§ 3 A Role for the DCFR in Domestic Adjudication

Santos Silva, Marta

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_3

Marta Santos Silva²

324 Accesses

Abstract

Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the use of comparative law arguments (komparative Auslegung) was, as a rule, forbidden.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

EUR 32.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter: EUR 29.95; Price includes VAT (Germany)

eBook: EUR 85.59; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Softcover Book: EUR 106.99; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Hardcover Book: EUR 149.79; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For a definition of “Comparative Law”, see Zweigert and Kötz (1996), p. 1 ff.
2.
Zweigert (1949), pp. 5–21.
3.
Zweigert and Kötz (1996); Schulze (1997), p. 183; Drobnig (1999a); Odersky (1999), p. 1 ff., 2; Vogenauer (2001), p. 453; von Bar (2004a), p. 129.
4.
Baldus (2012), p. 105. See also Menezes Cordeiro (2009), pp. 145 and 146.
5.
Schulze (1997), p. 184; von Bar (2004a), pp. 124–125. On the impact of foreign precedents in judicial reasoning see Reed, LQR 124 (2008), pp. 253–273; Groppi (2013).
6.
See von Bar (2010b), p. 8. See also von Bar (2014a), p. 476.
7.
The expression has been used in the context of Common Law . See Markesinis (2006), p. 1347. “Legal narcissism” is also mentioned. See von Bar (2004a), pp. 124–125; von Bar (2013), p. 6.
8.
See von Bar (2011a), p. 437.
9.
von Bar (2013), p. 6.
10.
Violante (2011), p. 341.
11.
von Bar (2009b), p. 33; von Bar (2009d), p. 60.
12.
von Bar and Lando (2001), pp. 218, 220.
13.
Freitas do Amaral (2000), p. 248.
14.
Laborinho Lúcio (1986), p. 297; Gaspar Martinho (2011), pp. 65–66.
15.
See von Bar (2004a), pp. 124–125.
16.
Sousa Santos (2005), p. 275.
17.
The Institute of Global Law of University College London and the Institute of Transnational Law of the University of Texas jointly run a website where French, German , Austrian and Israeli legal materials (including leading judicial decisions) in the fields of constitutional, administrative, and private law can be found. See http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/transnational/work_new/ (retrieved 31 March 2017). See also Markesinis and Fedtke, TulLRev 80 (2005−2006), pp. 113–114.
18.
See the database CLOUT, provided for UNCITRAL (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/case_law.html, retrieved 31 March 2017).
19.
Although English may be the lingua franca of the current young adult generation, that is not the case for the judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court, most of whom belong to a generation more fluent in French. See also Gridel (2003, p. 3), according to whom French is the truly European Union language).
20.
von Bar (2004a), p. 418.
21.
On the reference, by judges, to extrajudicial writings, see Moitinho de Almeida n.d.; Abrantes Geraldes (2007b); Sousa Dinis (2009), pp. 51−68.
22.
The European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, open for signature by the Member States of the Council of Europe in London in June 1968, provided that the Parties shall supply information on their law, procedure and judicial systems when problems of foreign law arise in the course of legal proceedings. This Convention was ratified by Portugal and entered into force in November 1978.
23.
Freitas do Amaral (2000), p. 254.
24.
For a thorough analysis of the use, by courts, of foreign law in selected European countries (plus Canada and South Africa), see Markesinis and Fedtke, TulLRev 80 (2005−2006), pp. 11−167.
25.
von Bar (2004a), p. 125. The first group of cases where courts make use of comparative law within their jurisdictions is also called “situations of impact” (Violante 2011, p. 343).
26.
See Case 9/69 Claude Sayag and S.A. Zurich v Jean-Pierre Leduc, Denise Thonnon and S.A. La Concorde. (Sayag/Leduc) [1969] ECR 329. See also Schulze (1997), p. 186 ff.; von Bar (2004a), p. 125; Markesinis and Fedtke, TulLRev 80 (2005−2006), pp. 17–18; Bartman (2009), pp. 111–112.
27.
Art. 340(2) TFEU reads: “(…) In the case of non-contractual liability , the Union shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties”. See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of 26 October 2012[2012] OJ C 326, pp. 1−390.
28.
Violante (2011), p. 343.
29.
Schulze (1997), p. 186.
30.
For the use of comparative arguments in German courts, see generally Drobnig (1999b). See also, with examples, Schulze (1997), p. 185.
31.
von Bar (1998a), pp. 415–416; von Bar (2004a), p. 127; Violante (2011), p. 351. Similarly to the STJ, the Portuguese Constitutional Court reveals a significant openness to external elements of international and foreign jurisdictions. The Constitutional Court uses these elements “repeatedly and in a methodologically sophisticated fashion” (Violante 2011, p. 345).
32.
According to Zweigert, “cosmopolitan” (weltläufig) legal fields are Contract Law and Commercial Law (Zweigert 1949, p. 12 ff.).
33.
STJ 27 June 1995, proc. 087207; STJ 17 April 2008, proc. 08A474. See also Markesinis and Fedtke, TulLRev 80 (2005–2006), p. 110.
34.
STJ 9 September 2010, proc. 2572/07.OTBTVD.L1.
35.
von Bar (2004a), p. 125.
36.
Zweigert (1949); Schulze (1997), pp. 13–14 and pp. 185−186; Oliveira Ascensão (2013), p. 142.
37.
See von Bar (1998a), pp. 414–418; von Bar (2004a), p. 125.
38.
See Tit. §2, Subtit. III, Sec. 3 above.
39.
STJ 27 June 1995, proc. 087207; STJ 3 March 2010, proc. 886/8PSL.SBL1.S1; STJ 21 October 2010, proc. 1285/07.F.TJV; STJ 2 December 2013, proc. 306/10.0TCGMR.G1.S1.
40.
STJ 21 October 2010, proc. 1285/07.F.TJV; STJ 2 December 2013, proc. 306/10.0TCGMR.G1.S1;STJ 16 January 2014, proc. 6430/07.0TBBRG.S1.
41.
See STJ 9 September 2010, proc. 2572/07.OTBTVD.L1.; STJ 21 October 2010, proc. 1285/07.F.TJV; STJ 16 January 2014, proc. 6430/07.0TBBRG.
42.
Ferreira de Almeida and Morais Carvalho (2013), pp. 36–37. See also Zweigert (1949), p. 19.
43.
Schulze (1997), p. 185.
44.
See STJ 22 October 2009, proc. 409/09.4YFLSB; STJ 21 October 2010, proc. 1285/07.F.TJV; STJ 16 January 2014, proc. 6430/07.0TBBRG.S1.
45.
Józon (2008), p. 157.
46.
Foreign law has been considered “mere decoration”. See Tushnet (2006), p. 1277. See also Posner (2004) and cf. von Bar (2013), p. 56.
47.
See, e.g., STJ 21 October 2010, proc. 1285/07.F.TJV. Sometimes the court openly acknowledges the foreign solution, but decides in a different way. See STJ 7 May 2014, proc. 1070/11.TBVCT.G1.S1.
48.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), p. 128. This may change over time, given the gradual rise of scholars to the Supreme Court of Justice (See Art. 55(3) b) of Judicial Magistrates Charter ), as decisions with significant numbers of foreign sources begin to increase. STJ 5 June 2013, proc. 192/10.0TTVNF.P1S1; STJ 30 September 2014, proc. 844/09.8TVLSB.L1.S1. Also, quite impressively, Supreme Court Judge João Bernardo declared, in a STJ’s decision: “It is certainly not common that domestic courts decide according to what is decided in neighbour countries but it must be acknowledged that transnational realities have had a huge importance in the court decisions on civil liability in several EU Member States” (STJ 9 September 2010, proc. 2572/07.OTBTVD.L1).
49.
Violante (2011), p. 356. See also Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), p. 133 ff.
50.
For criticisms of the “cherry picking argument”, see Tushnet (2006), pp. 1280–1284.
51.
Tushnet (2006), p. 1275; Violante (2011), pp. 349 and 356.
52.
The importance of predictability of the law applicable to a case is in the base of the frequent choice, by the parties, of the rules applicable to their contract. Within non-contractual liability , it is particularly important as liability insurance is concerned, both on the part of the insurance companies (in the scope and price of insurance policies ) and on the part of the person wishing to buy liability insurance.
53.
von Bar (2004a), p. 127. This could turn into the violation of the principle of equality of procedural arms .
54.
Tushnet (2006), p. 1294 (but see p. 1297). With further reference to the dangers involved in the use of comparative law , see Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), pp. 109–136.
55.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), p. 127.
56.
Violante (2011), p. 352.
57.
Schulze (1997), p. 193.
58.
Case 166/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Rheinmühlen) [1974] ECR 00033.
59.
Schulze (1997), p. 196.
60.
On the influence of the educational background of the judge in the reasoning and outcome of a court decision, see the groundbreaking study Watson (1991) , in particular p. 230.
61.
That is the case for the Portuguese training of prospective judges. The curriculum is available through http://www.cej.mj.pt/cej/formacao/fich-pdf/plano_de_estudos_2016_17.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017).
62.
Cf. von Bar (2003a), p. 100. In Portugal , these are the cases of the Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon and the Law Faculty of the Nova University. In the Law Faculty of the Nova University, Comparative Law is a mandatory course and it was governed for several years by Professor Ferreira de Almeida, who integrated the Third Commission on European Contract Law .
63.
See Brugger (1994), p. 24; Alexy (1995), p. 71 ff.
64.
von Bar (2013), p. 8. See also Schulze (1997), pp. 188 and 191.
65.
See Schulze (1997), p. 195.
66.
See Kropholler (2004), p. 265; Bydlinski and Bylinski (2012), pp. 461–463.
67.
Cf. Schulze (1997), p. 194.
68.
Schulze (1997), p. 194.
69.
Drobnig (1999b), p. 146.
70.
Schulze (1997), p. 186.
71.
On the distinction between the nationalist and Europeanist perspectives see, with detail, Hesselink (2012), p. 11 ff.
72.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), pp. 90−94.
73.
See Zweigert (1949), p. 10. But see Zweigert and Kötz (1998), pp. 17–18.
74.
Schulze (1997), p. 186.
75.
See Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), pp. 76−109.
76.
ibid., p. 127.
77.
Schulze (1997), p. 186.
