He is currently writing a D.Phil. concerning the
treatment of jurisdiction agreements at common law and under the Brussels I
Regulation. With Adam Rushworth, he has recently written a commentary on
the Rome II Regulation, published in the 2008 Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly.
Peter Stone is a Professor of Law at the University of Essex, England. His principal
academic interest is in private international law, on which he has taught both
undergraduate and postgraduate courses for several decades. His most recent
major publication in this area is a volume entitled EU Private International Law –
Harmonization of Laws, which was published by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd,
of Cheltenham, England, in 2006.
Diana Wallis qualiﬁed as a solicitor in 1983, specialising in European commercial litigation. Diana is a Member of the European Parliament since 1999 and
was elected Vice President in 2007. Diana is ALDE spokesperson on the Legal
Aﬀairs committee and a substitute member of the Internal Market committee.
Diana has been intrinsically involved in all aspects of her Committee’s work
and has authored a number of Committee reports including choice of law rules
on non contractual obligations (Rome II), maintenance obligations, European
contract law and greater access to justice for consumers/businesses in the area
of civil claims.
Russell Weintraub is the Powell Chair Professor Emeritus at the University of
Texas School of Law. He is the author of Commentary on the Conﬂict of Laws
(5th ed. 2006) and International Litigation and Arbitration (5th ed. 2006). He
is co-author of Conﬂict of Laws (12th ed. 2004). He was a consultant to the
European Parliament Committee on Legal Aﬀairs and the Internal Market in
the drafting of the Rome II.
Am. J. Comp. L.
Br. Yrbk. of Int’l L.
Anwaltblatt
Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court)
Juridicial Review
Petites aﬃches
Rec. des Cours
Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. Rivista Diritto Internationale Privato e Processuale
WVa. L. Rev.
YbPIL
Acme Circus Operating Co v Kuperstock 711 F2d 1538, 1544
(11th Cir, 1983) .............................................................................. 54n
Aguirre Cruz v Ford Motor Co 435 F Supp 2d 701(WD
Tennessee, 2006) ........................................................................... 193n
Alexander v General Motors Corp 478 SE2d 123 (Ga. 1996) ................ 51n
Alli v Eli Lilly 854 NE 2d 372 (Indiana, 2006) ................................... 194n
Allstate Insurance v Wal-Mart [2000] WL 388844 (ED Louisiana,
2000) ............................................................................................. 195n
Alpine Investments (C-384/93) [1995] ECR 1–1141 ............................... 20
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984]
AC 50 ................................................................................................ 235n
Andrew v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 229 (Can.) ............ 49n
Anton Durbreck GmbH v Den Norske Bank ASA [2003] 2 WLR
1296 ................................................................................................. 30n
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 589 .................... 253
Arcado SPRL v Haviland SA (C-9/87) [1988] ECR 1539 ..................... 63n
Ark Therapeutics plc v True North Capital Ltd [2006]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 138 .......................................................... 30n, 34n
Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG [1991] 2 AC 339 ....................... 82n
Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 26 January 1995, (1995)
36 ZfRV 212 ................................................................................. 170n
Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 29 October 1987, 1988
IPRax 363 ...................................................................................... 125n
Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 30 January 2003, (2003)
44 ZfRV 148 (LS 2003/50) .......................................................... 170n
Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 30 March 2001, 2002
ZfRV 149 ...................................................................................... 125n
Babcock v Jackson 191 N.E.2d 279 (NY 1963) ......................... 54n, 145n,
154, 234n, 245, 269n
Bain v Honeywell International 257 F Supp 2d 872
(ED Texas, 2002) .......................................................................... 194n
Baird v Bell Helicopter Textron 491 F Supp 1129
(ND Texas, 1980) ........................................................................... 49n
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 ................................ 237
Bank of Baroda v Vysya Bank [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 87 ................. 31n, 96n
Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd v Sonali Bank
[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 227 ............................................................... 96n
Baring Brothers v Cunninghame District Council [1997]
CLC 108 ......................................................................................... 253
Barros Mattos Jnr v Macdaniels Ltd [2005] EWHC
1323 ............................................................................................... 250n
Baschet v London Illustrated Standard [1900] 1 Ch. 73 ........... 200n, 211n
Base Metal v Shamurin [2004] EWCA Civ 1316 ............................ 63, 66n,
69, 175n
Beals v Sicpa Securink Corp [1994] WL 236018
(District of Columbia, 1994) ......................................................... 192n
Beilfuss v Huﬀy Corp 685 NW2d 373 (Wis. App. 2004) ...................... 52n
Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] UKHL 25 .............................................. 135n
Bernhard v Harrah’s Club 16 Cal. 3d. 313, 546 P. 2d. 719
(1976) ............................................................................................ 101n
Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH &
Co KG (C-256/00) [2002] I ECR 1699 ......................................... 58n
Bier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace (21/76) [1976]
ECR 1735 ......................................................... 116, 159n, 222n, 268n
Bosman Case (C-415/93) [1995] ECR 1–4921 ...................................... 20n
Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 ........................................ 28, 29, 88n, 91n,
102n, 111n, 140, 143, 145, 176n, 178n, 199n,
206n, 211n, 236n, 245, 259n, 261, 264, 267
Brewer v Dodson Aviation 447 F Supp 2d 1166
(WD Washington, 2006) .............................................................. 195n
Brodin v A/R Seljan 1973 SLT 198 ........................................................ 32n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 22 December 1987,
NJW-Rechtsprechungsreport (RR) 1988, 534 ............................... 120n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 24 November 1976,
BGHZ 67, 359 .............................................................................. 124n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 24 September 1986,
BGHZ 98, 263 .............................................................................. 120n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 28 October 1992,
(1992) IPRspr no. 60 .................................................................... 169n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 17 March 1981,
1982 IPRax 13, 1982 IPRax 1 ...................................................... 120n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 4 March 1971,
BGHZ 55, 392 .............................................................................. 124n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 6 November 1973,
1974 NJW 410 .............................................................................. 120n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 7 July 1992,
BGHZ 119, 137 ............................................................................ 154n
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] 7 November 1985,
BGHZ 96, 221 .............................................................................. 124n
Burleson v Liggett Group 111 F Supp 2d 825
(ED Texas, 2000) .......................................................................... 194n
Caledonia Subsea Ltd v Micoperi Srl 2002 SLT 1022 ......................... 31n,
106n, 107n
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256 ........................ 67n
Castree v Squibb [1980] 1 WLR 1248 ................................................. 178n
Centros Case (C-212/97) [1999] ECR 1–1459 ...................................... 21n
Chaudhry v Prabakhar [1989] 1 WLR 29 .............................................. 70n
Chen v Otis Elevator Co [2004] WL 504697
(Massachusetts, 2004) .................................................................... 192n
Chila v Owens 348 F Supp 1207 (1972) .............................................. 191n
Clark v Clark 222 A.2d 205 (1966) ........................................................ 54n
Clark v Favalora 722 So 2d 82 (Louisiana, 1998) ................................ 194n
Coggs v Barnard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909 .............................................. 70n
Comex Houlder Diving v Colne Fishing Co 1987 SC
