Abstract
This year’s voyage through the endlessly fascinating landscape of European Tort Law has disclosed much to interest, stimulate and provoke. As a memento of the trip, I have recorded some “snapshots” of developments of particular note, and sought — where possible — to place them in the context of themes that have emerged over previous years. For those who prefer to start at the end, and read back to front, these remarks also serve as an introduction to (some of) the most notable landmarks described in the preceding chapters of this Yearbook.
Thanks to Stuart David Wallace for assistance with the footnotes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
B.A. Koch, Comparative Overview, YB 2005, 602 (no. 29). In addition to the developments discussed in the text, see also E — 8/07, Nguyen v Norway, 20.06.08, noted by D. Hinghofer-Szalkay/B.A. Koch, European Union (supra 647), no. 27 ff., in which the EFTA Court ruled that compulsory motor insurance cannot exclude compensation in respect of civil liability for non-pecuniary loss.
R. Reischauer/ K. Spielbüchler/ R. Welser (eds.), Reform des Schadenersatzrechts III: Vorschläge eines Arbeitskreises (2008), noted by B.C. Steininger, Austria (supra 108), no. 2 ff.
B.C. Steininger, Austria (supra 108), no. 14.
B.C. Steininger, Austria (supra 108), no. 14.
B.A. Koch, Comparative Overview, YB 2005, 602 (no. 18 ff.).
Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22, noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales, YB 2004, 239 (no. 24 ff.).
Herrity v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd, [2008] IEHC 249, noted by E. Quill, Ireland (supra 364), no. 9 ff..
Von Hannover v Germany, no. 59320/00, 24.06.04, noted by J. Fedtke, Germany, YB 2004, 300 (no. 11 ff.).
See, e.g., HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales, YB 2006, 153 (no. 37 ff.); Supreme Court 07.05.07, noted by B. Askeland, Norway YB 2007, 440 (no. 4 ff.).
K. Oliphant, Comparative Remarks, YB 2006, 499 (no. 10 ff.).
As in Parkinson v St. James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530, noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales, YB 2001, 131 (no. 47 ff.).
For a beginning, see H. Koziol/ B.C. Steininger Schadenersatz bei ungeplanter Geburt eines Kindes, RZ 2008, 138, noted by B.C. Steininger, Austria (supra 108), no. 84 ff.
A. Menyhárd, Hungary (supra 343), no. 14.
See M. Martín-Casals (ed.) Children in Tort Law. Part II: Children as Victims (2007) 279 f.
K. Oliphant, Comparative Remarks, YB 2006, 499 (no. 18 ff.), referring to Hoge Raad 31.03.06, noted by M.G. Faure/T. Hartlief, The Netherlands, YB 2006, 338 (no. 22 ff.) and Barker v Corus plc [2006] UKHL 20, noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales, YB 2006, 153 (no. 20 ff.).
K. Oliphant, Comparative Remarks, YB 2007, 617 (no. 22), referring to Federal Court 13.06.07, noted by P. Loser, Switzerland, YB 2007, 586 (no. 26 ff.).
M. Martín-Casals et al., 13 June 2007 BGE 133 III 462, Perte d’une chance (case note), (2008) 16 ERPL 1043. I should declare that I contributed the note on English law.
B.A. Koch, Comparative Overview, YB 2005, 602 (no. 29).
See K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 50.
See K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 52, S. Hakalehto-Wainio, Finland (supra 256), no. 3 ff., and A. Pereira, Portugal (supra 526), no. 11 (noting Ordinance 377/26.05.08). For evidence of the impact of the Personal Injury Assessment Board in Ireland, see E. Quill, Ireland (supra 364), no. 24.
A. Anfinsen/ B. Askeland, Norway (supra 484), no. 41.
J. Ribot/ A. Ruda, Spain (supra 597), no. 32 ff.
See this year C-452/06, Synthon BV v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health, 16.10.08, noted by D. Hinghofer-Szalkay/B.A. Koch, European Union (supra 647), no. 23 ff. and, in the EFTA Court, E-8/07, Nguyen v Norway, 20.06.08, noted by D. Hinghofer-Szalkay/B.A. Koch, European Union (supra 647), no. 27 ff.
K. Oliphant, Comparative Remarks, YB 2007, 617 (no. 3), referring to the Polish Supreme Court’s decision of 04.01.07, noted by E. Bagińska, Poland, YB 2007, 451 (no. 75 ff.).
C-224/01, Köbler v. Austria [2003] ECR I-10239.
E. Bagińska, Poland, YB 2007, 451 (no. 78).
Law Commission (England and Wales), Administrative Redress; Public Bodies and the Citizen, Consultation Paper No. 187 (1980), noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 1 ff.
See B.A. Koch, Comparative Remarks, YB 2002, 512 (no. 51 ff.) and K. Oliphant, Comparative Remarks, YB 2006, 499 (no. 36). Note also the new Polish law of limitation of actions introduced by Revision of the Civil Code 16.02.07, noted by E. Bagińska, Poland, YB 2007, 451 (no. 1 ff.).
O. Moréteau, France (supra 264), no. 1 and 3. In relation to convergence, he particularly highlights the abandonment of distinctions between contract and tort (no. 6) and the introduction of a test of constructive knowledge in establishing the commencement date for prescription purposes, in contrast with the purely subjective approach of the Catala Avant-projet (no. 8).
See R. Zimmermann/ J. Kleinschmidt, Prescription: General Framework and Special Problems Concerning Damages Claims, YB 2007, 26 (no. 4), noting a trend towards periods of between two and five years, and apparent international agreement that three years is most appropriate.
For other decisions raising questions of limitation of actions, see B.C. Steininger, Austria (supra 108), no. 44 ff., I. Durant, Belgium (supra 145), no. 25 ff., and V. Tokushev, Bulgaria (supra 170), no. 46 ff.
E. Dacoronia, Greece (supra 324), no. 27 ff.
See also F. Fusco, Commencement of the Prescription Period in Case of Damage Caused due to Omissions, YB 2007, 79.
E. Dacoronia, Greece (supra 324), no. 41.
See, e.g., E. Bagińska, Poland, YB 2002, 329 (no. 14 ff.) and C. Alunaru/L. Bojin, Romania (supra 541), no. 19 ff.
See, e.g., E. Bagińska, Poland, YB 2006, 373 (no. 13 ff.).
R. Lampe, Slovenia, YB 2002, 364 (no. 1 ff.); I. Kull, Estonia, YB 2004, 248 (no. 1 ff.); H. Gebartas/M. Laučienė, Lithuania, YB 2004, 405 (no. 1).
J. Hrádek, Czech Republic, YB 2005, 186 (no. 1 ff.); A. Dulak, Slovakia (supra 571), no. 1 ff.; A. Menyhárd, Hungary (supra 343), no. 1 ff.
A. Dulak, Slovakia (supra 571), no. 3.
K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 56.
H. Andersson, Sweden, YB 2007, 572 (no. 26).
Van Colle v Police and Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008] UKHL 50, noted by K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 21 ff.
H. Koziol/ R. Schulze (eds.), Tort Law of the European Community (2008), Tort and Insurance Law, vol. 23.
B.A. Koch (ed.), Economic Loss Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms: Liability and Redress for the Adventitious Presence of GMOs in non-GM Crops (2008), Tort and Insurance Law, vol. 24.
J. Ribot/ A. Ruda, Spain (supra 597), no. 48.
M. Hinteregger (ed.), Environmental Liability and Ecological Damage in European Law (2008); J. Cartwright/M. Hesselink (eds.), Precontractual Liability in European Private Law (2008). Both titles are reviewed by K. Oliphant, England and Wales (supra 213), no. 60 and 158.
Study Group on a European Civil Code/ Research Group on EC Private Law Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference: Outline Edition (2008). The Full Edition is scheduled for the second half of 2009.
European Group on Tort Law, Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary (2005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag / Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oliphan, K. (2009). Comparative Remarks. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2008. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 2008. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92798-4_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92798-4_34
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-92797-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-92798-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)