78.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), pp. 76–109. See also Zweigert (1949), p. 11; Schulze (1997), p. 186 passim; von Bar (1998a), p. 414; Odersky (1999), pp. 1–4; von Bar (2013), pp. 9, 11.
79.
Castro Mendes (1982–1983), p. 79; David (2002), p. 8; Oliveira Ascensão (2013), p. 14.
80.
David (2002), p. 8; Oliveira Ascensão (2013), p. 142.
81.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), p. 127.
82.
Drobnig (1999b), p. 146.
83.
Hesselink (2001), pp. 51−52. See also Józon (2008), p. 157. Some argue that the current period will come to be known as the “real end of legal positivism” (Safjan 2010, p. 107).
84.
Violante (2011), p. 355.
85.
Snijderns and Vogenauer (2009), p. V. On the situations which justify a comparative “dialogue” see Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006), pp. 76–109.
86.
Lollini (2007), p. 60; Violante (2011), p. 342 passim.
87.
Markesinis and Fedtke (2005–2006).
88.
Lollini (2007), pp. 60−61.
89.
Violante (2011), p. 343. See also Zweigert (1949), p. 14.
90.
The constitution of post-apartheid South Africa states that courts can use extra-systematic parameters for interpretation : “When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum […] (b) must consider International Law, and c) may consider foreign law” (Art. 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa no. 108 of 1996 with amendments, available through http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/images/a108-96.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017).
91.
von Bar (2004a), p. 125.
92.
Even the representatives of the “Exclusive Legal Positivism” admit that legal systems are open systems, in other words that they contain rules with binding force, or “adopt” frameworks from one legal system to another. See Lamy Pimenta (2011), p. 273.
93.
See von Bar (2004a), p. 127.
94.
Hesselink (2009), p. 928.
95.
Schulte-Nölke (2010b), p. 55. For a characterisation of the European Law Institute, see Zimmermann (2012), pp. 309–311. The ELI thus plays the role of a “European Law Academy”. See von Bar (2003b), p. 387; von Bar (2004b), p. 1231.
96.
Art. 3 II of the ELI Statute, as amended by Council Decision 2013/5 of 2 April 2013 on Election Procedure and Amendments to the Articles of Association, retrieved on 31 March 2017 from http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Council/CD_2013-5__Election_Procedure_and_Amendments_to_the_Statute_pdf and ELI’s Manifesto, available through https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/ELI_Manifesto_final_11-04-16.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017).
97.
ELI, “Building the future of law in Europe on unity and diversity – 3rd day of the ELI Annual Conference 2016”, available at http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/news/news-contd/article/building-the-future-of-law-in-europe-on-unity-and-diversity/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=179468&cHash=3c11e9e5574c4329695052197664024c, retrieved on 31 March 2017.
98.
Zweigert (1949), p. 11; Watson (2000), p. V.; Hesselink (2001), p. 53. Cf. also, for Contract Law, Jansen (2010), p. 160.
99.
von Bar (2014b), pp. 3–9.
100.
See also Schulze (1997), p. 196.
101.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 63, pp. 38–39.
102.
See von Bar (2004a), pp. 131 and 135; Jansen (2010), p. 162.
103.
For a classification of these comments on the DCFR, see Schulte-Nölke (2011), p. 12.
104.
Scognamiglio (2000), p. 338. See also Schulte-Nölke (2011), p. 17 f.
105.
Presidency Conclusions from the Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm#c.
106.
von Bar (2003b), p. 44. See the Presidency Conclusions from the Tampere European Council, B VII, no. 39. Just before the Tampere Summit, the Directorate-General for Research of the European Parliament commissioned an expert report on the growing difficulties caused by the implementation of EU Directives in the national legal systems (von Bar et al. 1999; von Bar 2003b, p. 43).
107.
Case C-376/98 Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and the Council of the European Union [2000] ECR I p. 8419 discussed the so-called “Tobacco Directive” (Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (“Tobacco Directive”) and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC of 24 April 2014, OJ L 127/1, pp. 26–34).
108.
Communication of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on European contract law , 13 September 2001, COM(2001) 398 final, OJ C 255, p. 1 ff. “Contract law”, however, was understood in a broad sense. See von Bar (2003b), p. 45.
109.
See von Bar (2003b), p. 383; von Bar (2004b), p. 1218.
110.
von Bar (2003b), p. 382.
111.
European Parliament Resolution of 15 November 2001 on the approximation of the civil and commercial law of the Member States (COM(2001) 398—C5-0471/2001 –2001/2187(COS) A5-0384/2001), retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0384+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN, no. 9.
112.
ibid., no. 14.
113.
von Bar (2003b), p. 385.
114.
See von Bar (2003b), pp. 47–48.
115.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “A More Coherent European Contract Law : An Action Plan”, 12 February 2003, COM(2003) 68 final, OJ C 63, 1 (hereinafter, Action Plan).
116.
Cf. von Bar (2004b), p. 1220.
117.
See no. 4, p. 14 ff. of the Action Plan.
118.
von Bar (2007), pp. 350–361; Schulte-Nölke (2009a), p. 49. See s. 4.1.1., nos. 59–68 of the Action Plan.
119.
See no. 98 (25) of the Action Plan.
120.
Annex to the Action Plan, Intr., para. 1. The complete list of contributions is available through http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0052_en.htm (retrieved 31 March 2017).
121.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Portugal , DG for Community Matters, Response to “A More Coherent European Contract Law – An Action Plan”, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/stakeholders/1-8.pdf.
122.
ibid., p. 2.
123.
ibid., p. 4.
124.
See, generally, von Bar (2002f).
125.
von Bar and Lando (2001), pp. 236–237. See also von Bar (2002f), pp. 267–269, in particular p. 269.
126.
von Bar (2002f), p. 268.
127.
von Bar et al. (2002), no. 50, p. 30. See also von Bar (2003a), p. 100.
128.
von Bar (2003a), p. 100.
129.
See also Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward”, 11 October 2004, COM(2004) 651 final, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0651:FIN:EN:PDF (hereinafter, The Way Forward).
130.
See, in particular, the no. 62 of the Action Plan.
131.
von Bar et al. (2002), p. 192; Rajski (2006), p. 23. See also Moura Vicente (2008), p. 533.
132.
von Bar (2005), p. 18.
133.
von Bar (2002e), p. 68.
134.
von Bar et al. (2008). See von Bar (2008b), p. 4.
135.
von Bar and Clive (2009).
136.
See Santos Silva (2010), pp. 822–823. Some critics argued that by publishing draft rules before final rules and background material, the drafters behaved as legislatures . See Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), pp. 106–107.
137.
Commission Decision 2010/233/EU of 26 April 2010 setting up the Expert Group on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law , OJ L 105/109, pp. 101–111. This Expert Group included Schulte-Nölke from Osnabrück and Mota Pinto from Coimbra (available through http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/expert-group_en.pdf, retrieved 31 March 2017).
138.
Council of the European Union, “The Stockholm Programme – An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting the Citizens”, 2 December 2009, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2017024%202009%20INIT, p. 33.
139.
Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection COM(2010) 348 final, 1 July 2010, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/consultation_questionaire_en.pdf (hereinafter, Green Paper ). See von Bar (2012b), p. 5 with criticism at p. 6 ff.
140.
Green Paper, pp. 7–11.
141.
Green Paper, p. 8.
142.
“A European contract law for consumers and businesses: publication of the results of the feasibility study carried out by the Expert Group on European contract law for stakeholders' and legal practitioners feedback”, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/feasibility_study_final.pdf (hereinafter, Feasibility Study). In the Memorandum for the Italian Presidency: Consumer priorities 2014, BEUC, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2014-019_jkl_memorandum_for_the_italian_presidency.pdf, it was declared that “The European Parliament ’s ‘health check’ of the Commission’s Impact Assessment found the Commission’s methodology unreliable, with the quality and credibility of the data being questionable” (p. 12).
143.
Feasibility Study, p. 2.
144.
Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law , 11 October 2011, SEC(2011) 1166 final, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/1_resume_impact_assesment_en.pdf (hereinafter, Impact Assessment).
145.
Impact Assessment, p. 4.
146.
ibid., p. 5.
147.
ibid., p. 7.
148.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law , 11 October 2011, COM(2011) 0635 final—2011/0284 (COD) (hereinafter, CESL). The impact assessment was published together with the proposal on a CESL.
149.
See Annex II, “Parameters concerning the optional instrument – For further discussion on the opportuness of this instrument” of The Way Forward.
150.
von Bar (2012a), p. 5. For details on the envisaged optional instrument , see von Bar (2007), 352; von Bar (2008a), p. 2; von Bar (2008b), p. 5, fn. 5; von Bar (2011c), p. 266; Zoll (2009); Zoll (2011a).
151.
European Parliament Resolution of 26 February 2014 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law (COM(2011)0635—C7-0329/2011—2011/0284(COD)) (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading), retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0159+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
152.
Hériter (2015), pp. 363–364.
153.
Joint Brussels Office (2015), p. 2.
154.
Joint letter of the French, German, British, Austrian, Dutch and Finnish Ministries concerning the proposed legislation on a Common European Sales Law to Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality (hereinafter, Joint letter).
155.
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. Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 304, 22 November 2011, pp. 64–88. In the Memorandum for the Italian Presidency: Consumer priorities 2014 (see Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 1, Subsec. b) above, in footnote), BEUC also manifested preference for the Consumer’s Rights Directive as opposed to the CESL (pp. 11 and 12).
156.
Joint letter, pp. 4–5.
157.
ibid., p. 5.
158.
Joint Brussels Office (2015), pp. 1–12.
159.
Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament , the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Commission Work Programme 2015, A New Start, 16 December 2014, COM(2014) 910 final, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2015_withdrawals_en.pdf, no. 60, p. 12.
160.
See http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/ (retrieved 30 August 2015).
161.
See the recent creation of the Stakeholder Consultation Group for consumer rules for online and digital purchases, available through http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3295 (retrieved 31 March 2017).
162.
Clive (2015).
163.
S-2-2012 Statement on the Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law , available through http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/S-2-2012_Statement_on_the_Proposal_for_a_Regulation_on__a_Common_European_Sales_Law.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017); S-4-2014 1st Supplement to the Statement on the Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law , available through http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/CESL_1st_Supplement.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017); and S-6-2015 2nd Supplement to the Statement on the Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law , available through http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Projects/Unlocking_the_Digital_Single_Market.pdf (retrieved 31 March 2017).
