Abstract
‘Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is more interesting’, a famous saying by William Randolph Hearst goes. It rings true not only for newspaper men, but also for judges who have to decide on politically charged legal questions in times of economic crisis. This Chapter will address one telling example from the European case law on the implementation, interpretation and application of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts: the interaction among national and European Union (EU) legislature and judiciary in the Spanish case of Aziz v Catalunyacaixa.
An account of the Aziz case touches upon a number of subjects that Hans Micklitz has addressed in his extensive work on European consumer and contract law, including the evolution of consumer law in the EU, the normative design of European private law and the development of effective remedies for breaches of Union law by the judiciary. With this Chapter, therefore, I hope to contribute to the further analysis of these themes as well as to express my admiration and great appreciation for Hans Micklitz’s work and for his open, sincere and thoughtful manner of engaging with other people’s views and beliefs. His questions always challenge me to look beyond the obvious and sharpen my thoughts and the way in which to express them. One thing this has taught me is to look into the reception of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)’s judgments in national legal systems to fully grasp their meaning and understand their importance for the conceptualisation of the legal order shaped by European contract law. The following analysis of the Aziz judgment may be read against this backdrop.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
OJ 1993 L 95, 29.
- 2.
Judgment of 14 March 2013, Case C-415/11 Aziz v Catalunyacaixa, not yet reported.
- 3.
H-W Micklitz, N Reich and P Rott, Understanding EU Consumer Law (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009).
- 4.
H-W Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality—Towards a Normative Design for European Private Law’ in L Niglia (ed), Pluralism and European Private Law (Oxford, Hart, 2013).
- 5.
H-W Micklitz, ‘The ECJ Between the Individual Citizen and the Member States—A Plea for a Judge-Made European Law on Remedies’ in H-W Micklitz and B de Witte (eds), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2012).
- 6.
E.g. C Mak, ‘Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira, Case C-40/08’ (2010) 6 European Review of Contract Law 437.
- 7.
- 8.
Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology and Pluralistic Reality’ and ‘The ECJ Between the Individual Citizen and the Member States’.
- 9.
Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology and Pluralistic Reality’, 32 f.
- 10.
Cf D Orrell, Truth or Beauty. Science and the Quest for Order (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2012).
- 11.
The following is based on a case summary I posted earlier on the blog ‘Recent developments in European consumer law’, recent-ecl.blogspot.com, 14/3/2013.
- 12.
Case C-415/11 Aziz, para 64 and ruling.
- 13.
ibid, para 76 and ruling.
- 14.
Opinion of AG Kokott of 8 November 2012, Case C-415/11 Aziz.
- 15.
Case C-415/11 Aziz, paras 73–75 (emphasis added, CM).
- 16.
Case C–237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co KG v Hofstetter, [2004] ECR I-3403, para 25 and ruling.
- 17.
- 18.
On the variety of legal theories concerning the monistic or pluralistic nature of the European legal order, see Mak, ‘The One and the Many’. On European constitutional theory, see e.g. N Walker, ‘The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2002) Modern Law Review 317; M Poiares Maduro, ‘Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action’ in N Walker (ed), Sovereignty in Action (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003); M Kumm, ‘Who is the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality in Europe? Three Conceptions of the Relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice’ (1999) Common Market Law Review 351.
- 19.
Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality’.
- 20.
L Niglia, ‘Overview of Part One’ in L Niglia (ed), Pluralism and European Private Law (Oxford, Hart publishing, 2013).
- 21.
See also judgment of 30 May 2013, Case C-488/11 Asbeek Brusse v Jahani, not yet reported, in which the CJEU ruled that Directive 93/13’s scope is not restricted to sales contracts, but also covers, inter alia, residential tenancy agreements.
- 22.
Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality’, 47–49.
- 23.
Ibid, 47.
- 24.
Case C-415/11 Aziz, para 61; see also paras 59 and 60, cited above.
- 25.
Compare Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality’, 42 f: ‘Conflict and resistance are suggested as one of the possible reactions of the Member States. The perspective is that the Member States do not give way to the intruding European regulatory private law. Instead, they provoke a clash between the European regulatory private law and the traditional national law, and set limits to where the intruding law ends and where the national laws begin.’
- 26.
‘Más de 300 reclamaciones por las cláusulas abusivas hipotecarias’, El País—Cataluña 5/5/2013, http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/05/05/catalunya/1367767343_786819.html.
- 27.
‘El juez de Barcelona declara abusivas cláusulas del contrato del “caso Aziz”, origen de la sentencia del TJUE sobre el sistema de ejecución hipotecaria’, Noticias Judiciales TSJ Cataluña 16/5/2013, http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder_Judicial/Noticias_Judiciales/El_juez_de_Barcelona_declara_abusivas_clausulas_del_contrato_del__caso_Aziz___origen_de_la_sentencia_del_TJUE_sobre_el_sistema_de_ejecucion_hipotecaria. See also ‘El juez declara abusiva la hipoteca del “caso Aziz”’, El País—Cataluña 3/5/2013, http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/05/02/catalunya/1367520137_907887.html.
- 28.
Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona, 2/5/2013, SJM B 21/2013, under the heading ‘Consideraciones previas a las alegaciones de las partes’, http://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/SALA_DE_PRENSA/NOVEDADES/J.Mercantil_3_Barcelona.pdf.
- 29.
Ibid, under the heading ‘Objeto de la demanda’.
- 30.
For a schematic overview of the four parameters currently included in the model, see Micklitz, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality’, 51.
- 31.
Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona, under the heading ‘Costas’.
- 32.
Including: Joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-4941; Case C-168/05 Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Movíl Milenium SL [2006] ECR I-10421; Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579; Case C-484/08 Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) [2010] ECR I-4785; judgment of 14 June 2012, Case C-618/10 Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino, not yet reported.
- 33.
- 34.
http://europeanlawblog.eu, 18/12/2013.
References
Komesar, N, Imperfect Alternatives. Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics and Public Policy(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994).
Komesar, N, Law’s Limits. The Rule of Law and the Supply and Demand of Rights (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Kumm, M, ‘Who is the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality in Europe? Three Conceptions of the Relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice’ (1999) Common Market Law Review 351.
Mak, C, ‘Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira, Case C-40/08’ (2010) 6 European Review of Contract Law 437.
Mak, C, ‘The One and the Many. Translating Insights from Constitutional Pluralism to European Conctract Law Theory’ (2013) 21 European Review of Private Law 1189.
Micklitz, H-W, Reich, N, and Rott, P, Understanding EU Consumer Law (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009).
Micklitz, H-W, ‘The ECJ Between the Individual Citizen and the Member States—A Plea for a Judge-Made European Law on Remedies’ in H-W Micklitz and B de Witte (eds), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2012) 349.
Micklitz, H-W, ‘Monistic Ideology versus Pluralistic Reality—Towards a Normative Design for European Private Law’ in L Niglia (ed), Pluralism and European Private Law (Oxford, Hart publishing, 2013) 29.
Niglia, L (ed), Pluralism and European Private Law (Oxford, Hart publishing, 2013).
Orrell, D, Truth or Beauty. Science and the Quest for Order (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2012).
Poiares Maduro, M, ‘Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action’ in N Walker (ed), Sovereignty in Action (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003) 501.
Scarry, E, On Beauty and Being Just (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001).
Smith, Z, On Beauty (London, Penguin Press, 2005).
Walker, N, ‘The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2002) Modern Law Review 317.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mak, C. (2014). On Beauty and Being Fair—The Interaction of National and Supranational Judiciaries in the Development of a European Law on Remedies. In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_40
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04902-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04903-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)