(HL) 85 ........................................................................................... 32n
Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Large 1977 SLT 219 ....................... 28n
Cooley v Ramsey [2008] EWHC 129 (QB) ......................................... 212n
Corsica Ferries France Case (C-49/89) [1989] ECR 4441 ...................... 19n
Corte di Appello di Roma 6 September 1983, 1984
Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. .................................................................... 167
Corte di Cassazione 19 June 1977, n. 261 ............................................ 124n
Corte di Cassazione 21 March 1970, n. 762 ........................................ 124n
Corte di Cassazione 7 October 1967, n. 2335 ...................................... 124n
Cosme v Whitin Machine Works 632 NE 2d 832
(Massachusetts, 1994) .................................................................... 192n
Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co [1983]
2 All ER 434 ........................................................................ 91n, 124n
Credit Lyonnais v New Hampshire Insurance Co [1997]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ....................................................................... 31n, 96n
Cunningham v Quaker Oats Co 107 F.R.D. 66
(W.D.N.Y. 1985) ............................................................................ 49n
Custom Products v Fluor Daniel Canada 262 F Supp 2d 767
(WD Kentucky, 2003) ........................................................ 193n, 106n
Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2007]
AC 181 ............................................................................................ 70n
D’Almeida Aragu Lda v Sir Frederick Becker [1953]
2 QB 329 ...................................................................................... 199n
Danmarks Rederiforening v LO Landsorganisationen I
Sverige (C-18/02) [2004] I ECR 1417 ............................................ 58n
Dassonville (8/74) [1974] ECR 837 .......................................................... 20
Dawson v Broughton (2007) 151 SJLB 1167 ................................. 38, 199n
De Cavel v De Cavel (C-120/79) [1980] ECR 731 ............................... 74n
Deﬁnitely Maybe (Touring) Ltd v Marek Lieberberg
Konzertagentur GmbH [2001]
4 All ER 283 .................................................................. 31n, 92n, 96n
DeGrasse v Sensenich Corp [1989] WL 23775
(ED Pennsylvania, 1989) ................................................................ 194n
Denman v Snapper Division 131 F3d 546 (C5 Mississippi, 1998) ...... 184n,
Distillers Co v Thompson [1971] AC 458 ............................................ 178n
Dorman v Emerson Electric Co 23 F 3d 1354
(C8 Missouri, 1994) ...................................................................... 193n
Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 ................................................. 135n
Dowis v Mud Slingers, Inc. 621 SE2d 413 ............................................. 51n
(Court of Appeal) .......................................................................... 217n
Dumez France & Tracoba v Heissische Landesbank
(C-220/88) [1990] ECR 1-49 ....................................................... 268n
Dumez v Helaba (C-220/88) [1990] ECR 1–49 .......................... 58n, 222n
Edmunds v Simmonds [2002] 1WLR 1003 ................................ 30n, 91n,
166, 167, 176n
Egan v Kaiser Aluminum 677 So 2d 1027
(Louisiana, 1996) ........................................................................... 195n
Eimers v Honda Motor Co 785 F Supp 1204
(WD Pennsylvania, 1992) ............................................................. 193n
Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (C-27/02) [2005] I ECR 481 ............... 62n
Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd [2002]
EWCA Civ 916 ...................................................................... 34n, 94n,
98n, 106n
Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl (C-166/02) [2005] QB 1 ................. 284
Etablissements A de Bloos Sprl v Société en Commandite
par Actions Bouyer (C-14/76) [1976] ECR 1497 ........................... 58n
Farrell v Ford Motor Co 501 NW 2d 567 (Michigan, 1993) .............. 194n
FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit
(C-463/06) 13 Dec. 2007 ............................................................. 163n
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp v Petersen 770 F2d 141
(10th Cir.1985) ............................................................................... 51n
Firma Foto-Frost (314/85) [1987] ECR 4199 ...................................... 265n
FMC Corp v Russell 1999 SLT 99 ......................................................... 44n
Fonderie Oﬃcine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich
Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS)
(C-334/00) [2002] I ECR 7357 ...................................................... 58n
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 ............................................ 79n, 237
Freistaat Bayern v Blijdenstein (C-433/01) [2004] I ECR 981 ............... 58n
French Court of Cassation (Cass.) 19 April 1988 ................................. 170n
French Court of Cassation (Cass.) 28 October 2003,
1re Ch. Civ. (Pays-Fourvel c. Société Axa Courtage) .................... 128n
Gabriel v Schlank & Schick GmbH (C-96/00) [2002] ECR
1–6367 ............................................................................................. 65n
Gantes v Kason Corp 679 A 2d 106 (New Jersey, 1996) ..................... 194n
Gemeente Steenbergen v Luc Baten (C-271/00) [2002]
1 ECR 10489 ....................................................................... 58n, 224n
General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corpn v Tanter
(The Zephyr) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 ........................................... 67n
General Motors Corp v Eighth Judicial District 134 P 3d 111
(Nevada, 2006) .............................................................................. 192n
[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284 ....................................................... 30n, 75n
Grehan v Medical Incorporated and Valley Pines Associates
[1986] IR 528 ........................................................................ 175, 176,
178, 261, 262, 263, 264
Gross v McDonald 354 F Supp 378 (1973) ......................................... 191n
Grunkin and Paul (C-353/06) ........................................................... 15n, 23
Hall v General Motors 582 NW 2d 866 (Michigan, 1998) ................. 193n
Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v American Medical
Int’l, Inc. 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) ........................ 51n
Hanlan v Sernesky (1998) 38 OR (3d) 479 .......................................... 142n
Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 WLR 1539 ................................ 27n, 30, 39,
171, 176, 199, 206n, 209n, 211
Harlan Feeders v Grand Laboratories 881 F Supp 1400
(ND Iowa, 1995) ........................................................................... 194n
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465 ................. 62, 67,
Heindel v Pﬁzer [2004] WL 1398024 (D New Jersey, 2004) .............. 194n
Henderson v Merck [2005] WL 2600220
(ED Pennsylvania, 2005) ............................................................... 194n
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 ............... 70n, 124n
Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corp [1989] AC 1112 ............................ 211n
Hoover v Recreation Equipment Corp 792 F Supp 1484
(ND Ohio, 1991) .......................................................................... 193n
Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1957] 1 QB 247 ............................ 217n
Huddy v Fruehauf Corp 953 F 2d 955 (C5 Texas, 1992) ................... 193n
Hughes Electronics Corp v Citibank Delaware 15
Cal.Rptr.3d 244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) ............................................ 51n
Hughes v Wal-Mart Stores 250 F 3d 618 (C8 Arkansas, 2001) ........... 194n
Hulse v Chambers [2002] All ER (Comm) 812 ..................................... 30n
ICF (Intercontainer Interfrigo) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen
BV and MIC Operations BV (C-133/08) OJ C 158 of
21.6.08 ................................................................................... 105n, 110
In re Autonation 228 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. 2007) ...................................... 52n
Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG (C-12/76) [1976]
ECR 1473 ........................................................................................ 58n
Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co v IRI International Corp [2002]
EWCA Civ 1024 ............................................................................. 34n
Islamic Republic of Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007]
EWCA Civ 1374 ............................................................................. 76n
Jacob Handte GmbH v TMCS (C-26/91) [1992]
I ECR 3697 ............................................................................. 58n, 63n
Jeﬀerson Parish Hospital v WR Grace & Co [1992] WL 167263