164.
See http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/home/news-contd/article/the-eli-publishes-the-2nd-supplement-to-its-cesl-statement-unlocking-the-digital-single-market/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=180991&cHash=aa76109a1cd713d1e51d9ce439909e6a (retrieved 31 March 2017).
165.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content, COM/2015/0634 final—2015/0287 (COD) retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450431933547&uri=CELEX:52015PC0634.
166.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, COM/2015/0635 final—2015/0288 (COD), retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450431933547&uri=CELEX:52015PC0635.
167.
ELI, “Building the future of law in Europe on unity and diversity – 3rd day of the ELI Annual Conference 2016”, available at http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/news/news-contd/article/building-the-future-of-law-in-europe-on-unity-and-diversity/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=179468&cHash=3c11e9e5574c4329695052197664024c, retrieved on 31 March 2017.
168.
von Bar (2008a), p. 4.
169.
Clive (2008), p. 19; Moura Vicente (2008), p. 534; von Bar (2008a), p. 5; von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. n. 40, p. 30; Jansen (2010), p. 3 passim. For a summary of the differences from the PECL, see Clive (2008), p. 20 ff. On the PECL and its authorship, see Lando (1999), p. 125 ff.
170.
von Bar et al. (2002), p. 192.
171.
Cf. von Bar (2009c), pp. vii and viii.
172.
von Bar (2003b), p. 386.
173.
Zweigert (1949), p. 18.
174.
Santos Silva (2010), p. 804, fn. 8. For details on the SGECC see von Bar (2000d).
175.
Rajski (2006), p. 22; von Bar (2012b), p. 3.
176.
von Bar (2008a), p. 2. For details on the different fields of work and comparative foundations see Schulte-Nölke (2009b), pp. 11–12. On the Acquis Principles see generally Schulte-Nölke (2008). See also Zoll (2011b), pp. 559–560.
177.
Grigoleit (2015), pp. 255 and 256.
178.
For details on the structure of the DCFR, see Schulte-Nölke (2009a), p. 54 ff.; Zoll (2011b), pp. 557–558. In a publication, the Head of the Commission’s Internal Working Group said that the DCFR should deal with the same content as contained in the general part of the BGB, and also including contracts in general, as well as special contracts (Staudenmayer 2005, p. 103). It should be noted, however, that the first part of the DCFR does not correspond to the Allgemeiner Teil of the BGB and neither can it be said that the DCFR was drafted in the light of the BGB (von Bar 2008d). See also Schmidt (2015), particularly p. 50.
179.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 34 ff., pp. 23–25. See also Schulte-Nölke (2009a), pp. 51–54.
180.
von Bar et al. (2002), p. 213; von Bar (2009d), p. 59.
181.
Heutger and Jeloschek (2004), p. 544.
182.
See MacQueen (2010), p. 181.
183.
von Bar (2002c), p. 139; von Bar (2005), p. 18.
184.
For details, see Clive (2008), pp. 18−26.
185.
Hesselink (2009), pp. 924–925. For further details on the political authority of the DCFR see Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Secs. 1 and 2 below.
186.
For a thorough description of the main arguments, see von Bar (2008b), pp. 8–9.
187.
See von Bar (2007), p. 355; von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 4, p. 6.
188.
von Bar (2007), pp. 355–356.
189.
Schulte-Nölke (2009a), p. 48.
190.
von Bar (2007), p. 355; von Bar (2008b), p. 8.
191.
von Bar (2011d), pp. 203–204. For a thorough explanation of the difficulty in setting clear boundaries between Contract and Non-Contractual law, see generally von Bar and Drobnig (2004). See also Koziol (1998b), p. 98; von Bar (2002c), p. 140; von Bar (2004b), p. 1223 ff.; von Bar (2008b), p. 8.
192.
According to Brüggemeier, the DCFR included a few aspects on Procedural Law (such as the standard of proof). See Brüggemeier (2009a), p. 189.
193.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 38, p. 24.
194.
The drafters of the DCFR admit that in Latin countries the English language is less widespread than in Northern Europe. However, they consider English to be the only language in which a pan-European debate could take place because of financial constraints which preclude the use of other languages (von Bar 2009a, p. 1858).
195.
See von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 54, p. 34.
196.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 682.
197.
von Bar (2008a), p. 4. See also Zoll (2011b), p. 556. According to Schulte-Nölke, the intention was to facilitate the tasks of individual users and meet their particular needs (Schulte-Nölke 2011, p. 22).
198.
Book IV is longer than the other books and was thus divided into parts.
199.
von Bar (2005), p. 22. For details on the numbering system, see von Bar (2001a), p. 519, fn. 12 and von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 42, pp. 25–26.
200.
The Interim Outline Edition contains seven books.
201.
von Bar (2012b), p. 8.
202.
Beale (2009), p. 40. Jansen and Zimmermann believe that the comments and illustrations should have offered legal arguments (Jansen and Zimmermann 2010, p. 111).
203.
Schulte-Nölke (2011), pp. 24−25.
204.
Beale (2009), p. 40. For a critique, see Schulze (2011), p. 7.
205.
von Bar (2002a), p. 173.
206.
For details on the “toolbox” function, see Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 2 below.
207.
von Bar (2008b), p. 5; von Bar (2008d), p. 41; von Bar (2009a), pp. 1861–1862.
208.
That need is shown by the unclear use of the word “damage” in the Simone Leitner case (Case C-168/00 Simone Leitner v TUI Deutschland [2002] ECR I–2631). See von Bar (2011b), p. 387. The interest of the European Commission in terminology issues can be shown by its financial backing of the research network “Uniform terminology for European Private Law ”. For details on results of this programme see Weitenberg (2008).
209.
For a critical account see Koch (2005), p. 191.
210.
Critical of these definitions, considering them “inconsistent”, see Eidenmüller et al. (2008b), pp. 547–549.
211.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 683.
212.
See von Bar (2008b), p. 6.
213.
von Bar (2004b), p. 1220. See also von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 65, p. 40; Schulte-Nölke (2010a), p. 615 f.
214.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. p. 11 ff., p. 10 ff. See also von Bar (2008d), p. 43. For Jansen, the DCFR’s “principles ” set legal consequences for a set of given conditions and are thus authentic legal rules (Zimmermann 2004, p. 9 f. and Jansen 2007, p. 15, n. 2).
215.
von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. 11 ff., p. 10 ff.
216.
According to von Bar, “the CFR is for hel** SMEs in doing business, in particular doing business abroad, and it is for strengthening the consumer’s trust in the good functioning of the Internal Market when buying goods or ordering services from a business situated in another country.” (von Bar 2007, p. 350).
217.
See, respectively, von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 15, p. 13 f. and Intr. 16 ff., p. 14 ff.
218.
von Bar (2003b), p. 386. For details on the structure of the DCFR see Schulte-Nölke (2009a), p. 54 ff.
219.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 74, p. 44. See, however, Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), p. 112.
220.
Howarth (2011), pp. 872–873.
221.
Cf. Zemanek (1998), p. 861.
222.
See also Sefton-Green (2009), p. 44.
223.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008b).
224.
ibid., p. 536. But see Zoll (2011b), p. 557, who considers that the DCFR is not sufficiently open to legal change.
225.
Hesselink (2008b), p. 27; Schulze (2012), p. 226. It has been stated that “the role model of the DCFR’s tort regime is not the autonomous and rational party who may rightly be held responsible for his or her actions, but the paternalistic judge who strives for social improvement and seeks to bring it about by means of his judgments.” (Eidenmüller et al. 2008a, p. 687).
226.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 677. It should be noted, however, that the “unambiguous” and clear language used in the BGB did not prevent inconsistencies in resolving legal disputes in so far as pure economic loss is concerned, undermining this argument.
227.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 685.
228.
Koziol (2009), p. 96. See also Eidenmüller et al. (2008b), p. 537.
229.
Reference to an anthropological category that speaks, on the one hand, of “low-context societies” (societies which prefer expressly set rules) and, on the other hand, of “high-context societies” (societies which prefer tacit rules). See Hall (1976) and Hall (1990) apud Howarth (2011), p. 872 and fn. 120.
230.
Howarth (2011), p. 872.
231.
Cf. Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 26. This argument is less significant in light of Cas e C-237/02, Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co KG v Ludger Hofstetter and Ulrike Hofstetter [2004] ECR I-03403. See Hesselink (2008b), pp. 27–28.
232.
Hesselink (2008b), p. 31.
233.
Schmid (2010b), p. 5.
234.
Magnus (2004b), p. 569.
235.
von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. 4, p. 6.
236.
von Bar (2008b), p. 5; Hesselink (2009), p. 925; von Bar (2009b), p. 24. It has been argued, however, that the DCFR would gain credibility if it were associated with an official text, even if the DCFR were to have a more limited content and a more modest purpose. See Clive (2008), p. 15.
237.
von Bar (2008b), p. 5.
238.
Cf. also von Bar (2005), p. 19.
239.
von Bar (2012a), p. 3. See also Röthel (2009), p. 290; Schulte-Nölke (2009a), p. 62.
240.
See Wallis (2006), p. 10.
241.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 19, p. 16. See, e.g., Legrand (2006), p. 14.
242.
See Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), p. 99.
243.
Sefton-Green (2009), p. 45 ff.
244.
Eidenmüller et al. (2008b), p. 533.
245.
Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), pp. 106–107.
246.
von Bar (2003b), p. 48; von Bar (2007), pp. 350–361, especially p. 353; von Bar (2008a), p. 5. For a list of arguments for and against a uniform European Law of Obligations, see Lando (1999), pp. 123–125.
247.
That seems to be the case for France where, in his days in Sainte-Hélène, Napoléon Bonaparte declared: “Waterloo effacera le souvenir de tant de victoires; ce que rien n’effacera, ce qui vivra éternellement, c’est mon Code Civil” (“[The Battle of] Waterloo will erase the memory of many victories; but my Civil Code will never be erased, it will live forever”). More recently, Pierre Legrand has been one of the most tireless critics of civil law harmonisation and of the idea of a European Civil Code in particular, which he considers “backward”, “arrogant” and “impracticable”. See Legrand (1997a), pp. 44–63, particularly pp. 56–60 and Legrand (2006), pp. 13–40.
248.
von Bar (2005), p. 18; von Bar (2007), p. 354; von Bar (2008a), p. 4; von Bar (2008b), p. 7.
249.
von Bar (2009a), p. 1856.
250.
von Bar and Lando (2001), 183, no. 61 ff.; Schulte-Nölke (2011) , p. 11. As for the PECL, some legal scholars deny its nature of restatement. See Jansen (2007), p. 15, fn. 3; Hesselink (2009), p. 924.
251.
von Bar (2002c), p. 139 passim; von Bar (2005), p. 22; von Bar (2012a), p. 3.
252.
von Bar (2002f), p. 267; von Bar (2005), p. 22; von Bar (2008d), p. 35; von Bar (2009a), p. 1856.
253.
Grigoleit (2015), p. 255.
254.
Joerges (1999), p. 222.
255.
von Bar (2002f), p. 266. See also Schulte-Nölke (2011) , p. 30.
256.
See Röthel (2009), p. 288; Miller (2011), p. 205; Lehmann (2015), p. 245. The Council referred to the DCFR as a “set of non-binding guidelines” (Press Release from the 2863^rd Council meeting from 18 April 2008, 8397/08, Presse 96, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/99991.pdf), p. 18. Cf. also von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 19, pp. 15–16. But see Hesselink (2008b), p. 28 where the DCFR is classified as a “pseudo-legislature ”.
257.
Senden (2004), p. 112. See also Röthel (2009), p. 288.
258.
Senden (2005), pp. 81–82. The ECJ refers to steering soft law instruments as those which are aimed at confirming or supporting an interpretation already reached on the basis of binding EU Law . This is called “confirmatory” interpretation. See Senden (2004), p. 397.
259.
Senden (2005), pp. 81–82; Sefton-Green (2009), p. 47.
260.
Senden (2005), p. 81.
261.
Senden and Prechal (2001), p. 192.
262.
Sefton-Green (2009), p. 48. Cf. also Mankowski (2012), no. 112a, p. 174 and Valpuesta Gastaminza (2011), p. 31. See, however, Grigoleit (2015, pp. 254–255), who denies the utility of the concept of “soft law ” in the first place, considering law to be either enforceable or unenforceable. For this discussion, see Zemanek (1998).
263.
Schulte-Nölke (2011), p. 25.
264.
Hesselink (2009), p. 923, including further references.
265.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 6, p. 7 ff.
266.
See von Bar and Schulte-Nölke (2005), p. 167; von Bar (2008a), p. 4; von Bar (2009b), p. 25; von Bar (2009a), p. 1854.
267.
von Bar (2009b), pp. 28–33; von Bar (2009d), p. 56 ff.; Clive (2010); Hesselink (2010), pp. 441−469. See also European Union Committee of the House of Lords (UK), “European Contract Law : The Draft Common Frame of Reference ”, 19 May 2009, Session 2008–09, no. 70, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/95/9502.htm.
268.
von Bar (2009a), pp. 1850–1871; von Bar (2009d); Clive (2010); Hesselink (2010), pp. 441−469.
269.
The expression was used for the first time in The Way Forward: “First a policy choice must be made on the need to modify the existing directives in order to address these problems [for the improvement of the acquis]. If so, the Commission will use the CFR as a toolbox [emphasis added], where appropriate, when presenting proposals to improve the quality and coherence of the existing acquis and future legal instruments in the area of contract law . At the same time, it will serve the purpose of simplifying the acquis (…). The CFR will provide clear definitions of legal terms, fundamental principles and coherent model rules of contract law, drawing on the EC acquis and on best solutions found in Member States’ legal orders.” (The Way Forward, p. 3).
270.
von Bar and Schulte-Nölke (2005), p. 168. The term “toolbox ” comprises a wide variety of meanings (von Bar 2005, p. 22) which will be described in this section. For criticism of the “toolbox” function, see Zimmermann (2008), p. 204.
271.
See Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 1, Subsec. a) aa).
272.
Cf. also von Bar (2009a), pp. 1862−1863.
273.
Clive (2008), p. 14; von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 6−7, pp. 7–9.
274.
See generally Somma (2009), with several contributions. See also Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), pp. 98–112.
275.
Schulte-Nölke (2009b), p. 14.
276.
von Bar (2002e), p. 67; von Bar (2008a), p. 5; von Bar (2008d); von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. 39, p. 23.
277.
von Bar (2009d), p. 59.
278.
von Bar (2008a), p. 3, von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 39, p. 23; Jansen (2010), p. 3.
279.
von Bar (2003a), p. 100; von Bar (2008a), p. 2; von Bar (2009d), p. 62. For details on the differences between the DCFR and the CFR, see Schulte-Nölke (2009a), pp. 48–51.
280.
Hesselink (2009), p. 925.
281.
Any influence which would arise for the national legal systems would be “through imperio rationis and not through ratione imperii” (von Bar 2011a, pp. 438–439). See also Hesselink (2001), p. 59. It is also said that the DCFR would be verbindend (uniting) instead of verdindlich (mandatory) (Röthel 2009, p. 291).
282.
Hesselink (2009), p. 947. For details on these principles , see De Búrca (2001).
283.
Hesselink (2009), p. 934.
284.
von Bar (2001b), p. 137; von Bar (2007), p. 357; von Bar (2008a), p. 45; von Bar (2009a), p. 1854. See also von Bar (2012a), p. 5; Grochowski (2013), pp. 101, 103.
285.
von Bar (2002c), p. 144.
286.
von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. 4, p. 6; von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 6−7, pp. 7–9. For further details on the scope of a future CFR see Tit. § 6 below.
287.
von Bar (2009b), p. 25.
288.
Zoll (2011b), p. 555.
289.
von Bar (2009a), p. 1856. See also von Bar (2009b), p. 27 ff.
290.
von Bar (2003a), p. 100; von Bar (2007), p. 351; Clive (2008), p. 14; von Bar (2008a), p. 2; Hondius (2011).
291.
von Bar (2011c), p. 266.
292.
Rajski (2006), p. 24. See generally Remien (2009).
293.
von Bar (2009d), p. 68.
294.
von Bar et al. (2008), Intr. 7, p. 7; von Bar (2013), pp. 8, 11; Mak (2014), p. 376. See also Hesselink (2008b), p. 29.
295.
von Bar (2002b), p. 67. See examples provided for in von Bar (2004a), p. 134. See also Comisión General de Codificación (2009), pp. 11–12.
296.
Hesselink (2008b), p. 4.
297.
Watson (2000), p. VII.
298.
Zemanek (1998), p. 860. For a critique of the “Diskurs der Experten”, see Habermas (1992), p. 423.
299.
Schulte-Nölke (2003), p. 143; Clive (2008), p. 14; von Bar (2008a), p. 1; Hesselink (2009), p. 927; von Bar (2009a), p. 1865; Miller (2011), p. 121; von Bar (2012b), p. 8.
300.
von Bar (2007), p. 351; von Bar (2008b), p. 7; Jansen (2010), p. 19. Cf. also von Bar (2005), p. 22. In Action Plan, the Commission declared that “[a]n improved acquis should enhance the uniform application of community law as well as facilitate the smooth functioning of cross-border transactions and, thereby, the completion of the single market ” (no. 57). On the contribution of the DCFR for the revision of the acquis see generally Wendehorst (2009).
301.
von Bar (2009a), p. 1865; von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 8, p. 8; Jansen (2010), p. 3.
302.
See Jurčova (2008); Kisfaludi (2008); Rajski (2008).
303.
The PECL were considered during the process of reform of the German Law of Obligations (Schuldrechtsreform). See generally Schulte-Nölke (2001). See also Schulze and Schulte-Nölke (2001); Schulte-Nölke (2002); Schmidt-Kessel (2006); Jansen (2010), p. 3, fnn. 12 and 21. On the process of modernisation of contract law in the Member States of Central and Western Europe, see generally Vékás (2008).
304.
Jansen (2010), p. 3.
305.
The ongoing “Eighth Programme of Law Reform” (2010–2014) includes a law reform project called “Contract Law in Light of the Draft Common Frame of Reference ”. Professor Hector MacQueen, who integrated the Lando Commission and the Co-ordinating Committee of the SGECC, commissioned this project. According to the Scottish report, “The DCFR represents a welcome opportunity to develop Scots law in a manner that is consistent with the theoretical foundations of Scots law” (Macgregor 2008, p. 4).
306.
Retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/Portal/1292338914438?blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment%3B+filename%3DPropuesta_de_Modernizacion_del_Codigo_Civil_en_materia_de_Obligaciones_y_Contratos.PDF.
307.
Ministerio de Justicia, 2009.
308.
ibid., p. 11; Fenoy Picón (2013), p. 400.
309.
Cf. Jansen (2010), pp. 11–12. For details on the “toolbox function” see Clive (2010).
310.
Jansen (2001), p. 64; Grochowski (2013), p. 101. For the importance of a comprehensive document, see Schmidt-Kessel (2006), p. 26.
311.
Clive (2008), p. 1 and nos 1 and 2.
312.
ibid., p. 14; von Bar (2008a), p. 100.
313.
See generally Trstenjak (2009).
314.
von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 8, p. 8; Jansen (2010), p. 3.
315.
Grochowski (2013), p. 100.
316.
Ranchordás (2014), p. 3.
317.
NJA 2009, 672 [3 November 2009], retrieved 31 March 2017 from https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2009s672. This decision will be mentioned below in this subsection.
318.
See generally Grochowski (2013), pp. 96−104.
319.
On the concept of “legal transplants” see the seminal study of Watson (1974).
320.
Cf. Watson (2000), p. IV; Mancuso (2009), p. 77; Grochowski (2013), pp. 98−99.
321.
From the perspective of the addressee of the rules, it can be said that the court gives “ad casum binding power” to certain rules (Grochowski 2013, p. 100).
322.
Mancuso (2009), p. 76.
323.
Grochowski (2013), p. 99.
324.
Watson (2000), p. I.
325.
It is argued that legal transplants are successful whenever they solve a legal problem (Mancuso 2009, p. 82).
326.
ibid., pp. 77–78. On the importance of authority, see Watson (1996), pp. 345 ff.
327.
Mancuso (2009), p. 77.
328.
Watson (1996), p. 335.
329.
See, e.g., Legrand (1997b), pp. 111–124.
330.
Criticism also stems from the belief that the diversity of contexts of each legal system would cripple the integration of foreign rules and concepts (Kahn-Freund 1974, p. 27; Legrand 1997b, pp. 111–124, in particular p. 116). According to an intermediary position, legal transplants should be adapted to local reality (Mancuso 2009, p. 77).
331.
Cf. Grochowski (2013), p. 99. See also Kischel (2003), pp. 39–62.
332.
Meyer (2007), p. 122; Hesselink (2008b), p. 4; von Bar (2009a), p. 1854.
333.
Jansen (2010), p. 149.
334.
For a critical account see Leible (2009), p. 233; Giliker (2013), p. 41. See, generally, Hesselink (2009), pp. 919−971. In favour of the use of the DCFR as a Rechtsgewinnungsquelle (in the sense used by Canaris 1969, pp. 16 ff. passim), see Leible (2009), p. 233. See also Vogenauer (2009), p. 165.
335.
See von Bar et al. (2002), p. 236 and Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 1 above.
336.
von Bar et al. (2002), p. 236.
337.
Leible (2009), p. 228.
338.
For examples in the case law of the ECJ, see Müller and Christensen (2007), p. 407 ff.
339.
Case C-292/89, The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen. Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench, UK, ECR 1991 I, p. 745, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61989CJ0292.
340.
Anweiler (1997), p. 198; Müller and Christensen (2007), p. 415; Leible (2009), p. 229. For this reason also, the fact that the DCFR includes fundamental principles would be of crucial importance (Leible 2009, p. 230).
341.
Leible (2009), p. 229.
342.
Kalouta (2015), p. 715.
343.
Grochowski (2013), p. 101 ff. See also Schulze (1997), p. 192 passim; von Bar et al. (2009), Intr. 8−10, p. 7 ff.; von Bar (2012b), p. 7.
344.
von Bar et al. (2008), p. 7 ff.
345.
Senden (2004), pp. 394−395.
346.
von Bar (2011c), p. 266.
347.
Several Advocates General have cited the PECL in their Opinions. See Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, delivered 15 November 2007, Case C-404/06 Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände [2008] ECR I-02685, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62006CC0404&from=EN, no. 44, fn. 28; Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, delivered 21 November 2007, Case C-412/06 Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG [2008] ECR I-02383, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62006CC0412&lang1=de&lang2=NL&type=TXT&ancre=, no. 68, fn. 30. For details on the references to the PECL in the jurisprudence of the ECJ see Trstenjak (2009).
348.
Vendrell Cervantes (2008), pp. 546 and 548. It is emphasised, however, that the lack of a higher court at the European level to guarantee the uniform interpretation of the PECL could lead to a pro domo interpretation of the PECL, which could differ from the original meaning of the text or from the doctrine of other European national courts (ibid.).
349.
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52, no. 36 and 45. For a recent reference, see the opinion by Lord Malcolm (Phil Wills v Strategic Procurement (UK) Ltd [2013] CSOH p. 26).
350.
See, generally, Roca Trías and Fernández Gregoraci (2009), pp. 45–59. See also Vendrell Cervantes (2008).
351.
Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, delivered 6 March 2007, Case C-1/06 Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [2007] ECR I-05609, retrieved 30 August 2015 from http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CC0001:EN:HTML, no. 68, fn. 30; Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, delivered 15 November 2007, Case C-404/06, no. 44, fn. 28; Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, delivered 21 November 2007, Case C-412/06, nos. 23–24, fn. 9, all these concerning references for a preliminary ruling arising in German courts.
352.
See Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, delivered 11 January 2007, Case C-282/05 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission of the European Communities (Holcim v Commission) [2007] ECR I-02941, retrieved 31 March 2017 from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d6983f0df0b42d428482a3f72be2e9a0cb.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuObhb0?text=&docid=64749&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=242055, no. 115, fn. 58.
353.
March 2017.
354.
STS 25 May 2009 366/2009 (E. Roca Trias); STS 20 January 2010 870/2009 (E. Roca Trias); STS 13 May 2010 261/2010 (E. Roca Trias); STS 22 June 2010 380/2010 (E. Roca Trias); STS 8 October 2010 597/2010 (E. Roca Trias); STS 3 December 2010 769/2010 (E. Roca Trias); STS 6 May 2011 306/2011 (E. Roca Trias); STS 12 December 2011 872/2011 (E. Roca Trias); STS 29 February 2012 99/2012 (E. Roca Trias); STS 1 March 2012 103/2012 (E. Roca Trias); STS 15 June 2015 333/2015 (Jesus Souto Prieto); STS 12 February 2016 59/2016 (F. J. Orduña Moreno).
355.
This trend can be justified by E. Roca Trias’s move to the Spanish Constitutional Court.
356.
See, for example, STS 12 February 2016 9/2010 (F. Oruna Moreno).
357.
Vaquer Aloy et al. (2012).
358.
STS 2 0 January 2010 870/2009 (E. Roca Trias). This Supreme Court decision related to Art. IV.B—4:103 of the DCFR.
359.
See SAP Las Palmas Section 4 216/2011 10 June; SAP Granada Section 3 143/2011 31 March SAP Pontevedra Section 1 451/2013 4 December.
360.
Grigoleit (2015), p. 253.
361.
See NJA 2009, 672 [3 November 2009], retrieved 31 March 2017 from https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2009s672.
362.
See Håstad (2015), p. 184.
363.
Håstad (2015), p. 184.
364.
ibid.
365.
STJ 27 January 2015, proc. 876/12.9TBBNV-A.L1.S1.
366.
Sousa Antunes (2014), p. 13.
367.
The last decision where the Tribunal Supremo referred to the DCFR was STS 103/2012 of 1 March 2012 (Civil Chamber). It referred to a sale of goods and is available through http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&databasematch=TS&reference=6308183&links=DCFR&optimize=20120316&publicinterface=true (retrieved 31 March 2017).
368.
Wendehorst (2009), pp. 324–325.
369.
Grochowski (2013), p. 103. See also Stürner (2010), p. 192, fn. 34.
370.
It remains to be seen if such influence will extend to the arbitration court system as well. See von Bar (2008a), p. 37. See, generally, Lehmann (2009).
371.
von Bar (2009a), pp. 1862−1863. For the difficulties of this task, see Jansen and Zimmermann (2010), p. 102.
372.
See Tit. § 3, Subtit. II, Sec. 1, Subsec. d).
373.
Möslein (2008). See also Hesselink (2009), pp. 919−971; Hesselink (2010), pp. 441−469.
374.
Odersky (1999), pp. 3–4; Grochowski (2013), p. 101. See also Mayr (2012), pp. 8–21.
375.
Moura Vicente (2008), p. 534. See also Schulte-Nölke (2003), pp. 142–145.
376.
von Bar (2007), p. 350; von Bar (2008a), p. 2; von Bar (2011c), p. 265. The Lando Commission referred to the reinforcement of consumer trust as one of the main reasons for drafting the PECL (Lando and Beale 2000, p. xxi).
377.
Odersky (1999), p. 2 ff.
378.
von Bar (2009d), p. 68. See also von Bar (2009a), p. 1858.
379.
Schulze (1997), p. 197; Röthel (2009), p. 291; Grochowski (2013), p. 100.
380.
Leible (2009), p. 233.
381.
Hesselink (2010), pp. 446–451. Within the international legal order, it should be noted that Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice reads that “1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (…) d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”.
382.
Hesselink (2010), pp. 460–461.
383.
But see Eidenmüller et al. (2008a), p. 660 and Jansen (2010), p. 161 ff.
384.
Hesselink (2009), p. 923 passim.
385.
Grochowski (2013), p. 101.
386.
ibid. See however Jansen (2010), p. 150, fn. 24, who claims that the major drafting work was delegated to academically burdened young scholars. Jansen (2010), p. 150, fn. 24.
387.
Swann (2003), p. 5; Hesselink (2009), p. 923. But see Sefton-Green (2009), p. 50, who considers that only a political or democratic instrument can be “coherent”.
388.
Hesselink (2010), p. 462; Giliker (2013) , p. 27. But see Dannemann (2012), p. 117.
389.
Cf. Jansen (2010), p. 158.
390.
von Bar (2004a), p. 127; von Bar (2009d), p. 60.
391.
The following arguments are used in Hesselink (2010), p. 451 ff. regarding a “forthcoming instrument on European contract law ” (CESL).
392.
Hesselink (2010), pp. 452–453.
393.
Giliker (2013), p. 43. Cf. Hesselink (2010), p. 453.
394.
Hesselink (2010), p. 454. For further details on the use of systematic interpretation to incorporate the DCFR into national law see Riesenhuber (2009).
395.
Joined Cases C-402/07 (Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon and Alana Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH) and C-432/07 (Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA) [2009] ECR I-10923; Case C-156/98 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Germany v Commission) [2000] ECR I-06857, no. 50; Hesselink (2010), p. 455.
396.
But see Hesselink (2010), pp. 458–459.
397.
Vogenauer defends an inclusion of the comparative interpretation within the systematic interpretation (Vogenauer 2001, p. 43).
398.
Schulze (1997), p. 197. See also Hesselink (2010), p. 459.
399.
von Bar (2013), p. 10.
400.
von Bar (2002c), p. 144.
401.
von Bar (2003b), p. 387.
402.
von Bar (2002c), p. 139. This Vorbildwirkung (model example) is also referred to in Röthel, Modellgesetz, p. 291.
403.
Schulte-Nölke and Schulze (1999), pp. 18–19.
404.
von Bar (2004a), p. 127.
405.
ibid. pp. 127, 417 and 418; von Bar et al. (2002), p. 235. See also von Bar (1998a), p. 414; Calvão da Silva (2001–2002), p. 271; Violante (2011), p. 352; van Gerven (1994), p. 40.
406.
von Bar (2013), p. 10.
407.
Schulze (1997), p. 192. It is argued that this method of interpretation would be strengthened if legal commentaries on national codes contained references to the DCFR’s provisions in the language of each Member State (ibid., p. 197).

