Suchergebnisse

This article sketches and compares, in the light of the author's approach to judicial governance, different models of application of fundamental rights by civil courts. It proposes a taxonomy of three cultures of fundamental rights horizontality: (1) the post-authoritarian culture, (2) the old continental culture, and (3) the Nordicinsular culture.

Abstract: Public policy exceptions arguably exist in all fields of private and commerciallaw, not only in private international law but also in substantive law. In substantive private law, the term 'public policy exception' could be used to indicate general illegality rules that make an act of private autonomy (a contract, a testament, etc.) invalid when it conflicts with public policy or good morals. In primary EU law, one may call 'public policy exceptions' the derogations from the four freedoms for reasons of public morality, public policy, public security, or public health. Like the ordre public exceptions in private international law, the public policy exceptions in substantive private and commercial laws can also be seen as conflict rules. In fact, the public policy exceptions in substantive private law address the conflict between state regulation and policy, on the one hand, and private (self-)regulation and policy, on the other hand. Moreover, the public policy derogations from the four freedoms regulate the conflict between EU and national law and policy. A long-term research project initiated in Groningen aims at a cross-cutting comparison of interpretations and applications of concepts that function as public policy exceptions in different branches of substantive, international, and EU private and commerciallaw. In particular, this project aims at discovering and comparing the governance aspects, the fundamental rights based aspects, and the social justice aspects of these interpretations and applications. Resumé: On trouve sans aucun doute des exceptions d'ordre public dans tous les domaines du droit privé et commercial, non seulement en droit international privé mais aussi en droit matériel. En droit privé matériel, le terme 'exception d'ordre public' pourrait être utilisé pour indiquer des règles générales d'illicéité invalidant un acte d'autonomie privée (un contrat, un testament etc.) lorsqu'il est contraire à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes mœurs. Dans le droit primaire de l'UE, on peut appeler 'les exceptions d'ordre public' les dérogations aux 'quatre libertés' pour des raisons de morale publique, d'ordre public, de sécurité publique ou de santé publique. Comme les exceptions d'ordre public en droit international privé, les exceptions d'ordre public en droit privé matériel et commercial peuvent aussi être considérées comme des règles de conflit. En fait, les exceptions d'ordre public en droit privé matériel traitent le conflit entre la réglementation et la politique publiques d'une part et l'(auto-)réglementation et la politique privées d'autre part. De plus, les derogations d'ordre public aux 'quatre libertés' règlementent le conflit entre le droit et la politique au niveau national et au niveau de l'UE. Un projet de recherche à long terme lancé à Groningen vise à établir une comparaison transversale d'interprétations et d'applications de concepts fonctionnant comme exceptions d'ordre public dans différentes branches de droit matériel, international et de droit commercial et privé de l'UE. Ce projet tente en particulier de découvrir et de comparer les aspects de gouvernance, les aspects basés sur les droits fondamentaux et les aspects de justice sociale de ces interprétations et applications.

Public policy exceptions arguably exist in all fields of private and commerciallaw, not only in private international law but also in substantive law. In substantive private law, the term 'public policy exception' could be used to indicate general illegality rules that make an act of private autonomy (a contract, a testament, etc.) invalid when it conflicts with public policy or good morals. In primary EU law, one may call 'public policy exceptions' the derogations from the four freedoms for reasons of public morality, public policy, public security, or public health. Like the ordre public exceptions in private international law, the public policy exceptions in substantive private and commercial laws can also be seen as conflict rules. In fact, the public policy exceptions in substantive private law address the conflict between state regulation and policy, on the one hand, and private (self-)regulation and policy, on the other hand. Moreover, the public policy derogations from the four freedoms regulate the conflict between EU and national law and policy. A long-term research project initiated in Groningen aims at a cross-cutting comparison of interpretations and applications of concepts that function as public policy exceptions in different branches of substantive, international, and EU private and commerciallaw. In particular, this project aims at discovering and comparing the governance aspects, the fundamental rights based aspects, and the social justice aspects of these interpretations and applications.

Through the acknowledgment and balancing of the conflicting fundamental rights at stake in a private litigation, the courts 'govern' societal relationships. This judicial governance complements and adjusts the governance of the concerned societal relationships that takes place at the legislative level. This paper discusses a number of societal governance policies pursued, consciously or inconsciously, by national courts while deciding on private relationships through the application of fundamental rights. Thereby it considers casesdecided by courts in Germany, England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,Sweden and Spain. One may observe six major policy trends underlying these decisions: (1)the fight against discrimination, (2) the protection of weaker parties in contract cases, (3) the increasing valorisation of non-economic interests in tort cases, (4) the protection of privacy from intrusions by media, (5) the protection of political rights in privately owned public spaces, and (6) environmental protection in property cases.

Through the acknowledgment and balancing of the conflicting fundamental rights at stake in a private litigation, the courts 'govern' societal relationships. This judicial governance complements and adjusts the governance of the concerned societal relationships that takes place at the legislative level. This paper discusses a number of societal governance policies pursued, consciously or inconsciously, by national courts while deciding on private relationships through the application of fundamental rights. Thereby it considers cases decided by courts in Germany, England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Spain. One may observe six major policy trends underlying these decisions: (1) the fight against discrimination, (2) the protection of weaker parties in contract cases, (3) the increasing valorisation of non-economic interests in tort cases, (4) the protection of privacy from intrusions by media, (5) the protection of political rights in privately owned public spaces, and (6) environmental protection in property cases.

This paper explores the horizontal effect of European constitutional rights, freedoms and principles as an alternative method of harmonisation based on case-law convergence. The feasibility and the appeal of this method are illustrated with specific reference to the case of unfair suretyships. A comparison of the existing national instruments protecting vulnerable sureties from disproportionate obligations enables us to detect spontaneous convergences and ?cryptotypes?, but also dramatically different levels of protection. This paper argues that to give equally effective protection to sureties? (and lenders?) fundamental rights in all Member States, a new system of judicial harmonisation would be necessary.