(ED Louisiana, 1992) .................................................................... 194n
John Pfeiﬀer Pty. Ltd v Rogerson 172 A.L.R. 625 (AustL. 2000) ......... 49n,
Johnson v Coventry Churchill International Ltd [1992]
3 All ER 14 ................................................................... 28n, 29n, 91n,
98n, 102, 111n, 141n,
175n, 178n, 245n
Jones v Cooper Tire & Rubber Co [2004] WL 503588
(ED Pennsylvania, 2004) ............................................................... 194n
Jones v Winnebago Industries 460 F Supp 2d 953
(ND Iowa, 2006) ........................................................................... 194n
JP Morgan Ltd v Primacon AG [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 665 .................... 284
Juran v Bron 2000 WL 1521478 (Del. Ch. 2000) ................................. 51n
Kalfelis v Schroder Case (189/87) [1988] ECR 5565 .................... 34n, 60n,
61n, 63n, 67
Kammerer v Western Gear Corp 635 P.2d 708 (Wa. 1981) .................. 54n
Keck and Mithouard (C-267/91) and (C-268/91) [1993]
ECR 1–6097 ............................................................................ 19n, 20n
Kelly v Ford Motor Co 933 F Supp 465 (ED Pennsylvania,
1996) ............................................................................................. 193n
Kemp v Pﬁzer 947 F Supp 1139 (ED Michigan, 1996) ....................... 193n
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln County Council [1999]
2 AC 349 (HL) ..................................................................... 232n, 239
Kramer v Showa Denko KK 929 F Supp 733
(SD New York, 1996) ................................................................... 193n
Krombach v Bamberski (C-7/98) [2001] QB 709 ................................ 282n
Kronhofer v Maier (C-168/02) [2004] ECR 1-6009 ............................ 222n
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co [2002] 2 A.C. 883 ................ 52n
Lacey v Cessna Aircraft Co 932 F 2d 170
(C3 Pennsylvania, 1991) ............................................................... 194n
Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s. (C-343/04) [2006]
ECR 1-4557 .................................................................................. 224n
Land v Yamaha 272 F 3d 514 (C7 Indiana, 2001) .............................. 195n
Leo Laboratories Ltd v Crompton BV [2005] IESC 31
(12th May 2005) ........................................................................... 269n
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957]
A.C. 555 ........................................................................................ 124n
Llandudno Urban District Council v Woods [1899]
2 Ch. 705 (ChD) .......................................................................... 204n
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping v Campenon Bernard Case
(C-439/93) [1995] ECR 1–961 .................................................... 188n
Long v Sears Roebuck 877 F Supp 8
(D District of Columbia, 1995) .................................................... 195n
LTU v Eurocontrol (29/76) [1976] ECR 1541 .................................... 224n
Machado v Fontes [1897] 2 QB 231 ............................................ 28n, 259n
MacKinnon v Iberia Shipping Co 1955 SC 20 ...................................... 28n
Macmillan v Bishopsgate Investment Trust (No 3) [1995]
3 All ER 747 ................................................................ 80n, 81n, 240n
Magnant v Medtronic 818 F Supp 204
(WD Michigan, 1993) ................................................................... 195n
Mahne v Ford Motor Co 900 F 2d 83 (C6 Michigan, 1990) .............. 194n
Maly v Genmar Industries 1996 WL 28473 (ND Illinois,
1996) ............................................................................................. 184n
Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank (C-364/93) [1995] ECR 1–2719 .................... 58n,
222n, 268n
Marmon v Mustang Aviation 430 S.W.2d 182 (Texas, 1968) ................ 49n
Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse
Aannemers Vereniging (C-34/82) [1983]
ECR 987 ................................................................................ 58, 62, 67
Martin v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co 61 P 3d 1196
(Washington, 2003) ....................................................................... 189n
McElroy v McAllister 1949 SC 110 ................................................. 25, 28n,
91, 260
McKenna v Best Travel Ltd [1996] IEHC 42 ...................................... 264n
McKinnon v Morgan 750 A 2d 1026 (Vermont, 2000) ............. 184n, 195n
McLarty v Steele (1881) 8 R 435 ............................................................ 28n
McLennan v American Eurocopter Corp 245 F 3d 403
(C5 Texas, 2001) ........................................................................... 194n
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (No 1) [1975]
QB 487 ............................................................................................ 28n
Mitchell v Lone Star Ammunition 913 F 2d 242
(C5 Texas, 1990) ................................................................. 194n, 195n
Mitchell v McCulloch 1976 SLT 2 ........................................ 28n, 33n, 41n
Monro v American Cyanamid [1944] KB 432 ..................................... 178n
Moran v Pyle (1973) 43 DLR (3d) 239 ............................................... 178n
Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1802 .................. 63n,
90n, 134n
Naftalin v London Midland and Scottish Railway Co 1933
SC 259 ................................................................................... 28n, 33n,
41n, 206n
Nesladek v Ford Motor Co 46 F 3d 734 (C8 Minnesota,
1995) ............................................................................................. 194n
Nez v Forney 783 P2d 471 (N.M. 1989) ............................................... 51n
Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 ............................................. 67n
Normann v Johns-Manville 593 A 2d 890 (Pennsylvania, 1991) ......... 195n
Oﬀshore International SA v Banco Central SA [1977]
1 WLR 399 ..................................................................................... 96n
Ophthalmic Innovations International (UK) Ltd v Ophthalmic
Innovations International Inc [2005] I L Pr 10 ...................... 31n, 34n
Orleans Parish School Board v US Gypsum Co [1993]
WL 205091 (ED Louisiana, 1993) ............................................... 194n
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller SS,
The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 ............................. 217n
Owusu v Jackson (C-281/02) [2005] ECR 1–1383, [2005]
QB 1 ....................................................................................... 107, 108,
Pfau v Trent Aluminium Co 263 A 2d 129 (1970) ............................. 191n
Pfeiﬀer v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 .................................... 49n, 142n
Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 ...................................... 28, 140n, 178n,
184n, 259, 260,
261, 262, 263, 264
Phillips v General Motors 995 P 2d 1002 (Montana, 2000) ................ 184n
Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno 454 U.S. 235 (1981) .................................... 48n
Pittman v Kaiser Aluminum 559 So 2d 879 (Louisiana, 1990) ............ 194n
Preservatrice Fonciere TIARD SA v Netherlands (C-266/01)
[2003] I ECR 4867 ......................................................................... 58n
Print Concept GmbH v GEW (EC) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 352 ......... 31n
Protea Leasing Ltd v Royal Air (Cambodge) Co Ltd [2002]
EWHC 2731 ................................................................................... 30n
PT Pan-Indonesian Bank TBK v Marconi Communications
International Ltd [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 325 ............................ 31n
Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495 ......................................................... 217n
R-Square Investments v Teledyne Industries [1997] WL 436245
(ED Louisiana, 1997) .................................................................... 195n
Raiﬀeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Five Star General
Trading LLC (The Mount I) [2001] EWCA Civ 68 ............. 68n, 213
Re Eli Lilly & Co Prozac Products Liability Litigation 789
F Supp 1448 (SD Indiana, 1992) ................................................. 194n
Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd [1956] Ch. 323 ......................................... 96n
Re T and N Ltd [2005] EWHC 2990 .................................................... 29n
Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA [1994] 3 WLR 926 ............ 28n,
29n, 140n, 141, 144,
145n, 178n, 236n, 261, 264
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang
(2002) 210 CLR 491 ..................................................................... 142n
Reich v Purcell 432 P 2d 727 (California, 1967) ................................. 191n
Renault v Maxicar (C-38/98) [2000] ECR 1-2973 ............................... 226n
Réunion Européenne SA v Spliethoﬀ’s Bevrachtsingskantoor
BV Case (C-51/97) [2000] QB 690 ................................................ 34n
Rewe-Zentral (120/78) [1979] ECR 649 ........................................ 16n, 19n
Rice v Dow Chemical 875 P 2d 1213 (Washington, 1994) ................. 194n
Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 681 ....................... 30n
Rosenthal v Ford Motor Co 462 F Supp 2d 296
(D Connecticut, 2006) .................................................................. 195n
Rowe v Hoﬀmann-La Roche 892 A 2d 694 (New Jersey, 2006) ......... 194n
Rutherford v Goodyear 943 F Supp 789 (WD Kentucky, 1996) ........ 184n,
SA Consortium General Textiles v Sun and Sand Agencies Ltd
[1978] QB 279 .............................................................................. 201n
Samcrete Egypt Engineers and Contractors SAE v Land Rover
Exports Ltd [2002] CLC 533 ....................................... 31n, 94n, 106n
Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services)
Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723 .......................................... 282, 283, 284,
285, 286, 288n
Sanchez ex rel Estate of Galvan v Brownsville Sports Center
51 SW 3d 643 (Texas, 2001) ........................................................ 195n
Savage Arms v Western Auto Supply Co 18 P 3d 49
(Alaska, 2001) ................................................................................ 193n
Sayers v International Drilling Co NV [1971] 1 WLR 1176 ................. 91n
Schultz v Boy Scouts of America, 480 N.E.2d 679 (N.Y. 1985) .......... 269n
Shenavai v Kreischer (266/85) [1987] ECR 239 ................................... 228n
Shevill v Presse Alliance SA (C-68/93) [1995] 2 AC 18 ............... 34n, 135n
Sierra Leone Telecommunications Co Ltd v Barclays Bank
plc [1998] 2 All ER 821 ................................................................. 34n
Smith Kline & French Labs. Ltd v Bloch [1983] 1 WLR 730 ............... 49n
Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management)
Ltd [1997] AC 254 ....................................................................... 217n
Smith v DaimlerChrysler Corp [2002] WL 31814534
(Delaware, 2002) ........................................................................... 195n
Snider v Dunn 160 NW 2d 619 (CA Mich. 1968) .............................. 231n
Société Nouvelle des Papeteries de l’Aa SA v
BV Machinenfabriek BOA 25 September 1992 ................... 31n, 106n
Somafer v Saar-Ferngas Case (33/78) [1978] ECR 2183 ...................... 188n
Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 ..................... 98n
Swiss BG 21 May 1946, BGE 72 II 311 .............................................. 124n
Swiss BG 25 May 1938, BGE 64 II 254 .............................................. 124n
Swiss BG 28 April 1987, BGE 113 II 246 ........................................... 124n
The Freights Queen [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 140 ....................................... 95n
The Halcyon the Great (No 1) [1975] 1 WLR 515 ............................... 28n
The Halley (1868) LR 2 PC 193 .................................................. 28n, 45n,
178n, 259n
Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022 ................................................. 142n
Torrington Co v Stutzman 46 SW 3d 829 (Texas, 2000) .................... 195n
Townsend v Sears Roebuck 858 NE 2d 552 (Illinois, 2006) ................ 194n
Traﬁgura Beheer BV v Kookmin Bank Co [2006] EWHC 1450 .......... 30n,
Tune v Philip Morris 766 So 2d 350 (Florida, 2000) .......................... 193n
Turner v Grovit (C-159/02) [2005] 1 AC 101 ...................... 280, 282, 284
Überseering Case (C-208/00) [2002] ECR 1–9919 ................................ 21n
Van Uden Maritime BV v Kommanditgesellschaft in
Firma Deco-Line (C-391/95) [1998] I ECR 7091 ................. 74n, 202
Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Henkel (C-167/00)
[2002] I ECR 8111 .............................................................. 58n, 224n
Vestal v Shiley Inc [1997] WL 910373 (CD California, 1997) ............ 194n
Walls v General Motors 906 F 2d 143 (C5 Mississippi, 1990) ............ 194n
Walters v Maren Engineering Corp 617 NE 2d 170
(Illinois, 1993) ............................................................................... 194n
Warren v Warren [1972] Qd. R. 386 ..................................................... 91n
Webb v Webb (C-294/92) [1994] I ECR 1717 .............................. 58n, 78,
79, 203n
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington BC [1996]
AC 669 .................................................................................... 77n, 80n
White v Crown Equipment 827 NE 2d 859 (Ohio, 2005) .................. 194n
Wilkinson v Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp 74 ................................................. 70n
Woodling v Garrett Corp 813 F.2d 543 (2d Cir, 1987) ........................ 51n
X1, X2 and X3 v Y (Tokyo High Court) (2002) 45 Japanese
Annual of Int’l L. 155 ................................................................... 207n
Zelinger v State Sand & Gravel Co 114 NW2d 443 (Wis. 1962) ......... 54n
Zenaida-Garcia v Recovery Systems Technology 115 P 3d 1017
(Washington, 2005) ....................................................................... 194n
EC/EU Measures
Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual
(1) .................................................................................................... 119
Art 4 ................................................................................... 93, 94, 97, 98
(1) .................................................................................................... 107
(5) ............................................................................................. 98, 105
(2) .................................................................................................... 123
Art 10 ............................................................................................. 36, 42
(1) ................................................................................................... 205
Art 16 .................................................................................................... 33
(2) ...................................................................................................... 52
Art 18 .................................................................................................. 107
Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States concerning liability for defective products ......... 181, 182,
183, 271
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on the recognition and
(Brussels I Regulation)
(1) ................................................................................................ 61, 62
(3) ........................................................................ 34, 61, 63, 159, 222
(1) .................................................................................................... 163
(2) .................................................................................................... 163
(1) .................................................................................................... 283
(1) ...................................................................................................... 79
Art 28 .................................................................................................. 281
Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to
non-contractual obligations (Rome II) ................................... 1, 9, 10, 13,
219, 233, 258
Recital (2) ............................................................................................. 110
Recital (6) .................................................................. 13, 47, 59, 89, 110,
156, 162, 164, 167
Recital (7) ............................................................... 34, 59, 163, 173, 281
Recital (11) .................................................................................... 60, 238
Recital (12) ............................................................................................ 37
Recital (13) ............................................................................ 86, 110, 118
Recital (14) ................................................................ 13, 86, 89, 92, 109,
110, 196, 255, 268
Recital (16) ............................................................................ 13, 107, 110
Recital (17) ........................................................................................... 159
Recital (18) ..................................................... 87, 99, 180, 181, 190, 269
Recital (19) .......................................................................................... 219
Recital (20) ............................................................... 13, 95, 96, 107, 273
Recital (21) ...................................................................................... 95, 96
Recital (24) ........................................................................................... 223
Recital (25) .................................................................................. 220, 229
Recital (29) .......................................................................................... 208
Recital (30) .......................................................................................... 254
Recital (31) ........................................................................................... 115
Recital (32) ................................................ 6, 14, 33, 191, 201, 225, 274
Recital (33) ......................................................................... 147, 163, 200,
Recital (34) .................................................................................. 227, 275
Recital (35) ............................................................................................... 5
Art 1 ................................................................................................ 26, 47
(1) ............................................................................ 135, 140, 224, 266
(2) .................................................................................. 15, 76, 77, 277
(3) ............................................................................................. 133, 206
Art 2 ....................................................................................................... 26
(1) ....................................................................................................... 61
Art 3 .................................................................................................... 220
Art 4 ....................................................... 3, 34, 52, 54, 55, 85–112, 156,
165, 197, 226, 266, 267
(1) .................................................................... 60, 64, 86, 87, 88, 134,
144, 149, 151, 159, 160
(2) ................................................................................ 64, 86, 88, 131,
134, 161, 192
(3) ...................................................................... 31, 60, 64, 86, 87, 88,
113, 127, 128, 130, 131, 134,
136, 149, 152, 177, 269
Art 5 .................................................................. 3, 34, 85, 179, 266, 271
(1) ............................................................................... 67, 68, 184, 185
(2) .............................................................................................. 31, 196
Art 6 .................................................................................................. 3, 34
Art 7 ................................................................................ 3, 34, 139, 162,
163, 190, 219–230
Art 8 ............................................................................................ 3, 34, 73
Art 9 .................................................................................................. 3, 34
Art 10 ........................................................ 235, 239, 244, 245, 248, 252
(1) ...................................................................................................... 60
(2) ..................................................................................................... 123
(4) ................................................................................................ 31, 85
Art 11 .......................................................................................... 207, 253
Art 12 .................................................................................... 34, 253, 254
(1) .......................................................................................... 60, 64, 65
(2) .......................................................................................... 31, 65, 85
Art 13 .................................................................................................... 73
Art 14 .................................................... 26, 65, 113, 118, 156, 159, 273
(1) .................................................................... 64, 117, 121, 122, 128,
131, 148, 170
(2) ...................................................................................................... 32
Art 15 .................................................................... 25, 35, 36, 37, 40–44,
50, 51, 75, 77, 133, 139, 156,
177, 200, 202, 207, 225, 267
Art 16 ......................................................................... 13, 32, 52, 55, 133
Art 17 ............................................................. 14, 89, 150, 172, 206, 227
Art 19 ................................................................................................... 173
Art 20 ................................................................................................... 173
Art 22 ............................................................................................ 51, 267
Art 23 ......................................................................... 134, 164, 238, 272
Art 24 .......................................................................................... 266, 267
Art 26 ............................................................................... 32, 33, 51, 133
Art 27 ............................................................................................ 23, 265
Art 28 ................................................................................................... 155
(1) .......................................................................................... 6, 35, 155
(2) .......................................................................................... 5, 15, 267
Art 31 .......................................................................................... 258, 267
Art 32 .......................................................................................... 258, 267
Council Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable
to contractual obligations (Rome I)
Art 4 ....................................................................................................... 30
(3) .............................................................................................. 94, 110
(5) .............................................................................................. 92, 105
Art 6 ..................................................................................................... 130
(2) ..................................................................................................... 274
Art 9 ....................................................................................................... 32
(3) ....................................................................................................... 32
Art 12 ............................................................................................ 36, 205
Art 16 ..................................................................................................... 33
(3) ..................................................................................................... 122
(1) ..................................................................................................... 115
Art 100 .................................................................................................. 124
Art 101 ................................................................................................. 114
Art 1384 ............................................................................................... 116
Art 40 ................................................................................................... 159
Art 41 ................................................................................................... 124
Art 42 .................................................................................. 114, 122, 125
Contractual Obligations (Applicable Law) Act 1991 ................................ 258
Art 66 ................................................................................................... 165
Act on General Rules of Applications of Laws
Art 21 ........................................................................................... 115, 122
(2) ..................................................................................................... 122
Art 39 ................................................................................................... 115
Art 1643 ....................................................................................... 114, 118
Act on Private International Law in the ﬁeld of torts
Art 5 ..................................................................................................... 124
Art 6 ..................................................................................................... 118
Judicature Act 1908 .................................................................................. 232
Art 1219 ....................................................................................... 115, 118
Federal Code on Private International Law
Art 132 ................................................................................ 115, 118, 125
Art 133 ................................................................................................. 124
s1 ............................................................................................................ 80
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions)
s11 ........................................................................................ 30, 125, 126,
141, 211, 261
(1) ..................................................................................................... 134
s12 ......................................................... 45, 97, 100, 124, 126, 141, 261
s13 ....................................................................................... 140, 178, 190
s100 ...................................................................................................... 205
Rome II – A Parliamentary Tale
The Rome II Regulation1 is a signiﬁcant development in the history of private
international law. The papers in this volume are to be welcomed for the rich
academic analysis they provide of the Regulation. In my introduction it may be
useful to give a brief account of the parliamentary perspective.
The Regulation must be understood in its context as a piece of European legislation. It has a long history. The European Union had for many years wanted
to produce a complete and clear regime for the conﬂict of laws.
Having settled jurisdictional issues with the Brussels Convention2 (and later
Regulation)3 there was a need to address the issue of choice of law. The Rome
Convention of 1980 dealt with the issue of choice of law in relation to contractual
matters.4 The question of a choice of law regime for non-contractual matters was
ﬁrst addressed more than three decades ago. Work on the project was shelved
for a number of years but was resuscitated in the 1990s, culminating ﬁnally in
a Proposal5 for a Regulation put forward by the Commission in July 2003.
At this time, the European Parliament gained the possibility of being colegislator in the ﬁeld of private international law, with equal power to that of
In due course the Commission’s Proposal came before the European Parliament. I was Rapporteur. The task was an exciting one as there was no pre-existing
Convention on the subject.
Regulation (EC) No. 864 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 on the
law applicable to non-contractual obligations.
Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980), analysed by Peter Norm
ed., Contract Conﬂicts (1982), Plender, European Contracts Convention (1991).
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on
the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations COM (2003) 427.
The Proposal involved the statement of a general rule prescribing as the law
applicable to a non-contractual obligation that in which the event giving rise
to the damage occurred.6 The general rule proposed by the Commission was
one of the most disputed elements of the legislation. Many members of the
Parliament wished to have a general rule but one with some signiﬁcant judicial
ﬂexibility. This approach appealed in particular to those of the common law
tradition. The solution endorsed by Parliament was to set out a non-exhaustive
list of factors that may be taken into account as manifestly connecting a noncontractual obligation with another country so as to include:
(a) as far as loss-distribution and legal capacity are concerned, the fact that the
person(s) claimed to be liable and the person(s) sustaining loss or damage have
their habitual residence in the same country or that the relevant laws of the
country of habitual residence of the person(s) claimed to be liable and of the
country of habitual residence of the person(s) sustaining loss or damage are
substantially identical;
(b) a pre-existing legal or de facto relationship between the parties, such as, for
example, a contract, that is closely connected with the non-contractual obligation in question;
(c) the need for certainty, predictability and uniformity of result;
(d) protection of legitimate expectations;
(e) the policies underlying the foreign law to be applied and the consequences of
applying that law.7
Article 3 provided as follows:
1. The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation shall be the law of the
country in which the damage arises or is likely to arise, irrespective of the
country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that
event arise.
2. However, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining
damage both have their habitual residence in the same country when the
damage occurs, the non-contractual obligation shall be governed by the law
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the non-contractual obligation is manifestly more
closely connected with another country, the law of that other country shall
apply. A manifestly closer connection with another country may be based in
particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract
that is closely connected with the non-contractual obligation in question.
European Parliament legislative resolutions on the proposal for a regulation of the European
parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome
II”) (com (2003) 0427–c5–0338/203–2003/0168 (COD) (Codecision procedure ﬁrst reading),
Article 4 (3).
This approach was, however, not favoured by Council. The rule that ultimately
prevailed was one that set out a general rule with a number of exceptions for
speciﬁc torts.
Article 4 of the Regulation sets out the general rule as follows:
1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to a noncontractual obligation arising out of a tort/delict shall be the law of the country
in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in
which the indirect consequences of that event occur.
2. However, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining damage both have their habitual residence in the same country at the time when
the damage occurs, the law of that country shall apply.
3. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is
manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in
paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply. A manifestly closer
connection with another country might be based in particular on a pre-existing
relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected
with the tort/delict in question.
The Regulation goes on the prescribe separate rules, by way of exception, for
product liability,8 unfair competition,9 environmental damage,10 infringement
of intellectual property rights11 and industrial action.12
Many of us felt that, in a Europe with a wide range of diﬀerent tort regimes
and legal traditions, it would have been preferable to have avoided characterisation of speciﬁc torts in this way.
An example of one of these controversial exceptions is that relating to damage to the environment.13 One reason why this provision was not attached was
because the environment is such a sensitive political issue. Some MEPs may
have hesitated about seeking to strike it down in view of the widespread popular
An area of considerable practical concern which led to large debate was that
of traﬃc accidents. Let us take the hypothetical example of an English person
involved in a traﬃc accident in Spain. An award of damages under Spanish law
The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of environmental
damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage
shall be the law determined pursuant to Article 4(1), unless the person seeking
compensation for damage chooses to base his or her claim on the law of the
country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred.
will be far lower than under English law. The general rule, that the law of the
place where the damage is sustained should be applied, would mean that the
English plaintiﬀ would be eligible for an award of damages only at the Spanish level. This will obviously be of detriment to the English plaintiﬀ. The best
that Parliament could achieve was to insist on the inclusion of a provision that
the court should take care to look at the actual circumstances of the speciﬁc
victim.14
The discussion about traﬃc accidents is not concluded. The Regulation includes
a Commission Statement on road accidents to the eﬀect that:
The Commission, being aware of the diﬀerent practices followed in the Member
States as regards the level of compensation awarded to victims of road traﬃc
accidents, is prepared to examine the speciﬁc problems resulting for EU residents
involved in road traﬃc accidents in a Member State other than the Member State
of their habitual residence. To that end the Commission will make available to the
European Parliament and to the Council, before the end of 2008, a study on all
options, including insurance aspects, for improving the position of cross-border
victims, which would pave the way for a Green Paper.
The words “would pave the way for a Green Paper” were the result of hours
of argument: it took a great deal of energy by Parliament to obtain this commitment and it may be that this process will end up with a solution involving
some insurance-based system of compensation.
Including a rule on unfair competition is important, due to the inherent
complexity of eﬀects from any act of unfair competition in the Union. There
is at present a White Paper in the formative stages proposing the possibility of
collective action in this ﬁeld.
One area where Parliament was less successful, much to my disappointment,
was defamation. A number of problems were encountered with freedom of the
press and where a victim of defamation should have the right to take action,
and what law should apply to the claim.15 A practical example of the problem
would be that most French publishers become frightened at the prospect of
English damages laws being applied in a defamation action, and are eager to
avoid such high awards. On the other side, British newspapers would like to
Recital (32) of the Regulation provides:
According to the current national rules on compensation awarded to victims of
road traﬃc accidents, when quantifying damages for personal injury in cases in
which the accident takes place in a State other than that of the habitual residence
of the victim, the court seised should take into account all the relevant actual
circumstances of the speciﬁc victim, including in particular the actual losses and
costs of after-care and medical attention.
Parliament Debate at its second reading of Rome II, CRE 18/01/2007 – 4.
avoid the French privacy laws,16 claiming a chilling eﬀect on publications and
Following considerable debate17 and press lobbying, Parliament attempted to
implement a rule that was based on the place of the editorial decision.
As regards the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a
violation of privacy or rights relating to the personality, the law of the country in
which the most signiﬁcant element or elements of the loss or damage occur or are
likely to occur shall be applicable.
Where the violation is caused by the publication of printed matter or by a
broadcast, the country in which the most signiﬁcant element or elements of the
damage occur or are likely to occur shall be deemed to be the country to which the
publication or broadcasting service is principally directed or, if this is not apparent,
the country in which editorial control is exercised, and that country’s law shall be
applicable. The country to which the publication or broadcast is directed shall be
determined in particular by the language of the publication or broadcast orby sales
or audience size in a given country as a proportion of total sales or audience size
or by a combination of those factors.18
However in the end, the Commission, to considerable disappointment, withdrew
that provision,19 although the Commission has committed to revisit the issue,
an issue that represents a gaping hole in the regulation’s regime.20
The other area that was hotly debated and in some ways is related to defamation is how Rome II sits with other Community instruments, particularly
internal market instruments.21 An internal market clause means that normally
commercial operators will expect the country of origin principle to apply, that
is to say that they would expect to apply their home law even where they (or
their products or services) go abroad. This idea does not sit well with principles
of private international law. The country of origin principle, in European law, is
not a choice of law rule and as such it does not aid commercial operators. There
was a concern that Rome II should not overly interfere with existing internal
market instruments, and this was distinctly provided for in the recitals.22
The application of foreign law was an issue of particular concern issue during
the drafting process. The Regulation requires judges in the courts of one state to
apply the law of another state, possible on a very regular basis. This is potentially
Act no 78–17 of 6 January 1978 on Data Processing, Data Files and Individual Liberties.
Cf. fn. 15, supra.
Rome II (European Parliament draft), EUR. PARL. DOC. (COM 2003) art. 6(1), amend.
57, Commission Draft 17–18 ( July 22, 2003).
COM (2006) 83 ﬁnal.
Rome II Article 30(2).
Rapporteur’s recommendation for second reading, Explanatory Statement, 22/12/2006,
A6–0481/2006.
Rome II Recital (35).
a complex and challenging task. Are we really ready for that? Parliament wanted
to ensure that the Commission conduct a survey on how national judges could
be helped in this issue.
Another contentious common law / civil law issue relates to punitive damages,
with the United Kingdom being a particular example of where punitive damages
are a very real and live issue. The ﬁnal text permits the forum, on public policy
grounds, not to award punitive damages.23
We now have, for the ﬁrst time, a comprehensive applicable law regime for
the whole of the European Union for non-contractual obligations. Before Rome
II there was an extreme disparity between the Member States in terms of the
relative state of their national regimes. There do remain outstanding areas, such
as defamation. There is an ongoing study on the issue of defamation due to
conclude by the 31st December 2008. Although slightly delayed, Parliament is
actively pursuing the matter with the Commission. Concurrently, the Brussels
I Regulation is due for review in the latter part of half of 2008. Parliament
maintains that the applicable law regime must ﬁt with the rules on jurisdiction
in the Brussels I regulation and vice-versa.
A road traﬃc study is due to be completed by 31st December 2008 and is
in active preparation. There are diﬃculties with the relationship between Rome
II and the Hague Convention on road traﬃc accidents that remains in force
as between those countries party to it. Importantly, that Convention does not
apply in all EU countries.
The treatment of foreign law is a particular issue that ought be examined and
funds have been allocated for that.24
There are a number of issues outstanding that remain to be exhaustively
examined. However, as a more general point, applicable law rules are welcome
as they underline the national legal identities. They are not concerned with
harmonisation, rather the opposite. They highlight and enhance the applicability
of individual Member States’ law, although this becomes very complicated in
the large Union we have today.
Looking beyond non-contractual obligations, proposals have been made to
increase the repertoire of issues in which commonly applicable law rules ought
to apply. These issues range from wills and succession to Rome III, concerning
matrimonial law. These proposals are fundamentally geared to deal with the
reality of a more mobile European population and the growing cross-border
elements of everyday Community life. It is reasonable to expect a European
justice system that is competent and accessible to mirror the development of
the common market. Conﬂict rules are very diﬃcult as evidenced above and
Rome II Recital (32).
Rome II Article 30(1).
supported by recent pan-European studies of Member States’ judiciaries. Conﬂicts systems fundamentally depend on judicial awareness of their existence and
Are conﬂict rules merely a “staging-post” on the road to a more comprehensive
pan-European legal regime? Whatever the answer to that may be, Rome II is
extremely valuable in itself in contributing to progress at a pan-European level
and is a huge advance from the previous status quo.
Johan Meeusen*
In a contribution, published recently in the European Journal of Migration and
Law,1 I have submitted that the Europeanization of conﬂict of laws, which is
discernible since the nineties of the twentieth century, in fact results in a kind of
conﬂicts revolution, European style.2 Especially since the introduction of Article
65 in the EC Treaty, we are witnessing a profound transformation of conﬂict
of laws, or private international law, for the EU Member States. This contribution aims to point to some aspects of this transformation and apply them to
the Rome II regulation.3 Its central thesis is that, not only should Rome II be
analysed and commented upon from a conﬂict of laws perspective, but that it is
very important to approach it, maybe even in the ﬁrst place, as a true piece of
Community law. Such characterization has a number of important consequences
and gives us a particular framework for commenting upon the regulation.
B. Rome II, the European Framework and the Legal Basis Requirement
The Community initiatives regarding private international law have an impressive
reach. Secondary Community law on private international law, which has been
formally adopted by regulation, is to date binding for 26 Member States (all
except Denmark). This is also true for the Rome II regulation, which provides
* This contribution is based on a paper written for lectures at conferences on Rome II, both at
the Dean Rusk Center of the University of Georgia (Athens, GA, USA) in November 2007
and at the School of Law of Trinity College Dublin in June 2008.
Meeusen, “Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union: Towards
a European Conﬂicts Revolution?” (2007) 9 Eur. J. of Migration and Law 287.
Michaels, “The New European Choice of law Revolution” (2008) 82 Tulane L. Rev. 1607ﬀ.
Regulation (EC) n° 864/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007
on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), O.J., 2007, L 199, 40.
a pan-European system of choice of law rules for cross-border torts with full
supremacy, i.e. full priority over all national Member State legislation. Of course,
the priority given by Article 28 of Rome II to existing international conventions,
to which one or more Member States are parties, weakens to a certain extent
the newly acquired uniformity. Still, one can only conﬁrm that the adoption of
the Rome II regulation represents a great step for European conﬂict of laws –
a “major achievement”4 indeed.
Rome II, as well as all other Community conﬂict of laws legislation, is characterized by all particularities of EC law, as laid down in the EC Treaty and
interpreted by the ECJ. The path of intergovernmental negotiations which is
proper to the Hague Conference and which implies that a conﬂict of laws treaty
must be ratiﬁed by all prospective treaty States pursuant to their constitutional
procedures, has for the EU Member States been replaced by the much faster
procedures of a ‘new’ or ‘own’ legal order in which Community institutions
have powers under the Treaty to issue binding measures of a legislative nature,
beneﬁting from all the characteristics of Community law (in particular their
supremacy and direct eﬀect).5
Of utmost importance is that the Community institutional framework rests to
a large degree on a strict principle of conferral of powers (Article 5, paragraph
1, EC) associated with a duty to state reasons (Article 253 EC). This might
be called a golden rule of EC law: all acts of secondary Community law, i.e.
adopted by the Community legislator, must ﬁnd their legal basis and be in
conformity with the EC Treaty. This is also true for the Rome II regulation,
which means that this regulation should not be analysed and commented upon
solely from a perspective of conﬂict of laws, but should be examined as EC law
on cross-border torts.
Of course, the precise choice of law rules adopted can stir debate. The choice
between lex loci delicti and lex loci damni, the subsidiary reference to the parties’
common habitual residence, the rules adopted for speciﬁc torts all have their pros
and cons and will draw both applause and criticism. But certainly, these choices
which the Community legislator has made are in the end reasonably acceptable
in a legislative instrument on cross-border torts. Therefore, this contribution
doesn’t discuss them as such, but will rather concentrate on the issue of tort
choice of law rules in a Community law setting. What are the speciﬁc require-
Hay, “Contemporary Approaches to Non-Contractual Obligations in Private International Law
(Conﬂict of Laws) and the European Community’s ‘Rome II’ Regulation” 2007 European Legal
See in this regard in particular the two fundamental ECJ judgments in the early Sixties: Case
26/62, Van Gend & Loos, [1963] ECR 3 and Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, [1964] ECR 1203.
ments which ﬂow from EC law, and in what respect, if any, does a Community
conﬂicts statute on torts diﬀer from a similar statute at Member State level?
The starting point of any analysis and evaluation of EC law should of course be
the Treaty basis on which the pertinent rules of Community law were adopted. The
Rome II regulation is based on Articles 61c and 65 EC, well-known articles
which, since Amsterdam, provide a Treaty basis for the adoption of Community
conﬂict of laws measures. Earlier, I have extensively written on the possible
consequences ﬂowing from the restrictive wording of Article 65 EC, in particular its internal market clause.6 The EC Treaty does not confer any general
competence on the EC to adopt measures in relation to or in order to achieve
an area of freedom, security and justice, but only mentions an exhaustive list
of measures to be taken (Article 61 EC), including on judicial cooperation in
civil matters according as provided for in Article 65. The latter provision further
clariﬁes in its introductory paragraph that judicial cooperation in civil matters
having cross-border implications is meant. Conﬂict of laws, expressly mentioned
in Article 65(b), is therefore certainly at its place in this title. Yet, this same
Article 65 limits its scope to the said measures which must be taken “in so far
as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market”.
Earlier, the European Union Committee of the House of Lords questioned
the grounds for Community competence with regard to Rome II since the
Commission could in its view, and at that stage, not convincingly demonstrate a
“real and substantial connection between the proposed measure and the internal
market”.7 While I cannot avoid having doubts on the strict legality of recently
adopted European conﬂict of laws measures on family law, in view of the latter clause,8 it is easier to accept that a regulation on cross-border torts is based
upon Article 65 EC, given in particular the very broad interpretation given by
the ECJ to the internal market. Tourism, e.g., is, from an internal market point
of view, a service with an economic value, so that tourists travelling around
Europe must be considered receivers of economic services and participating in
the internal market. Legal certainty on the applicable law in case of a tort is,
therefore, of great importance.
Another well-known issue which is related to the Treaty basis of Articles 61c
and 65 EC is whether the Community tort choice of law rules should, in view
Cf. Meeusen, “ ‘What has it got to do necessarily with the European Union?’ International Family
Law and European economic integration”, (2006–2007) 9 Cambridge Yrbk of European Legal
Studies 329ﬀ. and also Meeusen, Pertegás, Straetmans and Swennen(eds.), International Family
Law for the European Union, Antwerp, Intersentia, 2007.
House of Lords, European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–2004, The Rome
II Regulation, section 66–72.
Cf. Meeusen op. cit., fn. 6, 338–339.
of the internal market clause mentioned, be limited to intra-Community choice
of law rules, i.e. rules of a non-universal nature and/or rules with a scope of
application limited by a delimitation factor deﬁned in function of the internal
market. As to these points, I have elsewhere underlined the problems that ﬂow
from a strict reading of the Treaty and the divergence between institutional
orthodoxy and practical advantages and eﬃciency of Community policy making, and I have therefore advocated a broad approach. Such approach should
preferably be based on the rewriting of the pertinent EC Treaty provisions in
view of a true reappraisal of the “area of freedom, security and justice”.9 The
same arguments hold true, I submit, in the ﬁeld of tort law. Choice of law rules
for cross-border torts are indeed needed for the achievement of a true “area of
freedom, security and justice” but must not necessarily be associated with the
internal market. The elimination of the internal market clause from Article 65
EC Treaty and the introduction of a more general legal basis for the adoption of
measures to implement the area of freedom, security and justice would provide
a more convenient Treaty basis also for the harmonization of conﬂict of laws
rules, including those on torts.
As is well known, the Treaty of Lisbon10 only mitigates, but does not
eliminate, the internal market restriction. After its entering into force, the new
Article 81,2° of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would
provide that the European Parliament and the Council shall adopt measures,
particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the interna