Bibliography

Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007b). Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol II-Indemnização dos danos reflexos, 2nd edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Alexy R (1995) Juristische interpretation. In: Alexy R (ed) Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs. Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 71–92
Google Scholar
Anweiler J (1997) Die Auslegungsmethoden des Gerichtshofs der Europäische Gemeinschaft. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Baldus C (2012) Europäischer Süden und Europäisches Privatrecht. GPR 9(3, June):105
Google Scholar
Bartman SM (2009) EU law-making and its impact on national company law. In: Snijders H, Vogenauer S (eds) Content and meaning of national law in the context of transnational law. Sellier, Munich, pp 101–112
Google Scholar
Beale H (2009) The drafting of the academic Common Frame of Reference. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 35–47
Google Scholar
Brüggemeier G (2009a) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another: the making of a hybrid. In: Somma A (ed) The politics of the Draft Common Frame of Reference, pp 179–198. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Brugger W (1994) Konkretisierung des Rechts und Auslegung der Gesetze. AöR 119:1–34
Google Scholar
Bydlinski F, Bylinski P (2012) Grundzüge der juristischen Methodenlehre, 2nd edn. Facultas, Vienna
Google Scholar
Calvão da Silva J (2001–2002) Bicentenário do Code Civil (o Código Civil e a Europa: influências e modernidade). RLJ 134(3930):267–275
Google Scholar
Canaris C-W (1969) Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz entwickelt am Beispiel des deutschen Privatrechts. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Castro Mendes J (1982–1983) Direito Comparado. AAFDL, Lisbon
Google Scholar
Clive E (2008) An introduction to the academic Draft Common Frame of Reference. ERA Forum 9(1):13–31
Article Google Scholar
Clive E (2010, March) How a Common Frame of Reference might be used as a “toolbox” when drafting EU law. Available via ERA. https://www.era.int/upload/dokumente/10976.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Clive E (2015, May) Rebirth of EU contract law proposal. Available via the European Private Law News. http://www.epln.law.ed.ac.uk/2015/05/11/rebirth-of-eu-contract-law-proposal/. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Comisión General de Codificación (2009) Propuesta de Anteproyecto de Ley de Modernización del Derecho de Obligaciones y Contratos. Boletín de Información del Ministerio de Justicia, vol 63. Imprenta Nacional, Madrid, pp 1–73
Google Scholar
Dannemann G (2012) In search of system neutrality: methodological issues in the drafting of European contract law rules. In: Adams M, Bonhoff J (eds) Practice and theory in comparative law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 96–119
Chapter Google Scholar
David R (2002) Os grandes sistemas do Direito Contemporâneo. Martins Fontes, São Paulo
Google Scholar
De Búrca G (2001) Legal principles as an instrument of differentiation? The principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. In: de Witte B, Hanf D, Vos E (eds) The many faces of differentiation in EU law. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford/New York, pp 131–199
Google Scholar
Drobnig U (1999a) The use of comparative law by courts. In: Drobnig U, van Erp S (eds) The use of comparative law by courts. Kluwer Law International, Great Britain, pp 3–21
Google Scholar
Drobnig U (1999b) The use of foreign law by German courts. In: Drobnig U, van Erp S (eds) The use of comparative law by courts. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 127-147
Google Scholar
Eidenmüller H, Faust F, Grigoleit HC, Jansen N, Wagner G, Zimmermann R (2008a) The common frame of reference for European private law - Policy choices and codification problems. OJLS 28(1):659–708
Google Scholar
Eidenmüller H, Faust F, Grigoleit HC, Jansen N, Wagner G, Zimmermann R (2008b) Ungesteuerte Richtermacht; ist die Zeit schon reif für ein europäisches Zivilgesetzbuch? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 June 2008
Google Scholar
Fenoy Picón N (2013) The Spanish Obligation and Contract Law and the proposal for its modernisation. In: Schulze R, Zoll F (eds) The law of obligations in Europe: a new wave of codifications. Sellier, Munich, pp 395–430
Google Scholar
Ferreira de Almeida C, Morais Carvalho J (2013) Introdução ao Direito Comparado. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Freitas do Amaral D (2000) A crise da justiça. AS 34(154–155):247–257
Google Scholar
Gaspar Martinho H (2011) CLS/TJUE-Indeterminação do direito e activismo judicial. In: Manuel Hespanha A, Pizarro Beleza T (coord.) Teoria da Argumentação e Neoconstitucionalismo. Um conjunto de perspectivas. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 57–77
Google Scholar
Giliker P (2013) The Draft Common Frame of Reference and European contract law: moving from the "academic" to the "political" text. In: Devenney J, Kenny M (eds) The transformation of European private law: harmonisation, consolidation, codification or chaos? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–44
Google Scholar
Gridel J-P (2003) Sur l’hypothèse d’un code européen des contrats: les propositions de l’Académie des Privatistes Européens (Pavie). Gazette du Palais. Available via http://www.institut-idef.org/IMG/pdf/Gridel1.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Grigoleit HC (2015) Against the background of DCFR and CESL: develo** quality standards for future harmonisation of European contract law. In: Afonso AI (ed) Um Direito Europeu das Obrigações? A influência do DCFR. Universidade Católica Editora, Porto, pp 33–51
Google Scholar
Grochowski M (2013) The practical potential of the DCFR: judgment of the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) of 3 November 2009, Case T 3-08. ERCL 9(1):96–104
Article Google Scholar
Groppi T (2013) The use of foreign precedents by constitutional judges. Hart, Oxford
Google Scholar
Habermas J (1992) Faktizität und Geltung-Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
Google Scholar
Hall E (1976) Beyond culture. Doubleday, New York
Google Scholar
Hall E (1990) Understanding cultural differences. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth
Google Scholar
Håstad T (2015) DCFR rules in the Swedish Supreme Court. In: Håstad T (ed) The Nordic Contracts Act: essays in celebration of its one hundredth anniversary. DJOF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp 179–184
Google Scholar
Hesselink MW (2001) The new European legal culture. Kluwer, Deventer
Google Scholar
Hesselink MW (2008b) CFR & social justice. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
Hesselink MW (2009) The Common Frame of Reference as a source of European private law. TulLRev 83(4):919–971
Google Scholar
Hesselink M (2010) A toolbox for European judges. ELJ 17(4):441–469. Available via the Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725783. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Hesselink MW (2012) How many systems of private law are there in Europe? On plural legal sources, multiple identities and the unity of law. ALSLS 59:1–41
Google Scholar
Hériter A (2015) Covert integration in the EU. In: Richardson J, Mazey S (eds) European Union, power and policy-making. Routledge Cavendish, London/New York
Google Scholar
Heutger V, Jeloschek C (2004) Towards Principles of European Sales Law. In: Hartkamp AS, Hesselink MW, Hondius E, Mak C, du Perron E (eds) Towards a European civil code, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, Nijmegen, pp 533–550
Google Scholar
Hondius E (2011) From “toolbox” to academic standard. The current and future status of the Draft Common Frame of Reference. In: Brownsword R, Micklitz H-W, Niglia L, Weatherill S (eds) The foundations of European private law. Hart, Oxford and Portland, pp 531–554
Google Scholar
Howarth D (2011) The general conditions of unlawfulness. In: Hartkamp A, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International/Ars Aequi Libri, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 845–887
Google Scholar
Jansen N (2001) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Haftungsrecht. ZEup 9:30–65
Google Scholar
Jansen N (2007) The state of the art of European tort law. Present problems and proposed principles. In: Bussani M (ed) East and West in the European tort law perspective. Stämpfli, Bern, pp 15–45
Google Scholar
Jansen N (2010) The authority of an academic “Draft Common Frame of Reference”. In: Micklitz H-W, Cafaggi F (eds) European private law after the Common Frame of Reference. Edward Elgar, Chettenham/Northhampton, pp 147–172
Google Scholar
Jansen N, Zimmermann R (2010) A European civil code in all but name: discussing the nature and purposes of the Draft Common Frame of Reference. CLJ 69(1):98–112
Article Google Scholar
Joerges C (1999) Desintegrative Folgen legislativer Harmonisierung: Ein komplexes Problem und ein unscheinbares Exempel. In: Schulte-Nölke H, Schulze R (eds) Europäische Rechtsangleichung und Nationale Privatrechte. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 205–222
Google Scholar
Joint Brussels Office (2015) The Common European Sales Law - The meaning of “modify”. Brussels Agenda 3(1):1–12. Available via The Law Society of Scotland. http://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/455103/brusselsagenda-march2015.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Józon M (2008) Integration of the European developments in private law into domestic civil law: factors framing the reception of the DCFR in Romania. JI 14(1):156–165
Google Scholar
Jurčova M (2008) The influence of harmonisation on civil law in the Slovak Republic. JI 14(1):166–172
Google Scholar
Kahn-Freund O (1974) On uses and misuses of comparative law. MLR 37(1):1–27
Article Google Scholar
Kalouta G (2015) The Draft Common Frame of Reference in the courts. The remaking of comparative law. In: Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) Courts and comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 696–718
Chapter Google Scholar
Kischel U (2003) Die Begründung zur Erläuterung staatlicher Entscheidungen gegenüber dem Bürger. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Kisfaludi A (2008) The influence of the harmonisation on the development of the civil law in Hungary. JI 14(1):130–136
Google Scholar
Koch BA (2005) The “European Group on Tort Law” and its “Principles of European Tort Law”. AJCL 53(1):189–205. Available via JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038691. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Koziol H (1998b) The borderline between tort liability and contract. In: Koziol H (ed) Unification of tort law: wrongfulness. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 25–28
Google Scholar
Koziol H (2009) Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse im CFR. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 93–112
Google Scholar
Kropholler J (2004) Internationales Einheitsrecht. Allgemeine Lehren, 5th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Laborinho Lúcio Á (1986) O magistrado hoje. Actuação e formação. RCCS (18/19/20):291–309
Google Scholar
Lamy Pimenta M (2011) “Positivismo jurídico inclusivo”: afinamento ou afastamento do positivismo jurídico? In: Manuel Hespanha A, Pizarro Beleza T (coord.) Teoria da Argumentação e Neoconstitucionalismo. Um conjunto de perspectivas. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 263–289
Google Scholar
Lando O (1999) The rules of European contract law. In: von Bar C, Barendrecht M, Basedow J, Drobnig U, van Gerven W, Hondius E, Kerameus K, Koussoulis S, Lando O, Loos M, Tilmann W (eds) The private law systems in the EU: discrimination on grounds of nationality and the need for a European civil code. European Parliament, Luxembourg, pp 123–132
Google Scholar
Lando O, Beale H (eds) (2000) Principles of European Contract Law, parts 1/2. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Legrand P (1997a) Against a European civil code. MLR 60(1):44–63
Google Scholar
Legrand P (1997b) The impossibility of “legal transplants”. MJ 4(2):111–124
Google Scholar
Legrand P (2006) Antivonbar. JCL 13(1):13–40
Google Scholar
Lehmann M (2009) Anwendung des CFR in Schiedsverfahren. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen: Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 433–455
Google Scholar
Lehmann M (2015) Damages and interests. In: Plaza Penadés J, Martínez Velensoso LM (eds) European perspectives on the Common European Sales Law. Springer, Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, pp 243–261
Google Scholar
Leible S (2009) Auswirkungen des CFR auf eine gemeinschaftsrechtskonforme Auslegung. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 217–233
Google Scholar
Lollini A (2007) Legal argumentation based on foreign law. An example from case law of the South African Constitutional Court. UtrLR 3(1, June):60–74
Google Scholar
Macgregor L (2008, September) Report on the Draft Common Frame of Reference: a report prepared for the Scottish Government by Laura Macgregor, University of Edinburgh, on the document known as “Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law”. Available via the Scottish Government. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/262952/0078639.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
MacQueen HL (2010) The Common Frame of Reference. TulLRev 84(25):177–195
Google Scholar
Magnus U (2004b) Vergleich der Vorschläge zum europäischen Deliktsrecht. ZEuP (3):562–580
Google Scholar
Mak C (2014) Judges in Utopia: fundamental rights as constitutive elements of a European private culture. In: Helleringer G, Purnhagen K (eds) Towards a European legal culture. Beck/Hart, Munich/Oxford, pp 375–395
Google Scholar
Mancuso S (2009) Legal transplants and economic development: Civil Law vs. Common Law. In: Oliveira J, Cardinal P (eds) One country, two systems, three legal orders: perspectives of evolution. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 75–89
Chapter Google Scholar
Mankowski P (2012) Comment to art. 5. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation, 2nd edn. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
Markesinis B (2006) Judicial mentality: mental disposition or outlook as a factor impeding recourse to foreign law. TulLRev 80(4):1325–1375
Google Scholar
Markesinis BS, Fedtke J (2005–2006) The judge as comparatist. TulLRev 80(11):11–167
Google Scholar
Mayr S (2012) Putting a leash on the Court of Justice? Preconceptions in national methodology v effet utile as a meta-rule. EJLS 5(2):8–21
Google Scholar
Menezes Cordeiro A (2009) Tratado de Direito Civil Português, vol II-Direito das Obrigações. Tomo 1-Introdução. Sistemas e Direito Europeu das Obrigações. Dogmática geral. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Meyer O (2007) Principles of contract law und nationales Vertragsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Book Google Scholar
Miller L (2011) The emergence of EU contract law: exploring Europeanisation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Ministerio de Justicia (2009) Propuesta para la modernización del Derecho de obligaciones y contratos. Gobierno de España/Ministerio de Justicia, Madrid
Google Scholar
Möslein F (2008) Judikative Europäisierung - Der Beitrag der Gerichte zur Harmonisierung des Privat- und Wirtschaftsrechts. In: Liebscher M (ed) Harmonisierung des Wirtschaftsrechts in Deutschland, Österreich und Polen. Jahrbuch des Krakauer Forums der Rechtswissenschaften. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 57–80
Google Scholar
Moitinho de Almeida JC (n.d.) Seguro obrigatório automóvel: o Direito Português face à jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias. Accessible via STJ. http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/estudos/moitinhoalmeida_seguroobrigatorio.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Moura Vicente D (2008) Direito Comparado, vol I-Introdução e parte geral. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Müller F, Christensen J (2007) Juristische Methodik, vol II–Europarecht, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Odersky W (1999) Harmonisierende Auslegung und europäische Rechtskultur. ZEup 2:1–4
Google Scholar
Oliveira Ascensão J (2013) O Direito. Introdução e teoria geral, 13th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Posner R (2004) No thanks, we already have our own laws. Legal Affairs, July–August. Available via Legal Affairs. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2004/feature_posner_julaug04.msp. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Rajski J (2006) On the need for a progressive harmonisation of private law in the European Union: the role of legal science and education. JI 11(1):20–24
Google Scholar
Rajski J (2008) European initiatives and reform of civil law in Poland. JI 14(1):151–155
Google Scholar
Ranchordás S (2014) Constitutional sunsets and experimental legislation: a comparative perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton
Book Google Scholar
Remien O (2009) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen im Unterricht-Szenarien, Fakten, Perspektiven. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 457–476
Google Scholar
Riesenhuber K (2009) Systembildung durch den CFR. Wirkungen auf die systematische Auslegung des Gemeinschaftsrechts. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 173–216
Google Scholar
Roca Trías E, Fernández Gregoraci B (2009) The modern law of obligations in the Spanish High Court. ERCL 5(1):45–59
Google Scholar
Röthel A (2009) Integration durch eine unverbindliche lex academica: der Referenzrahmen als Modellgesetz? In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 287–309
Google Scholar
Safjan M (2010) The universalisation of legal interpretation. In: Jemielniak J, Mikłaszewicz P (eds) Interpretation of law in the global world: from particularism to a universal approach. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 107–125
Chapter Google Scholar
Santos Silva M L (2010) O trust no Quadro Comum de Referência para o Direito Privado Europeu e as suas raízes históricas no Direito Romano. In: Aa. Vv. O sistema contractual Romano: de Roma ao Direito actual. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 803–823
Google Scholar
Schmid CU (2010) The “three lives” of European private law. In: Common Core Evaluating Group, Antoniolli L, Fiorentini F (eds) A factual assessment of the Draft Common Frame of Reference. Sellier, Munich, pp 299–312
Google Scholar
Schmidt J (2015) The structure of the DCFR: borrowed from the German BGB or expression of a European common tradition? In: Afonso AI (ed) Um Direito Europeu das Obrigações? A influência do DCFR. Universidade Católica Editora, Porto, pp 33–51
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I- Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, Vienna
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2001) Schuldrechtsreform und Gemeinschaftsrecht. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2002) The new German law of obligations: an introduction. Available via the German Law Archive of the Oxford University Comparative Law Forum. http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/schulte-noelke.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
Schulte-Nölke H (2003) The Commission’s Action Plan on European contract law and the research of the Acquis Group. ERA Forum 4(2, June):142–145
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2008) Die Acquis Principles (ACQP) und der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. In: Schulze R, von Bar C, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) Der akademische Entwurf für einen gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 47–71
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2009a) Contract law or law of obligations? The Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) as a multifunction tool. In: Schulze R (ed) Common Frame of Reference and existing EC contract law, 2nd rev. ed, pp 47–62. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2009b) Ziele und Arbeitswesen von Study Group und Acquis Group bei der Vorbereitung des DCFR. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 9–22
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2010a) Bausteine aus der Wissenschaft für die englische Vertragssprache. Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen als Toolbox für die Vertragsgestaltung. In: Schulte-Nölke H, Genzow F C, Grunewald B (eds) Zwischen Vertragsfreiheit und Verbraucherschutz. Festschrift für Friedrich Graf von Westphalen zum 70. Geburstag. Schmidt, Cologne, pp 609–620
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2010b) The European Law Institute. In: Cafaggi F, Francioni F, Micklitz H-W, Poiares Maduro M (orgs.) A European Law Institute? Towards innovation in European legal integration. RSCAS Policy Papers 2010/03. European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence, pp 55–62
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H (2011) “Restatements” in Europe and the US: some comparative lessons. In: Brownsword R, Micklitz H-W, Niglia L, Weatherill S (eds) Foundations of European private law. Hart, Oxford/Portland, pp 11–30
Google Scholar
Schulte-Nölke H, Schulze R (1999) Europäische Rechtsangleichung und nationale Privatrechte-Einführung. In: Schulte-Nölke H, Schulze R (eds) Europäische Rechtsangleichung nationale Privatrechte. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 11–20
Google Scholar
Schulze R (1997) Vergleichende Gesetzesauslegung und Rechtsangleichung. ZfRV 38(5):183–197
Google Scholar
Schulze R (2011) Contours of European private law. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) European private law - Current status and perspectives. Sellier, Munich, pp 3–26
Chapter Google Scholar
Schulze R (2012) Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another in the DCFR. In: Sagaert V, Storme M, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 221–230
Google Scholar
Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2001) Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Scognamiglio C (2000) Prospettive europee sulla responsabilità civile e disciplina del mercato. Europa e dir. priv. (2):333–356
Google Scholar
Sefton-Green R (2009) The DCFR: a technical or a political toolbox? In: Somma A (ed) The politics of the DCFR. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 39–50
Google Scholar
Senden L (2004) Soft law in European Community law. Hart, Oxford
Google Scholar
Senden L (2005) Soft law and its implications for institutional balance in the EC. UtrLR 1(2):79–99
Google Scholar
Senden L, Prechal S (2001) Differentiation in and through Community soft law. In: de Witte B, Hanf D, Vos E (orgs.) The many faces of differentiation in EU law. Intersentia, Oxford/New York, pp 181–199
Google Scholar
Snijderns H, Vogenauer S (2009) General introduction. In: Snijders H, Vogenauer S (eds) Content and meaning of national law in the context of transational law. Sellier, Munich, pp V–VII
Chapter Google Scholar
Somma A (2009) The politics of the DCFR. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Google Scholar
Sousa Antunes H (2014) A alteração das circunstâncias no Direito Europeu dos Contratos. CDP 47(July–September):3–21
Google Scholar
Sousa Dinis JJ (2009) Avaliação e reparação do dano patrimonial e não patrimonial (no domínio do Direito Civil). RPDC 18(19):51–68
Article Google Scholar
Sousa Santos B (dir.) (2005) Os actos e os tempos dos juízes: contributos para a construção de indicadores da distribuição processual nos juízos cíveis. Observatório Permanente da Justiça Portuguesa, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Staudenmayer D (2005) Weitere Schritte im Europäischen Vertragsrecht. EuZW 4:103–106
Google Scholar
Stürner M (2010) Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Schuldvertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Swann S (2003) Conceptual foundations of the law of delict as proposed by the Study Group on a European Civil Code. InDret 130:1–31
Google Scholar
Trstenjak V (2009) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen und der Europäische Gerichtshof. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 235–253
Google Scholar
Tushnet M (2006) When is knowing less better than knowing more? Unpacking the controversy over Supreme Court reference to non-U.S. law. Minn.L.Rev. 90(1):1275–1302
Google Scholar
Valpuesta Gastaminza E (2011) Unificación del Derecho Patrimonial Europeo: Marco Común de Referencia y Derecho Español. Bosch, Barcelona
Google Scholar
van Gerven W (1994) Non-contractual liability of Member States, Community institutions and individuals for breaches of Community law with a view to a common law for Europe. MJ 1(1):6–40
Google Scholar
Vaquer Aloy A, Bosch Capdevila E, Sánchez González MP (coords.) (2012) Derecho Europeo de los Contratos: Libros II y IV del Marco Común de Referencia. Atelier, Barcelona
Google Scholar
Vékás L (2008) Ist eine Konvergenz der nationalen Vertragsrechtssystem erkennbar? Betrachtungen aus der Perspektive der neuen Mitgliedstaaten Mittel- und Osteuropas. 4. Europäischer Juristentag. Manz, Vienna, pp 67–83
Google Scholar
Vendrell Cervantes C (2008) The application of the Principles of European Contract Law by Spanish courts. ZEuP 16:534–548
Google Scholar
Violante T (2011) A adjudicação constitucional e o Direito Comparado. In: Manuel Hespanha A, Pizarro Beleza T (coords.) Teoria da Argumentação e Neoconstitucionalismo. Almedina, Coimbra, pp 337–359
Google Scholar
Vogenauer S (2001) Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent: eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Rechtsprechung und ihrer historischen Grundlagen, vol 1. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Vogenauer S (2009) Interpretation of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts by national courts. In: Snijder H, Vogenauer S (eds) Content and meaning of national law in the context of transnational law. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (1998a) The common European law of torts, vol I-The core areas of tort law, its approximation in Europe, and its accommodation in the legal system. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2000d) Die Study Group on a European Civil Code. In: Gottwald P, Jayme E, Schwab D (eds) Festschrift für Dieter Henrich zum 70. Geburtstag 1. Dezember 2000. Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 1–11
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2001b) Le Groupe d’Études sur un Code Civil Européen. Rev.int.dr.comp. 53(1, January–March):127–139
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002a) Auf dem Wege zu Europäischen Grundregeln der außervertraglichen Schadenshaftung. In: Schlechtriem P (ed) Wandlungen des Schuldrechts, pp 165–178. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002b) On drafting principles of tortious liability. In: Barrett G, Bernardeau L (eds) Towards a European civil code: reflections on the codification of civil law in Europe, pp 67–74. ERA Forum, Trier
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002c) Paving the way forward with principles of European private law. In: Grundmann S, Stuyck J (eds) An academic green paper on European contract law, pp 137–145. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002e) The Study Group on a European Civil Code. S.Iur 64 Colloquia 8: “Um Código Civil para a Europa”. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra, pp 65–78
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2002f) Vom Europäischen Vertragsrecht zum Europäischen Vermögensrrecht. In: Schulte-Nölke H, Schulze R, in connection with Ludovic Bernardeau JPC (eds) Europäisches Vertragsrecht im Gemeinschaftsrecht. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne, pp 263–269
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2003a) The Common Frame of Reference and the works of the Study Group on a European Civil Code. ERA Forum 4(2):100–101
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2003b) From principles to codification. Prospects for European private law. In: Alpa G, Danovi R (eds) Diritto contrattuale europeo e diritto dei consumatori. L’integrazione europea e il processo civile. Materiali del seminario del 12 luglio 2002, pp 39–53. Giuffrè, Milan
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2004a) Comparative law of obligations: methodology and epistemology. In: van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, Oregon, pp 123–135
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2004b) Ein gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen für das marktrelevante Privatrecht in der Europäischen Union. In: Mansel H-P, Pfeiffer T, Kronke H, Kohler C, Hausmann R (eds) Festschrift für Erik Jayme, vol 2. Sellier, Munich, pp 1217–1231
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2005) Working together towards a common frame of reference. JI 10(1):17–26
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2007) Coverage and structure of the academic Common Frame of Reference. ERCL 3(3):350–361
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2008a) A common frame of reference for European private law - Academic efforts and political realities. EJCL 12(1):1–10
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2008b) The launch of the Draft Common Frame of Reference. JI 14(1):4–9
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2008d) Die Struktur des Draft Common Frame of Reference. In: Schulze R, von Bar C, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) Der akademische Entwurf für einen gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 35–45
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2009a) Das Europäische Projekt eines gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens. Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das Europäische Privatrecht - oder doch mehr? TPR:185 0-1871
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2009b) Die Funktionen des gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens aus der Sicht der Verfasser des wissenschaftlichen Entwurfs. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 23–33
Google Scholar
von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European Law on Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2009d) Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das europäische Privatrecht? In: von Bar C (ed) Recht und Wirtschaft. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 49–62
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2010b) Die Rolle der juristischen Zeitschriftenliteratur bei der Harmonisierung des Privatrechts in Europa. JI 17(1):4–10
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011a) Concorrência entre as ordens jurídicas e “Law made in Germany”. BFD 87(1):429–444
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011b) The notion of damage. In: Hartkamp AS, Hesselink MW, Hondius EH, Mak C, du Perron CE (eds) Towards a European civil code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 387–399
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011c) Preamble. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) European private law - Current status and perspectives. Sellier, Munich, pp 265–267
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2011d) Rechtsvergleichende Beobachtungen zum Ineinandergreifen von Vertrags- und Deliktsrecht in Europa. In: Schulze R (ed) Compensation of private losses. The evolution of torts in European business law. Sellier, Munich, pp 201–212
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2012a) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: scope and purpose. In: Sagaert V, Storme M, Terryn E (eds) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: national and comparative perspectives. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland, pp 3–6
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2012b) Eine neue Vertragsrechtsordnung für Europa. In: von Bar C, Wudarski A (eds) Deutschland und Polen in der europäischen Rechtsgemeinschaft. Sellier, Munich, pp 3–11
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2013) The role of comparative law in the making of European private law. JI 20(1):5–11
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2014a) Privatrecht europäisch denken! JZ 69(1):473–479
Google Scholar
von Bar C (2014b) Rechtsvergleichung ist nicht mehr genug! LR 3(1):3–9
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Barendrecht M, Basedow J, Drobnig U, van Gerven W, Hondius E, Kerameus K, Koussoulis S, Lando O, Loos M, Tilmann W (eds) (1999) Untersuchung der Privatrechtordnungen der EU im Hinblick auf Diskriminierungen und die Schaffung eines Europäisches Zivilgesetzbuch. Europäisches Parlament, Luxembourg. Available via the European Parliament website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/1999/168511/IPOL-JURI_ET%281999%29168511_DE.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
von Bar C, Clive E (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft Common Frame of Reference - Full edition. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft Common Frame of Reference - Outline Edition. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Clive E, Schulte-Nölke H, Beale H, Herre J, Huet J, Storme M, Swann S, Varul P, Veneziano A, Zoll F (eds) (2008) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (Interim Outline Edition). Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, Munich
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Lando O (eds) (2001) Communication on European Contract Law: Joint Response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code. Available via SGECC. http://www.sgecc.uos.de/media/downloads/stellungnahme_kommission_5_final1.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017
von Bar C, Lando O, Swann S (2002) Communication on European contract law: joint response of the Commission on European Contract Law and the Study Group on a European Civil Code. ERPL 10(2):183–248
Google Scholar
von Bar C, Schulte-Nölke H (2005) Gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen für europäisches Schuld- und Sachenrecht. ZRP 38(5):165–168
Google Scholar
Wallis D (2006) European contract law - The way forward. Political context, Parliament’s preoccupations and process. ERA Forum 7(1):8–11
Google Scholar
Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
Google Scholar
Watson A (1991) Roman law and comparative law. University of Georgia Press, Athens
Google Scholar
Watson A (1996) Aspects of reception of law. AJCL 44(2):335–339
Article Google Scholar
Watson A (2000) Legal transplants and European private law. EJCL 4(4):I–VIII
Google Scholar
Weitenberg M (2008) Terminology. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European Community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 309–340
Google Scholar
Wendehorst C (2009) The CFR and the review of the acquis communautaire. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 323–364
Google Scholar
Zemanek K (1998) Is the term “soft law” convenient? In: Hafner G, Loibl G, Rest A, Sucharipa-Behrmann L, Zemanek K (eds) Liber Amicorum Professor Seidl-Hohenveldern. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 843–862
Google Scholar
Zimmermann R (2004) Principles of European Contract Law and Principles of European Tort Law: comparison and points of contact. In: Koziol H, Steininger B (eds) European tort law 2003. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 2–31
Google Scholar
Zimmermann R (2008) European contract law: general report. In: European Jurists’ Forum. 4. Europäischer Juristentag. Manz, Vienna, pp 185–204
Google Scholar
Zimmermann R (2012) Challenges for the European Law Institute. Edinburgh LRev 16(1):5–23
Google Scholar
Zoll F (2009) The Draft Common Frame of Reference: an instrument of the autonomous qualification in the context of Rome I Regulation. In: Ferrari F, Leible S (eds) Rome I Regulation. Sellier, Munich, pp 17–25
Google Scholar
Zoll F (2011a) The influence of the chosen structure of the draft for the optional instrument on the functioning of the system remedies. In: Schulze R, Stuyck J (eds) Towards a European contract law. Sellier, Munich, pp 151–160
Google Scholar
Zoll F (2011b) A need for a new structure for European private law. In: Brownsword R, Micklitz H-W, Niglia L, Weatherill S (eds) The foundations of European private law. Hart, Oxford/Portland, pp 555–562
Google Scholar
Zweigert K (1949) Rechtsvergleichung als universale Interpretationsmethode. RabelsZ 15(1):5–21
Google Scholar
Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) Introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, Oxford/New York
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
Marta Santos Silva

Authors

Marta Santos Silva
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santos Silva, M. (2017). § 3 A Role for the DCFR in Domestic Adjudication. In: The Draft Common Frame of Reference as a "Toolbox" for Domestic Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52923-3_3
Published: 04 July 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52922-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52923-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics