Abstract
Article 6 Rome I and article 8 Rome I, which determine the law applicable to consumer and individual employment contracts, respectively, are analysed, together with the relevant case law of the ECJ. In addition, article 9 Rome I regarding overriding mandatory rules is analysed, with special emphasis on the possible role of overriding mandatory rules as mechanisms for the protection of weaker contracting parties. Although neither authors nor case law among Member States share a common approach, it is submitted that the tendency of the EU is to accept that rules aimed at the protection of weaker parties can also qualify as overriding mandatory rules. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all protective rules can have such a character, but only when its application is regarded as crucial for the safeguarding of the country’s public interests. The rule must have a dual purpose: the promotion of public interests and, complementarily, the protection of a weaker party. Finally, the functioning of article 3(4) Rome I as the provision introduced in order to avoid the circumvention of the application of EU mandatory law by a choice of law of a third country law is also the object of study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Recital 11 Rome I Regulation refers to party autonomy as one of the cornerstones of the system of the Rome I Regulation; moreover, the ECJ refers to party autonomy as ‘the’ cornerstone of the instrument (Case C-184/12 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare [2013] EU:C:2013:663, para 49).
- 2.
In addition to the field of contract law, party autonomy has also been extended and increasingly recognised in other areas in EU PIL, especially during the last years. In the area of non-contractual obligations, article 14(1) Rome II Regulation recognises the freedom of choice of law of the parties. Even in the areas of family law and succession the possibility to choose the applicable law is recognised: first, the 2007 Hague Maintenance Protocol which came into force through the Maintenance Regulation among most Member States; then, article 5 Rome III Regulation recognises that married couples can choose the law applicable to their divorce and separation. Finally, article 22 of the Succession Regulation affords the deceased a (unilateral) choice of law regarding the succession rights resulting from the death.
- 3.
Kuipers (2012), p. 46.
- 4.
- 5.
Rühl (2011), pp. 599, 600.
- 6.
In this regard, Sect. 2.4.2.
- 7.
Case C-70/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain [2004] ECR I-9657. In this regard, see Sect. 4.1.1.3.
- 8.
Regarding the coherence principle in EU Private International Law: Sánchez Lorenzo (2018).
- 9.
See Sect. 2.1.1.2. for a more exhaustive definition of consumer and professional within the EU PIL.
- 10.
Calliess (2015b), p. 157.
- 11.
By contrast to article 5 Rome Convention, which only applied to contracts for the sale of goods, supply of services or provision of credit for that purpose.
- 12.
Recital 31 Rome I.
- 13.
Section 2.1.1.2.
- 14.
Italics provided by the author.
- 15.
Case C-190/11 Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi [2012] ECR I-0000.
- 16.
Article 6(4) Rome I:
(a) a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence; (b) a contract of carriage other than a contract relating to package travel within the meaning of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (15); (c) a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property other than a contract relating to the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis within the meaning of Directive 94/47/EC; (d) rights and obligations which constitute a financial instrument and rights and obligations constituting the terms and conditions governing the issuance or offer to the public and public take-over bids of transferable securities, and the subscription and redemption of units in collective investment undertakings in so far as these activities do not constitute provision of a financial service; (e) a contract concluded within the type of system falling within the scope of Article 4(1)(h).
- 17.
Giuliano-Lagarde Report [1980] OJ C282/1, 24.
- 18.
Ibid.
- 19.
Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-03327.
- 20.
Wilderspin (2016), p. 468.
- 21.
Calliess (2015b), p. 183.
- 22.
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 2015 L 326/1).
- 23.
Ragno (2009), p. 140.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 141.
- 25.
Article 15(3) Brussels I Regulation (now article 17(3) Brussels I bis) provides: ‘This Section shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.’
- 26.
- 27.
Calliess (2015b), p. 185.
- 28.
Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts (OJ 2009 L 33/10).
- 29.
In accordance with article 18 of the new Timeshare Directive, references made to the repealed Directive shall be understood as references to the new one.
- 30.
Wilderspin (2016), p. 471.
- 31.
Ibid., p. 471; Calliess (2015b), p. 185.
- 32.
Now Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU [2014] (OJ L 173/349).
- 33.
Article 4 MiFID referring to Section C of Annex 1.
- 34.
See recital 28 Rome I. Calliess (2015b), p. 186.
- 35.
Garcimartín Alférez (2009), pp. 90,91.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
Calliess (2015b), p. 175.
- 39.
Ragno (2009), p. 228.
- 40.
Calliess (2015b), p. 176.
- 41.
Ragno (2009), p. 228.
- 42.
The ECJ rulings related to article 17 Brussels I bis—ex article 15 Brussels I- must also apply for the purposes of article 6 of the Rome I Regulation. Recital 14 Rome I expresses that ‘(… .) Consistency with Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 requires both that there be a reference to the concept of directed activity as a condition for applying the consumer protection rule and that the concept be interpreted harmoniously in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and this Regulation (…)’.
- 43.
Joined cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller [2010] ECR I-12527.
- 44.
Pammer and Alpenhof, para 55.
- 45.
Pammer and Alpenhof, para 75.
- 46.
Pammer and Alpenhof, para 93.
- 47.
- 48.
Case C-218/12 Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:666.
- 49.
Emrek, paras 23–25.
- 50.
Case C-190/11 Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:542.
- 51.
Mühlleitner, para 42.
- 52.
Mühlleitner, para 44.
- 53.
Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ 2018 L 60I/1).
- 54.
Recitals 1 and 2 of the Geo-Blocking Regulation.
- 55.
Specifically, article 1(6) provides that ‘…where a trader, acting in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of this Regulation, does not block or limit consumers’ access to an online interface, does not redirect consumers to a version of an online interface based on their nationality or place of residence that is different from the online interface to which the consumers first sought access, does not apply different general conditions of access when selling goods or providing services in situations laid down in this Regulation, or accepts payment instruments issued in another Member State on a non-discriminatory basis, that trader shall not be, on those grounds alone, considered to be directing activities to the Member State where the consumer has the habitual residence or domicile. Nor shall that trader, on those grounds alone, be considered to be directing activities to the Member State of the consumer’s habitual residence or domicile, where the trader provides information and assistance to the consumer after the conclusion of a contract that has resulted from the trader’s compliance with this Regulation.’
- 56.
Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation (COM(2002) 654 final) pp. 30–32.
- 57.
- 58.
Regarding the advantages and criticisms of the option completely excluding party autonomy, see Sect. 2.4.1.1.
- 59.
Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the preferential law approach, see Sect. 2.4.1.3.
- 60.
Case C-191/15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl [2016].
- 61.
The wording of article 6(2) Rome I is ‘the choice may not have the result of depriving the consumer of the protection afforded to him…’, while the wording of article 3(3) says that ‘the choice of the parties shall not prejudice the application’. Because of this different wording, it is interpreted that under article 3(3), the mandatory rules are applicable in any case and the chosen law works as an incorporation by reference, while from the wording of article 6(2) and its purpose of protecting the legitimate expectations of the consumer, an alternative choice between the mandatory rules of the chosen law and the law otherwise applicable needs to be made. Plender and Wilderspin (2015), p. 260; Calliess (2015b), p. 190.
- 62.
See Sect. 2.4.1.3.
- 63.
Calliess (2015b), p. 190.
- 64.
Giuliano/Lagarde Report.
- 65.
For more details regarding the definition of ‘employee’, see Sect. 2.1.2.2.
- 66.
Grusic (2015), pp. 154, 155.
- 67.
Ibid., p. 145.
- 68.
Franzen and Gröner (2015), p. 224.
- 69.
Grusic (2015), p. 148.
- 70.
- 71.
Franzen and Gröner (2015), p. 225, also referring to other authors such as Martiny, in Internationales Vertragsrecht, para 4846.
- 72.
- 73.
In this regard, Gardeñes Santiago even suggested that, despite this being the obvious and adequate interpretation, it would be convenient to clarify the issue in article 8(1) Rome I in order to avoid the possibility of an unrealistic global comparison between laws. Gardeñes Santiago (2008), p. 424.
- 74.
Grusic (2015), p. 152.
- 75.
Palao Moreno (2016), pp. 585, 586.
- 76.
Ibid., p. 583.
- 77.
See Case C-384/10 Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA [2011] ECR I-13275, para. 32.
- 78.
Palao Moreno (2016), p. 587.
- 79.
Case C-383/95 Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd [1997] ECR I-00057.
- 80.
Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels [1993] ECR I-04075.
- 81.
Mulox, para 21.
- 82.
Mulox, para 25.
- 83.
Case C-383/95 Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd [1997] ECR I-00057.
- 84.
Rutten, para 23.
- 85.
Case C-37/00 Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd [2002] ECR I-02013.
- 86.
Weber, para 58.
- 87.
For example, the case where an employee, having carried out his work in a Member State, goes to permanently work to another Member State, would be understood as a desire to have a new habitual place of work in the latter country, and thus could overturn the presumptions. Palao Moreno (2016), p. 590.
- 88.
Case C-29/10 Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg [2011] ECR I-01595.
- 89.
Case C-384/10 Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA [2011] ECR I-13275.
- 90.
Koelzsch, paras 39 et seq.
- 91.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) COM(2005) 650 final, 7.
- 92.
Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16 Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd and Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:688.
- 93.
Nogueira and others, paras 56–59, 74.
- 94.
Nogueira and others, para 63.
- 95.
Nogueira and others, paras 64, 65.
- 96.
Weber, para 36.
- 97.
- 98.
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18/1) (Posted Workers Directive).
- 99.
Employers are obliged to provide information regarding the posting to posted employees (article 4 Council Directive 91/533/ECC), which can be especially useful to determine whether the posting is intended to be temporary or definitive.
- 100.
In the Schlecker case (Case C-64/12 Anton Schlecker v Melitta Josefa Boedeker [2013] EU:C:2013:551), Advocate General Wahl gave an example in which he referred to this situation and considered that a very long posting would be over 10 years. Case C-64/12 Anton Schlecker v Melita Josefa Boedeker, Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 16 April 2013, para 43.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
Mulox and Weber cases.
- 104.
For a detailed explanation about the Posted Workers Directive, see Chap. 5.
- 105.
Case C-815/18 Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Van den Bosch Transporten BV, Van den Bosch Transporte GmbH, Silo-Tank kft, Opinion of the Advocate General [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:319.
- 106.
Paras 37–70. More about the recent legislative development regarding a posting rule for road transport in: Van Overveeke (2020), pp. 9–12.
- 107.
- 108.
Palao Moreno (2016), pp. 193–197.
- 109.
Voogsgeerd, para 46.
- 110.
Voogsgeerd, paras 54–57.
- 111.
- 112.
Franzen and Gröner (2015), p. 232.
- 113.
Grusic (2015), p. 173.
- 114.
Gardeñes Santiago (2008), p. 416.
- 115.
Case C-64/12 Anton Schlecker v Melitta Josefa Boedeker [2013] EU:C:2013:551.
- 116.
Case C-64/12 Anton Schlecker v Melita Josefa Boedeker, Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 16 April 2013, para 60.
- 117.
Schlecker, para 44.
- 118.
Gardeñes Santiago (2008), p. 416.
- 119.
Schlecker, para 41.
- 120.
- 121.
Following the same reasoning, it is of interest a commentary criticising the outcome of a Spanish judgment (Sentencia del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Sección n° 02) de lo Social, 9 de noviembre de 2016) regarding the law applicable to an employment contract of a Spanish worker in an embassy in Qatar: Marchal Escalona (2017).
- 122.
Schlecker, paras 34, 35.
- 123.
Gardeñes Santiago suggests, placing more importance on the protection of workers, the introduction of a modification in article 8(4) Rome I, which entails adding the possibility of applying the most beneficial law for the worker as long as it has a close connection with the contract and not necessarily the closest connection. Gardeñes Santiago (2008), pp. 415–418. However, article 8(4) Rome I, in its current drafting, just aims at enabling the judge to apply, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the law most closely connected to the employment contract, not the most beneficial law for the worker.
- 124.
Bonomi (2016), p. 604.
- 125.
Von Savigny (1849).
- 126.
Renner (2015), pp. 242, 243.
- 127.
Marques dos Santos explains in detail how the doctrine of overriding mandatory rules (‘normas de aplicaçao imediata’) started to be introduced in the doctrine, case law, legislation of PIL in Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, displacing the supremacy of Savigny’s multilateral method to an acceptance of a pluralism of methods is PIL: Marques dos Santos (1991a).
- 128.
- 129.
In this sense, Preamble 37 Rome I states: ‘Considerations of public interest justify giving the courts of the Member States the possibility, in exceptional circumstances, of applying exceptions based on public policy and overriding mandatory provisions. The concept of overriding mandatory provisions should be distinguished from the expression ‘provisions which cannot be derogated from by agreement’ and should be construed more restrictively.’ Kuipers (2012), p. 67; Van Bochove (2014), p. 148.
- 130.
Joined cases C-369/96 Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL and C-376/96 Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL [1999] ECRI-8453, where para 30 states: ‘(…) that term must be understood as applying to national provisions compliance with which has been deemed to be so crucial for the protection of the political, social or economic order in the Member State concerned as to require compliance therewith by all persons present on the national territory of that Member State and all legal relationships within that State’.
- 131.
- 132.
Both article 3(3) Rome Convention and Article 7 Rome Convention (predecessor of article 9 Rome I) used the terminology ‘mandatory rules’ when referring to two different concepts.
- 133.
Guardans Cambó (1992), pp. 314–316.
- 134.
Gardeñes Santiago (2017), p. 167.
- 135.
Garcimartín Alférez (2008), p. 65.
- 136.
Ibid., p. 65.
- 137.
- 138.
Gardeñes Santiago (2017), p. 167.
- 139.
Bonomi (2008a), p. 289.
- 140.
Case C-184/12 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare [2013] EU:C:2013:663, para. 50. Bonomi (2016), p. 621.
- 141.
Ibid., p. 621.
- 142.
Kuipers (2012), pp. 93, 94.
- 143.
Bonomi (2008a), p. 292.
- 144.
Bonomi (2016), p. 622, referring to Mankowski, RIW- Kommentar (1996), 8 et seq, and Martiny, in: Münchener Kommentar, para. 13.
- 145.
Bundesarbeitbericht, 29 October 1992, in: IPRax 1994, p. 123.
- 146.
- 147.
- 148.
- 149.
Cour de Cassation, 30 November 2007, 06-14006.
- 150.
- 151.
- 152.
Hoge Raad 23 October 1987, NJ 1988/842 (Sorensen/Aramco).
- 153.
In this case, the Dutch provision in question was article 6 Buitengewoon Besluit Ardbeidsverhoudingen (BBA) which required employers to have prior consent from an employment office before proceeding to the termination of an employment relationship.
- 154.
- 155.
Hoge Raad 24 February 2012, LJN BU8512 (Nuon Personeelsbeheer/X).
- 156.
Article 6 BBA (Buitengewoon Besluit Arbeidsverhoudingen 1945).
- 157.
Belgian provisions on the protection of the commercial agent and distributors are traditionally regarded as overriding mandatory rules (see, for example, the position of Belgium in the Unamar case: C-184/12 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare [2013]).
- 158.
Giuliano-Lagarde Report [1980] OJ C282/1. Following a similar approach, the Spanish doctrine, contrarily to the German approach, considered that there was no problem in applying national consumer protection legislation through article 7 Rome Convention. Calvo Caravaca and Carrascosa González (1997), pp. 116–118.
- 159.
Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc. [2000] ECR I-9305.
- 160.
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382/17).
- 161.
Ingmar, para. 25.
- 162.
Ingmar, paras. 23–24. In that respect, Case C-215/97 Barbara Bellone v Yokohama SpA [1998] ECR I-2191, already considered in para. 17, regarding preamble 2 of the Commercial Agents Directive, that the referred objectives of protection of the internal market, freedom of establishment and circumvention of distorted competition, were the aims pursued by it.
- 163.
- 164.
Verhagen (2002), p. 138.
- 165.
- 166.
- 167.
Kuipers (2012), p. 199.
- 168.
- 169.
- 170.
- 171.
Nine days after the Ingmar judgment, the French Cour de Cassation on 28 November 2000 (no. 98-11.335) held that the Commercial Agents Directive does not provide overriding mandatory character to the French implementing legislation. This also seemed to be the position taken by the Netherlands previous to the Ingmar judgment, where the District Court Arnhem (The Netherlands), on 11 July 1991, held that the Dutch commercial agency provisions implementing that Directive sis not have overriding mandatory character.
- 172.
- 173.
Case C-184/12 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare [2013] EU:C:2013:663.
- 174.
The ECJ in Unamar concluded: Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 must be interpreted as meaning that the law of a Member State of the European Union which meets the minimum protection requirements laid down by Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and which has been chosen by the parties to a commercial agency contract may be rejected by the court of another Member State before which the case has been brought in favour of the law of the forum, owing to the mandatory nature, in the legal order of that Member State, of the rules governing the situation of self-employed commercial agents, only if the court before which the case has been brought finds, on the basis of a detailed assessment, that, in the course of that transposition, the legislature of the State of the forum held it to be crucial, in the legal order concerned, to grant the commercial agent protection going beyond that provided for by that directive, taking account in that regard of the nature and of the objective of such mandatory provisions.
- 175.
Joined cases C-369/96 Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL and C-376/96 Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL [1999] ECRI-8453.
- 176.
Case C-165/98 Mazzoleni and ISA [2001] ECR I-2189.
- 177.
Bonomi (2016), p. 624.
- 178.
Unamar, para 50.
- 179.
- 180.
Schmidt-Kessel (2015), pp. 328, 329.
- 181.
Bonomi (2016), pp. 615, 616.
- 182.
- 183.
The nature of article 3 PWD is analysed and discussed in Sect. 6.3.2.2.
- 184.
Bonomi (2016), p. 616.
- 185.
- 186.
- 187.
Kuipers (2012), pp. 76, 77, with further references.
- 188.
Oró Martínez (2008), pp. 542–544.
- 189.
Hoge Raad 13 May 1966, NJ 1967, 3. Kuipers (2012), pp. 58, 59.
- 190.
For a description of the traditional grounds of criticism to this approach, see: Dickinson (2007), pp. 56–63.
- 191.
Article 22(1)(a) Rome Convention allowed Member States to make a reservation to this application of article 7(1), and seven Member States (specifically Germany, Slovenia, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and the UK) made use of it, mainly on the basis of the concerns about legal uncertainty. However, in the context of the Rome Regulation, being an EU Regulation, there was no possibility to make reservations, and, as a result, it seemed very difficult to keep the same controversial drafting of article 7(2) Rome Convention. Oró Martínez (2008), p. 544.
- 192.
Amendment 26, European Parliament Draft Report on COM (2005) 650, PE274.427.
- 193.
Oró Martínez (2008), pp. 543, 544.
- 194.
For example, Bonomi has criticised the new solution of article 9(3) Rome I, defending the previous connecting factor and considering that the modification does not enhance legal certainty and can be described as arbitrary (Bonomi (2016), pp. 637, 642; Bonomi (2008a), pp. 297–299; also, Kuipers (2012), pp. 85–89). On the other hand, others consider the modification as necessary, mainly due to the political controversy around it, and even highlight the similarity of results in practice resulting from the application of both provisions, Hellner (2009), pp. 464–466, 470; Lando and Nielsen (2008), p. 1721.
- 195.
See, in general, Guardans Cambó (1992), pp. 548–562.
- 196.
Gardeñes Santiago (2017), pp. 178, 179.
- 197.
Ibid., p. 179.
- 198.
Case C-135/15 Republik Griechenland v Grigorios Nikiforidis [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:774.
- 199.
Republik Griechenland v Grigorios Nikiforidis, para 54.
- 200.
See above Sect. 3.3.1.1.
- 201.
Kuipers (2012), pp. 106–108.
- 202.
Giuliano-Lagarde Report [1980] OJ C282/1.
- 203.
Plender and Wilderspin (2009), p. 352.
- 204.
Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation (COM(2002) 654 final) 33.
- 205.
Lasok and Stone (1987), p. 378.
- 206.
The Gran Canaria cases will be object of further debate in Chap. 4, since they involve interaction of article 6 Rome I and implementation of EU Directive.
- 207.
Judgment of July 15, 1992 of the Cour d’appel de Luxembourg in the case Hames v Spaarkrediet.
- 208.
Plender and Wilderspin (2009), pp. 352,353.
- 209.
- 210.
Bonomi (2016), pp. 610–612.
- 211.
In this regard, Sect. 5.3.
- 212.
- 213.
Gardeñes Santiago (2017), p. 172.
- 214.
- 215.
- 216.
- 217.
Lagarde (2006), p. 337.
- 218.
Verhagen (2002), p. 140.
- 219.
- 220.
Mankowski (2016), p. 235. In addition, because of the coordination between the Brussels I bis Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the Rome I Regulation, the forum country will most probably be the same country to which the conflict rule in the absence of choice of law would have referred to and/or the closest connected to the contract.
- 221.
Article 3(4) Rome I cannot be used to justify the application of European provisions when all relevant elements are not located within the European Union. Article 3(4) Rome I has been questioned as it does not fulfil I its purpose of coordination and protection against abuse of law, since it does not cover any extra-EU situation. Within the EU secondary law there are no different mandatory provisions for intra-EU and extra-EU situations, but they become applicable provided the situation falls within its scope of application, which can happen even if not all the relevant elements are within the EU. As a result, either article 3(4) Rome I is not adapted to the requirements of the EU secondary law, or the EU secondary law is not adapted to the Rome I Regulation system.
- 222.
Giuliano-Lagarde Report [1980] OJ C282/1, 10.
- 223.
Specifically, articles 4(3), 5(3), 7(2), 8(4) Rome I, which state that ‘where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the contract is manifestly more closely connected with a country (…) the law of that other country shall apply’; Belohlávek (2011), p. 703.
- 224.
Plender and Wilderspin (2009), p. 164.
- 225.
Belohlávek (2011), p. 703.
- 226.
- 227.
Garcimartín Alférez (2008), p. 65.
References
Aguilar Grieder H (2006) La Voluntad de Conciliación con las Directivas Comunitarias Protectoras en la Propuesta del Reglamento Roma I. In: La Unión Europea ante el Derecho de la Globalización. Colex, Madrid, pp 45–61
Aguilar Grieder H (2007) La Protección del Agente en el Derecho Comercial Europeo. Colex, Madrid
Aguilar Grieder H (2011) El Impacto del Reglamento Roma I en el Contrato Internacional de Agencia. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 3:24–46
Belohlávek AJ (2011) Rome convention - Rome I regulation. Juris Publishing, Inc., Huntington
Bertrams RIVF, Kruisinga SA (2007) Overeenkomsten in het internationaal Privaatrecht en het Weens Koopverdrag. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer
Bonomi A (2008a) Overriding mandatory provisions in the Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contracts. In: Sarcevic P et al (eds) Yearbook of private international law. Sellier, European Law Publishers and Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, München, pp 285–300
Bonomi A (2008b) The Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations: some general remarks. In: Yearbook of international private law. Sellier, European Law Publishers and Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, München, pp 165–176
Bonomi A (2016) Article 9: overriding mandatory provisions. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Rome I regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 597–661
Calliess G-P (2015a) Article 3. Freedom of choice. In: Calliess G-P (ed) Rome regulations. Commentary, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 76–108
Calliess G-P (2015b) Article 6. Consumer contracts. In: Calliess G-P (ed) Rome regulations. commentary, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 155–193
Calvo Caravaca AL, Carrascosa González J (1997) El Convenio de Roma sobre la Ley aplicable a las obligaciones contractuales del 19 de junio de 1980. In: Contratos Internacionales. Tecnos, Madrid, pp 41–143
Carrascosa González J (2009) Ley Aplicable a los Contratos Internacionales: el Reglamento Roma I. Colex, Madrid
Carrascosa González J (2012) La Autonomía de la Voluntad Conflictual y la Mano Invisible en la Contratación Internacional. Diario La Ley 7847:2
Dickinson A (2007) Third-country mandatory rules in the law applicable to contractual obligations: so long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu? J Priv Int Law 3:53–88
Dominique B, Watt HM (2007) Droit International Privé- partie générale. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
Font i Segura A (2009) Reparación Indemnizatoria tras la Extinción del Contrato Internacional de Agencia Comercial: Imperatividad Poliédrica o el Mito de Zagreo (STJCE de 9 de noviembre de 2000, As. C-381/98, Ingmar Gb Ltd c. Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc.). Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 5:259–279
Francescakis P (1966) Quelques Precisions sur les ‘Lois d’Application Immediate’ et leurs Rapports avec les Règles sur les Conflits de Lois. Revue critique de droit international privé 55:1–18
Francescakis P (1967) Lois d’Application Immediate et Règles de Conflit. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 3:691–697
Franzen M, Gröner N (2015) Article 8. Individual employment contracts. In: Calliess G-P (ed) Rome regulations. Commentary, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Garcimartín Alférez FJ (2008) The Rome I regulation: much ado about nothing? Eur Legal Forum:61–80
Garcimartín Alférez FJ (2009) The Rome I regulation: exceptions to the rule on consumer contracts and financial instruments. J Priv Int Law 5:85–103
Gardeñes Santiago M (1999) La Aplicación de la Regla de Reconocimiento Mutuo y su Incidencia en el Comercio de Mercancías y Servicios en el Ámbito Comunitario e Internacional. Eurolex, Madrid
Gardeñes Santiago M (2008) La Regulación Conflictual del Contrato de Trabajo en el Reglamento Roma I: una oportunidad perdida. Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado 8:387–424
Gardeñes Santiago M (2017) Derecho Imperativo y Contrato Internacional de Trabajo. Revista de Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social 132:163–188
Grusic U (2015) The European private international law of employment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Guardans Cambó I (1992) Contrato Internacional y Derecho Imperativo Extranjero. Aranzadi, Pamplona
Hellner M (2009) Third country overriding mandatory rules in the Rome I regulation: old wine in new bottles? J Priv Int Law 5:447–470
Henckel KC (2016) Cross-border transfers of undertakings. Ulrik Huber Institute for Private International Law, Ees, The Netherlands
Houwerzijl M (2019) The analysis of the posting of workers Directive(s) with a specific focus on EU cross-border road transport. In: Zwanenburg A, Bednarowicz B (eds) Cross-border employment and social rights in the EU road transport sector. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 71–111
Kropholer J (2006) Internationales Privatrecht, 5th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Krvavac M, Belovic J (2014) Communitarisation of private international law rules on party autonomy in European Union. Int J Bus Humanit Technol 4:54–68
Kuipers J-J (2009) Party autonomy in the Brussels I regulation and Rome I regulation and the European Court of Justice. German Law J 10:1505–1525
Kuipers J-J (2012) EU law and private international law: the interrelationship in contractual obligations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Lagarde P (2006) Remarques sur la Proposition de Règlement sur la Loi Applicable aux Obligations Contractuelles (Rome I). Revue critique de droit international privé 95:331–349
Lando O (1987) The ECC convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Common Market Law Rev 24:159–214
Lando O, Nielsen PA (2008) The Rome I regulation. Common Market Law Rev 45:1687–1725
Lasok D, Stone P (1987) Conflict of laws in the European Community. Professional Books Ltd, London
Leible S (2011) La Importancia de la Autonomía Conflictual para el Futuro del Derecho de los Contratos Internacionales. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 3:214–233
Magnus U (2016) Introduction. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Rome I regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 6–51
Mankowski P (2016) Article 3: freedom of choice. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Rome I regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 87–263
Marchal Escalona N (2017) De la Protección del Personal Laboral al Servicio de las Embajadas Españolas. Bitácora Millennium DIPr: Derecho Internacional Privado 6:1–27
Marques dos Santos A (1991a) As Normas de Aplicaçao Imediata no Direito Internacional Privado. Livraria Almedina, Coimbra
Marques dos Santos A (1991b) As Normas de Aplicaçao Imediata no Direito Internacional Privado. Livraria Almedina, Coimbra
Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law (2004) Comments on the European Commission’s Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernization. RabelsZ 68:1–118
Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law (2007) Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I). RabelsZ Bd71
Mayer P, Heuzé V (2004) Droit International Privé, 8th edn. Librairie générale de droit et jurisprudence, Paris
McParland M (2015) The Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Merrett L (2011) Employment contracts in private international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mills A (2018) Party autonomy in private international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Oró Martínez C (2008) Del Artículo 7 del Convenio de Roma al Artículo 9 del Reglamento ‘Roma I’: Algunas Implicaciones para el Derecho de la Competencia. Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado 8:531–554
Palao Moreno G (2016) Article 8: individual employment contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Rome I regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 577–599
Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European private international law of obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Plender R, Wilderspin M (2015) The European private international law of obligations, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Ragno F (2009) The law applicable to consumer contracts under the Rome I regulation. In: Ferrari F, Leible S (eds) Rome I regulation. Sellier, European Law Publishers, München
Renner M (2015) Article 9. Overriding mandatory provisions. In: Calliess G-P (ed) Rome Regulations. Commentary, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 242–261
Roelvink HLJ (1993) Artikel 6:2 BW en het Nederlandse IPR. In: Van Rijn van Alkemade J (ed) Grensoverschrijdend privaatrecht: een bundel opstellen over privaatrecht in internationaal verband: aangeboden aan Mr. J. van Rijn van Alkemade bij gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als raadadviseur bij het Ministerie van Justitie. Kluwer, Deventer, p 219 ff
Rühl G (2007) Party autonomy in the private international law of contracts: transatlantic convergence and economic efficiency. In: Gottschalk E et al (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rühl G (2011) Consumer protection in choice of law. Cornell Int Law J 44:569–601
Sánchez Lorenzo S (2018) El Principio de Coherencia en el Derecho Internacional Privado. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 70:17–47
Schmidt-Kessel M (2015) Article 9. In: Ferrari F (ed) Rome I regulation. Pocket commentary. Sellier, European Law Publishers, München, pp 320–354
Sonnenberger HJ (2016) Overriding mandatory provisions. In: Leible S (ed) General principles of European private international law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 117–128
Strikwerda L, Schaafsma SJ (2005) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Van Bochove LM (2014) Overriding mandatory rules as a vehicle for weaker party protection in European private international law. Erasmus Law Rev 7:147–157
Van Overveeke F (2020) Posting drivers in the EU road transport sector. ERA Forum:1–12
Verhagen HLE (2002) The tension between party autonomy and European Union Law: some observations on IngmarGB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc. Int Comp Law Q 51:135–154
Von Bar C, Mankowski P (2003) Internationales Privatrecht Band 1: Allgemeine Lehren, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
von Savigny FC (1849) System des Heutigen Römischen Rechts. Veit und Comp, Berlin
Wilderspin M (2016) Article 6: consumer contracts. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Rome I regulation - commentary. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 453–490
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campo Comba, M. (2021). The Rome I Regulation and Its Mechanisms of Protection of Consumers and Employees. In: The Law Applicable to Cross-border Contracts involving Weaker Parties in EU Private International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61481-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61481-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61480-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61481-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)