Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Private Law and Fundamental Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

  • 921 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this general report is to identify the role and influence of human rights and basic rights (fundamental rights) in private law across different jurisdictions. It was prepared on the basis of the session ‘The influence of human rights and basic rights in private law’ at the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law, organized by the IACL—International Association of Comparative Law, which took place between 20 and 26 July 2014 in Vienna, Austria. Nineteen national reports on countries from all over the world contributed to this end. This report aims to be international and is not solely limited to the influence of fundamental rights in private law in Europe but also covers non-European and non-European Union jurisdictions. It focuses on the application and influence of fundamental rights in private law, as reflected in case law and legislation. In this context, several trends can be identified. Fundamental rights influence different spheres of private law, though in a limited manner and predominantly indirectly in various fields of horizontal relationships. In particular, this is shown through the impact of fundamental rights on the interpretation of different private law concepts and legal rules, thereby affecting their content.

A full version of the general report was published in Trstenjak, V., and Weingerl, P. 2016. The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law. Springer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The report includes some of the EU Member States’ reports (reports for Austria (Stefan Perner & Moritz Zoppel), Croatia (Tatjana Josipović), France (Geneviève Helleringer & Kiteri Garcia), Germany (Dirk Looschelders & Mark Makowsky), Greece (Christina Deliyanni-Dimitrakou & Christina M. Akrivopoulou), Hungary (Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz), Italy (Emanuela Navarretta & Elena Bargelli), the Netherlands (Olha O. Cherednychenko), Poland (Ewa Łętowska), Portugal (Jorge Sinde Monteiro, André Dias Pereira, Alexandre L.D. Pereira, Geraldo Ribeiro, Luís Fábrica, Mónica Jardim & Paula Távora Vítor), England (Raymond H. Youngs), Slovenia (Petra Weingerl) and the Czech Republic (Jan Hurdík & Markéta Selucká), as well as the reports for some non-EU countries – Argentina (Augusto César Belluscio), Brazil (Gustavo Tepedino), Québec (Canada) (Mélanie Samson & Louise Langevin), the United States of America (Jonathan M. Miller), Japan (Hiroki Hatano), and Norway (Kåre Lilleholt).

  2. 2.

    See English report p 1.

  3. 3.

    See French report p 3-4.

  4. 4.

    Dutch report p 3.

  5. 5.

    Portuguese report p 2.

  6. 6.

    German report p 1.

  7. 7.

    Japanese report p 1.

  8. 8.

    Argentinian report p 2.

  9. 9.

    Greek report p 5-6.

  10. 10.

    Quebecois report p 3.

  11. 11.

    Brazilian report p 2.

  12. 12.

    English report p 1.

  13. 13.

    Hungarian report p 2; Polish report p 3.

  14. 14.

    Decision SC (Supreme Court) 9.9.1993, III ARN 45/93; SC 11.2.1993, III AZP 28/93.

  15. 15.

    Czech report p 1.

  16. 16.

    Croatian report p 1; Slovenian report p 1.

  17. 17.

    Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531 U.S. 288, 296 (2001), in US report p 7-8.

  18. 18.

    US report p 13.

  19. 19.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 83/389, 30.3.2010.

  20. 20.

    For discussion on the CJEU, private law and general principles, see also Basedow (2010).

  21. 21.

    Austrian report p 4.

  22. 22.

    For the detailed discussion on the influence of fundamental rights in contract law, see for instance Cherednychenko (2007a); Bruggemeier et al. (2010); see also Busch and Schulte-Nölke (2010); Mak (2008).

  23. 23.

    For the collected essays on the constitutionalisation of different aspects of private law, see Micklitz (2014).

  24. 24.

    See, for example, Ciacchi (2014, p. 104).

  25. 25.

    BverfG 15 January 1958, BverfGE7, p 198.

  26. 26.

    Dutch report p 2.

  27. 27.

    In Austrian report p 8.

  28. 28.

    See Italian report p 8.

  29. 29.

    Greek report p 11.

  30. 30.

    The Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, II Ips 737/2005, 3 April 2008.

  31. 31.

    Brazilian report p 12.

  32. 32.

    Portuguese report p 6.

  33. 33.

    Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.

  34. 34.

    Case C-399/11, Melloni, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107. For the discussion see, for example, Streinz (2014).

  35. 35.

    Melloni, para. 60.

  36. 36.

    Åkerberg Fransson, para. 21.

  37. 37.

    Case C-176/12, Association de médiation sociale (AMS), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2.

  38. 38.

    Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

  39. 39.

    See, for instance, Twigg-Flesner (2013, p. 2).

  40. 40.

    Japanese report p 5; French report p 14.

  41. 41.

    Dutch report p 6. For the discussion on the freedom of contract in the EU, see Basedow (2008).

  42. 42.

    Greek report p 20, Argentinian report p 7.

  43. 43.

    Dutch report p 6.

  44. 44.

    Austrian report p 8; Greek report p 23.

  45. 45.

    Austrian report p 8.

  46. 46.

    Quebecois report p 21.

  47. 47.

    See, for instance, Croatian report p 11.

  48. 48.

    Greek report p 23.

  49. 49.

    ibid.

  50. 50.

    German report p 7.

  51. 51.

    Japanese report p 7.

  52. 52.

    German report p 7.

  53. 53.

    BVerfGE 89, 214, 229 ff, in German report p 7.

  54. 54.

    BVerfGE 89, 214, 255, in German report p 7.

  55. 55.

    Austrian report p 9.

  56. 56.

    BGB l I 1997/6; Austrian report p 9-10.

  57. 57.

    Pl. ÚS 42/03 in Czech report p 9; also in the Netherlands, see Dutch report p 7.

  58. 58.

    Dutch report p 7.

  59. 59.

    Hof Arnhem 25 October 1948, NJ 1949, 331 (Protestantse Vereniging v. Hoogers), in Dutch report p 7.

  60. 60.

    Cass. 19 June 2009, no. 14343.

  61. 61.

    Italian report p 8.

  62. 62.

    Lindheim and others v. Norway 12 June 2012, in Norwegian report p 3.

  63. 63.

    HR 12 December 2003, NJ 2004, 117 (Aidstest II).

  64. 64.

    Dutch report p 7.

  65. 65.

    ibid. p 7-8.

  66. 66.

    ibid. p 7.

  67. 67.

    ibid.

  68. 68.

    Japanese report p 6.

  69. 69.

    ibid.

  70. 70.

    ibid. p 6-7.

  71. 71.

    Italian report p 9.

  72. 72.

    Italian report p 9.

  73. 73.

    See for example Article 132 of the Slovenian Code of Obligations. See also Article 160 of Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011) 635 final.

  74. 74.

    Portuguese report p 20.

  75. 75.

    Italian report p 8.

  76. 76.

    See, for instance, Cass. 5 August 2013, no. 18626, in Italian report p 8.

  77. 77.

    Vizzoti vs. AMSA, 14/11/2004, Fallos 327.3677; Argentinean report p 8.

  78. 78.

    BAG (GS) NJW 1995, 210, 212, in German report p 7.

  79. 79.

    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011.

  80. 80.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 095, 21.4.1993.

  81. 81.

    Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC, OJ L 326, 11.12.2015.

  82. 82.

    Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees OJ L 171, 7.7.1999.

  83. 83.

    Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ L 46, 17.2.2004.

  84. 84.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008.

  85. 85.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011) 635 final.

  86. 86.

    Commission Work Programme 2015: A New Start, COM(2014) 910 final.

  87. 87.

    Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Océano Grupo, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346.

  88. 88.

    Océano Grupo, para. 29.

  89. 89.

    Case C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito, ECLI:EU:C:2012:349.

  90. 90.

    Case C-34/13, Kušionová, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2189, para. 65.

  91. 91.

    Case C-489/07, Messner, ECLI:EU:C:2009:502.

  92. 92.

    Case C-404/06, Quelle AG, ECLI:EU:C:2008:231.

  93. 93.

    C-168/00, Leitner, ECLI:EU:C:2002:163.

  94. 94.

    C-83/10, Rodríguez, ECLI:EU:C:2011:652.

  95. 95.

    ibid., para. 34.

  96. 96.

    Joined Cases C-65/09 and C-87/09, Weber and Putz, ECLI:EU:C:2011:396.

  97. 97.

    ibid., para. 62.

  98. 98.

    Case C-214/10, KHS, ECLI:EU:C:2011:761.

  99. 99.

    Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003.

  100. 100.

    KHS, para. 34.

  101. 101.

    Case C-236/09, Test-Achats, ECLI:EU:C:2011:100.

  102. 102.

    Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, OJ L 373, 21.12.2004.

  103. 103.

    Case C-354/13, FOA, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2463.

  104. 104.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in case C-354/13, FOA, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2106.

  105. 105.

    Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

  106. 106.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in FOA, para. 61.

  107. 107.

    English report p 5.

  108. 108.

    German report p 10.

  109. 109.

    See, for instance, German report p 10; French report p 21; Croatian report p 14; Brazilian report p 10.

  110. 110.

    See, for instance, Argentinian report p 9.

  111. 111.

    Argentinian report p 9.

  112. 112.

    See French report p 21.

  113. 113.

    Lawrence, JC (2012) Kiobel and the Commission (European Law Blog). Accessible at http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=950. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  114. 114.

    US report p 22; Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013).

  115. 115.

    Lawrence, JC (2012) Kiobel and the Commission (European Law Blog). Accessible at http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=950. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  116. 116.

    ibid.

  117. 117.

    See Austrian report p 13.

  118. 118.

    Portuguese report p 36.

  119. 119.

    Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); [2008] EMLR 20: £60,000.

  120. 120.

    English report p 6.

  121. 121.

    German report p 11.

  122. 122.

    ibid.

  123. 123.

    Article 179(1) of the Slovenian Code of Obligations.

  124. 124.

    Polish report p 17.

  125. 125.

    Brazilian report p 11.

  126. 126.

    Czech report p 17.

  127. 127.

    Hungarian report p 12.

  128. 128.

    ibid., p 13.

  129. 129.

    ibid.

  130. 130.

    In Greece by Arts. 928 and 929 of the Greek Civil Code.

  131. 131.

    Croatian report p 16.

  132. 132.

    See Portuguese report p 39.

  133. 133.

    ibid.

  134. 134.

    ibid., p 40; Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 275/2002, in DR, II, 24 July 2002.

  135. 135.

    Portuguese report p 40.

  136. 136.

    ibid., p 40-41.

  137. 137.

    ibid., p 42.

  138. 138.

    BVerfGE 88, 203, 296.

  139. 139.

    Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products OJ L 210, 7.8.1985.

  140. 140.

    Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004.

  141. 141.

    Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, OJ L 263, 7.10.2009.

  142. 142.

    Case C-203/99, Veedfald, ECLI:EU:C:2001:258.

  143. 143.

    ibid., para. 26.

  144. 144.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  145. 145.

    http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#P1. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  146. 146.

    Austrian report p 16; Czech report p 18; Hungarian report p 14; Croatian report p 20; Brazilian report p 13.

  147. 147.

    Austrian report p 16, Czech report p 18; German report p 15; Hungarian report p 14; Croatian report p 20.

  148. 148.

    Czech report p 18; German report p 14.

  149. 149.

    Polish report p 2.

  150. 150.

    Brazilian report p 13.

  151. 151.

    BGH NJW 1974, 1381; 2008, 3784.

  152. 152.

    Québécois report p 35.

  153. 153.

    Desroches c. Commission des droits de la personne, in Québécois report p 35.

  154. 154.

    Quebecois report p 35.

  155. 155.

    ibid.

  156. 156.

    ibid. p 36.

  157. 157.

    ibid.

  158. 158.

    ibid.

  159. 159.

    Dutch report p 13.

  160. 160.

    ibid.

  161. 161.

    BVerfG NJW 1992, 493; German report p 16.

  162. 162.

    BGH NJW 1992, 737, German report p 16. Accordingly, lawyers or tax accountants may not sell their office with clients’ files, if the clients do not agree with the transfer.

  163. 163.

    Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 19-21 (1948), in the US report p 15.

  164. 164.

    Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619 (2014)), in the US report p 15.

  165. 165.

    WIPO Brochure ‘What is Intellectual Property’, accessible at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  166. 166.

    ibid.

  167. 167.

    Austrian report p 16; Portuguese report p 3.

  168. 168.

    Czech report p 19.

  169. 169.

    Czech report p 19.

  170. 170.

    Austrian report p 17.

  171. 171.

    Czech report p 20.

  172. 172.

    OLG Dresden NJW 2005, 1871, German report p 16.

  173. 173.

    OLG Stuttgart NJW-RR 2004, 619, 621 ff, German report p 16.

  174. 174.

    See for example Smits (2002, p. 245). For an account of the growing impact of European integration on the property law systems of the EU Member States, see also van Erp (2012).

  175. 175.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, 24.3.2009.

  176. 176.

    Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ L 299, 8.11.2008.

  177. 177.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.

  178. 178.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004.

  179. 179.

    See webpage of the EU Commission on Patents, accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  180. 180.

    Case C-283/11, Sky Österreich, ECLI:EU:C:2013:28.

  181. 181.

    Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, OJ L 95, 15.4.2010.

  182. 182.

    Sky Österreich, para. 38.

  183. 183.

    Case C-347/03, Tocai, para. 119, ECLI:EU:C:2005:285.

  184. 184.

    Case C-347/03, Tocai, para. 119, ECLI:EU:C:2005:285.

  185. 185.

    Case C-275/06, Promusicae, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54.

  186. 186.

    Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771.

  187. 187.

    Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192.

  188. 188.

    See for example Austrian report p 18; Croatian report p 24; Czech report p 21; Norwegian report p 7; Greek report p 77.

  189. 189.

    See for instance Czech report p 21.

  190. 190.

    Austrian report p 18.

  191. 191.

    German report p 18.

  192. 192.

    BGH NJW 2008, 3277.

  193. 193.

    § 14 para. 3 of the Austrian Tenancy Act; Austrian report p 18.

  194. 194.

    Japanese report p 15.

  195. 195.

    ibid., p 15.

  196. 196.

    German report p 17.

  197. 197.

    Norwegian report p 7.

  198. 198.

    French report p 57.

  199. 199.

    English report p 11.

  200. 200.

    Croatian report p 26.

  201. 201.

    Slovenian report p 15.

  202. 202.

    Stated in Section 685/A of Act IV of 1959 on the Civil Code.

  203. 203.

    See Hungarian report p 17.

  204. 204.

    ibid.

  205. 205.

    BVerfGE 124, 199; 126, 400, 420; BVerfG NJW 2013, 847; DStR 2013, 1228; German report 21.

  206. 206.

    Polish report p 25.

  207. 207.

    ibid.

  208. 208.

    ibid.

  209. 209.

    [2004] UKHL 30.

  210. 210.

    English report p 11.

  211. 211.

    Greek report p 79.

  212. 212.

    Croatian report p 25.

  213. 213.

    ibid.

  214. 214.

    ibid.

  215. 215.

    Norwegian report p 7.

  216. 216.

    Greek report p 75.

  217. 217.

    BVerfGE 84, 9, German report p 21.

  218. 218.

    BVerfG NJW 2001, 957, 958; in German report p 20.

  219. 219.

    Barca v Mears [2004] EWHC 2170 (Ch), see English report p 9.

  220. 220.

    EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64.

  221. 221.

    English report p 9.

  222. 222.

    German report p 20.

  223. 223.

    Austrian report p 19.

  224. 224.

    Polish report p 23.

  225. 225.

    See Chronicles of Private Law Journal, 2009, p 818.

  226. 226.

    Greek report p 84.

  227. 227.

    BVerfGE 79, 256; 96, 56; BVerfG NJW 2010, 3772l, German report p 22.

  228. 228.

    BVerfGE 96, 56, German report p 22.

  229. 229.

    Section 757 et seq ABGB; Austrian report p 18.

  230. 230.

    Inheritance Act 3 March No. 5 (lov om arv m.m.) chapter III a. See Norwegian report p 7.

  231. 231.

    U-I-425/06.

  232. 232.

    Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, No. 69498/01, 13.07.2004.

  233. 233.

    ibid., para. 31.

  234. 234.

    ibid., para. 59.

  235. 235.

    ibid.

  236. 236.

    See the EU Commission’s webpage accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/family-matters/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  237. 237.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003.

  238. 238.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L 343, 29.12.2010.

  239. 239.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 10.1.2009.

  240. 240.

    Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, OJ L 201, 27.7.2012.

  241. 241.

    See the EU Commission’s webpage accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/family-matters/marriage/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  242. 242.

    Case C-403/09 PPU, Detiček, ECLI:EU:C:2009:810.

  243. 243.

    ibid., para. 54.

  244. 244.

    Case C-195/08 PPU, Rinau, ECLI:EU:C:2008:406.

  245. 245.

    C-117/01, K.B., ECLI:EU:C:2004:7.

  246. 246.

    Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, OJ L 045, 19.02.1975.

  247. 247.

    Case C-147/08, Römer, ECLI:EU:C:2011:286.

  248. 248.

    ibid., para. 52.

  249. 249.

    Case C-118/13, Bollacke, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1755.

  250. 250.

    Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003.

  251. 251.

    Bollacke, para. 29.

  252. 252.

    Greek report p 55.

  253. 253.

    I.ÚS 1586/09, dated March 6, 2012, in Czech report 14.

  254. 254.

    ibid.; see also French report p 23.

  255. 255.

    Argentinian report p 10.

  256. 256.

    BGHZ 13, 334, 338, in German report p 10.

  257. 257.

    Art. 1 I, 2 I GG.

  258. 258.

    BGHZ 128, 1, 12, in German report p 11.

  259. 259.

    See French report p 23.

  260. 260.

    Article 134(1) of the Slovenian Code of Obligations.

  261. 261.

    See Croatian report p 15.

  262. 262.

    HR 15 April 1994, NJ 1994, 608 (Valkenhorst), in Dutch report p 9.

  263. 263.

    Dutch report p 9.

  264. 264.

    ibid.

  265. 265.

    HR 6 January 1995, NJ 1995, 422 (Parool), in Dutch report p 9-10.

  266. 266.

    Greek report p 57, see also Japanese report p 11.

  267. 267.

    See Case 349/2001 MPrTrik, NoV 2002, 153.

  268. 268.

    Greek report p 57.

  269. 269.

    ibid.

  270. 270.

    Brazilian report p 10.

  271. 271.

    EGMR NJW 2004, 2647 ff, in German report p 13.

  272. 272.

    Case of Von Hannover V. Germany, No. 59320/00, 24.06.2004, para. 61.

  273. 273.

    ibid., para. 76.

  274. 274.

    The Supreme Court of Justice decision of 14 January 2010, in Portuguese report p 35.

  275. 275.

    Hungarian report p 12.

  276. 276.

    I.ÚS 1586/09, dated March 6, 2012, in Czech report p 14.

  277. 277.

    Japanese report p 8.

  278. 278.

    See Portuguese report p 34.

  279. 279.

    Mladina d.d. Ljubljana vs. Slovenia, No. 20981/10, 17 April 2014.

  280. 280.

    Para. 40.

  281. 281.

    The US report p 19-20.

  282. 282.

    New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

  283. 283.

    See the webpage of the EU Fundamental rights agency, accessible at http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/data-protection-privacy. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  284. 284.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

  285. 285.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), COM(2012) 11 final.

  286. 286.

    See the EU Commission’s ‘Factsheet on ECJ’s ruling on the ‘right to be forgotten”, accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2015.

  287. 287.

    Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ L 105, 13.4.2006.

  288. 288.

    Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

  289. 289.

    Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

  290. 290.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

  291. 291.

    Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein, ECLI:EU:C:2010:806.

  292. 292.

    ibid., para. 83.

References

  • Basedow, Jürgen. 2008. Freedom of Contract in the European Union. European Review of Private Law 16:901–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow, Jürgen. 2010. The Court of Justice and Private Law: Vacillations, General Principles and the Architecture of the European Judiciary. European Review of Private Law 18:443-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruggemeier, Gert, Colombi Ciacchi, Aurelia, and Comandé, Giovanni. 2010. Fundamental Rights and Private Law in the European Union. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, Christoph, and Schulte-Nölke, Hans. 2010. EU Compendium - Fundamental Rights and Private Law. Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, John. 2007. Contract Law: An Introduction to the English Law of Contract for the Civil Lawyer. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko, Olha O. 2007a. Fundamental rights, contract law and the protection of the weaker party. A comparative analysis of the constitutionalisation of contract law, with emphasis on risky financial transactions. Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko, Olha O. 2007b. Fundamental rights and private law: A relationship of subordination or complementarity. Utrecht Law Review 3:1-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciacchi, Aurelia. 2014. European Fundamental Rights, Private Law, and Judicial Governance. In The Constitutionalization of European Private Law, ed. Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, 102-136. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Hugh. 2003. The Law of Contract (Law in Context). Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Hugh. 2014. The Constitutionalization of European Private Law as a Path to Social Justice? In The Constitutionalization of European Private Law, ed. Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, 26-60. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, John, and Cooke, Philip. 2005. Law of Tort. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, Eric. 2009. Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights (Drittwirkung). HanseLR 5:165-173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz, Dorota. 2013. Horizontal Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. E.L. Rev. 38:479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looschelders, Dirk. 1999. Die Ausstrahlung der Grundrechte auf das Schadensrecht. In Einwirkungen der Grundrechte auf das Zivilrecht, Öffentliche Recht und Strafrecht, ed. Wolter/Riedel/Taupitz, 93-112. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, Chantal. 2008. Fundamental rights in European contract law: a comparison of the impact of fundamental rights on contractual relationships in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and England. Alphen an den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKendrick, Ewan. 2012. Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H.-W. (ed.). 2014. Constitutionalization of European Private Law. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner, Stefan. 2013. Grundfreiheiten, Grundrechte-Charta und Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Roger John. 2009. Property Law. Harlow : Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, Jan M. 2002. The Making of European Private Law: Toward a Ius Commune Europaeum as a Mixed Legal System. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, Jan M. 2006. Private law and fundamental rights: a sceptical view. In Constitutionalisation of Private Law, ed. Barkhujsen T., and Lindenbergh, S., 9-22. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, Rudolf. 2014. Streit um den Grundrechtsschutz? Zum Grundrechtsschutz in der Europäischen Union nach den Urteilen des EuGH in den Fällen Åkerberg Fransson und Melloni und des BVerfG zur Antiterrordatei. In Festschrift für Manfred A. Dause zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Heid, H., Stotz, R., and Verny, A., 429-443. Munich: Beck C. H.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trstenjak, Verica. 2013. Procedural Aspects of European Consumer Protection Law and the Case Law of the CJEU, ERPL 21:451-478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trstenjak, Verica, and Beysen, Erwin. 2013. The Growing Overlap of Fundamental Freedoms and Fundamental Rights in the Case Law of the CJEU. E.L. Rev. 38:293-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trstenjak, Verica, and Brkan, Maja. 2012. Pravo EU: Ustavno, procesno in gospodarsko pravo. Ljubljana: GV Založba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg-Flesner, Christian. 2013. The Europeanisation of Contract Law: Current Controversies in Law. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam, Cees. 2013. European Tort Law. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Erp, Sjef, Salomons, Arthur, and Akkermans, Bram (eds.). 2012. The Future of European Property Law. Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO Brochure. What is Intellectual Property. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/intproperty/450/wipo_kpub_450.pdf. Accessed 15 Sep 2014.

National reports

  • Belluscio, A. C. 2014. Argentinian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko, O. O. 2014. Dutch report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deliyanni-Dimitrakou, C., and Akrivopoulou, C. M. 2014. Greek report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gárdos-Orosz, F. 2014. Hungarian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, H. 2014. Japanese report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleringer, G. and Garcia, K. 2014. French report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurdík, J., and Selucká, M. 2014. Czech report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josipović, T. 2014. Croatian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Łętowska, E. 2014. Polish report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilleholt, K. 2014. Norwegian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looschelders, D., and Makowsky, M. 2014. German report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. H. 2014. The US report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, J. S. et al. 2014. Portuguese report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarretta, E. and Bargelli, E. 2014. Italian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner, S., and Zoppel, M. 2014. Austrian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson, M., and Langevin, L. 2014. Quebecois report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepedino, G. 2014. Brazilian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingerl, P. 2014. Slovenian report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, R. 2014. English report on the influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. IACL Congress.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Verica Trstenjak

  2. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Verica Trstenjak

Authors
  1. Verica Trstenjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verica Trstenjak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Martin Schauer

  2. Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Bea Verschraegen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Trstenjak, V. (2017). Private Law and Fundamental Rights. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation