Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
The choice of law-rules for contractual obligations is harmonized in the European Union and the system established by the Rome I-Convention has proved its merits.1 The choice of law rules for tortious or delictual liability, on the contrary, is still largely left to the national legislators and courts2 and they differ very much from one country to the other. Two Hague Conventions cover particular issues.3 Neither of them is in force in the UK.
1 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, OJ C 027, 26.01.1998, p 34.Google Scholar
2 See for the UK: Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, Part in, Choice of Law in Tort and Delict; Dicey & Morris On The Conflict of Laws (vol 2, 13th ednStevens & Sons London 2000) 1507;Google ScholarNorth, PM and Fawcett, JJCheshire and North's Private International Law (13th ednButterworths London 1999) 604;Google ScholarMorris, JHCThe Conflict of Laws (5th ednD McClean Sweet & Maxwell London 2000) 353;Google ScholarCollier, JGConflict of Laws (3rd ednCUP Cambridge 2001) 220;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCrawford, EInternational Private Law in Scotland (Green/Sweet & Maxwell Edinburgh 1998) 282;Google Scholarfor Ireland Binchy, WIrish Conflict of Laws (Butterworth Ireland Dublin 1988) 567.Google Scholar
3 The Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 on the law applicable to traffic accidents, in force in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, the Czech and the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Belarus—The Hague Convention of 2 Oct 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability, in force in France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Spain, Slovenia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro. For both Conventions see <www.hcch.net>..>Google Scholar
4 COM (2003) 427 of 22 July 2003. The proposal is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. See on this proposal: House of Lords. European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–4, HL Paper 66, published 7 Apr 2004; Carruthers, J and Crawford, E ‘Variations on a Theme of Rome n—Reflections on Proposed Choice of Law Rules for Non-Contractual Obligations’, (2005) Edinburgh L Rev (to be published in the May and September issues);Google ScholarSymeonides, SC ‘Tort Conflicts and Rome II: A View from Across’, in Mansell, HP, Pfeiffer, T, Kronke, H, Kohler, C, and Hausmann, R (eds) Festschrift in Honour of Erik Jayme (vol 1, Beck München 2004) 935.Google ScholarFor a critical review of a former version of the proposal, see Dickinson, A ‘Cross-Border Torts in EC Courts—A response to the Proposed ‘Rome n’ Regulation’ (2002) European Business L Rev 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur: Diana Wallis): Draft Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the law applicable to noncontractual obligations (Rome II), Provisional 2003/0168(COD) version of 11 Nov 2004.Google Scholar
6 Council of the European Union, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘ROME II’) of 27 Sept 2004, JUSTCIV 130, CODEC 1046, Doc 12746/04. The document has not yet been published and remains for the moment internalGoogle Scholar
7 [1971] AC 458 (PC).Google Scholar
8 [1980] 1 WLR 1248 (CA).Google Scholar
9 See the German case Oberlandesgericht (OLG = Court of Appeal) Koln 11 Dec 1991, Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1993, 110; see also OLG Düsseldorf 28 Apr 1978 (folding bike), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1980, 533 note Kropholler, J; for the applicable law in these cases, see below p 478 et seq.Google Scholar
10 van Rooij, Cf R and Polak, MVPrivate International Law in the Netherlands (Kluwer Deventer 1987) 138;Google ScholarBallarino, T (con la collaborazione di A Bonomi) Diritto Internazionale Privato (2nd ednCedam Padova 1996) 731:Google Scholar‘La determinazione della legge applicable e particolarmente delicata […]’ (to determine the applicable law is particularly difficult); A Saravalle Responsabilità del produttore e diritto internazionale privato (Cedam Padova 1991) 209;Google ScholarKropholler, JInternationales Privatrecht (5th ednMohr Siebeck Tübingen 2004) § 53 V 3: ‘Fur die Produkthaftung eine angemessene kollisionsrechtliche Losung zu finden, ist schwierig’ (to find an adequate solution for product liability in the conflict of laws is difficult);Google Scholarsee also the articles and monographies of Fawcett, JJ ‘Products Liability in Private International Law: A European Perspective’ (1993) Recueil des Cours de l'Academie de Droit International de La Haye (Rec. des Cours), vol 238 (I) 9;Google ScholarDuintjer, H Tebbens International Product Liability—a study of comparative and international legal aspects of product liability (Sijthoff & Noordhoff Alphen aan den Rijn 1979);Google ScholarWandt, MInternationale Produkthaftung (Recht und Wirtschaft Heidelberg 1995).Google Scholar
11 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, OJ L 210, 7 Aug 1985 p 29.Google Scholar
12 See, eg, Dickinson, A, in: House of Lords. European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–4 (n 4) no 105.Google Scholar
13 See the Explanatory Memorandum of the Commission's proposal for ‘Rome II’ (n 4) 13 et seq: ‘Connection solely to the place of the direct damage is not suitable here as the law thus designated could be unrelated to the real situation, unforeseeable for the producer and no source of adequate protection for the victim.’Google Scholar
14 Explanatory Memorandum (n 4) 14 n 25.Google Scholar
15 For details see Graziano, T KadnerLa responsabilité délictuelle en droit international privé européen (Helbing & Lichtenhahn Bale 2004) 61;Google ScholarGemeineuropäisches Internationales Privatrecht (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen 2002) 258;Google ScholarEuropäisches Internationales Deliktsrecht (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen 2003) 65.Google Scholar
16 See the Irish case Patrick Grehan v Medical Incorporated and Valley Pines Associates [1986] ILRM 627, 639 (SC) and the German case Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Supreme Court) 17 Mar 1981, IPRax 1982, 13 note K Kreuzer.Google Scholar
17 The rattachement accessoire is admitted, for example, by the Austrian courts, see Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of Austria) 29 Oct 1987, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 1988, 363, 364; see also § 41 s 2 no 1 of the German Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB, Introductory rules to the German Civil Code) and,Google Scholar eg Siehr, KInternationales Privatrecht (CF Müller Heidelberg 2001) 246.Google ScholarIn Switzerland, however, the rule in the Swiss Private International Law Code on rattachement accessoire shall, according to the prevalent opinion, not be applied to product liability cases in order not to deprive the victim from the possibility of bringing a claim under the law of the country where the product was acquired,Google Scholar see Bucher, A and Bonomi, ADroit international privé (2nd ednHelbing & Lichtenhahn Bale 2004), no. 1076;Google ScholarVolken, P, in Heini, A, Keller, M, Siehr, K, Vischer, F, and Volken, P (eds) IPRG Kommentar—Kommentar zum Bundesgesetz tiber das Internationale Privatrecht (IPRG) of January 1, 1989 (Schulthess Zurich 1993) Art 135 no 12 with further references.Google Scholar
18 See Art 135 of the Swiss Private International Law Act; Art 63 of the Italian Private International Law Act; Art 1221 (1) no 3 of the Illrd part of the Russian Civil Code and—concerning product for personal use—Arts 114 to 116 of the Romanian Private International Law Act and § 166 4th alt. of the Estonian Law of 1994 on the principles of the Civil Code; Art 1130 (3) of the Civil code of Belarus.Google Scholar
19 See the Swiss and the Italian solution. See also the solution of the German ‘rule of ubiquity’: In principle, the law of the place of acting applies (ie the place where the person held to beliable has his residence), but the victim may choose the application of the law of the place where he or she suffered the harm, see art 40 s 1 of the Introductory rules to the German Civil Code and BGH, IPRax 1982, 13; OLG Düsseldorf, NJW 1980, 533; OLG Köln, Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des Internationalen Privatrechts (IPRspr.) 1992 n° 53; OLG Miinchen, IPRspr. 1995 n° 38; in the published cases, the place of harm always coincided with the place where the product was marketed.Google Scholar
20 See the solution in force in Romania.Google Scholar
21 See Art 166 of the Estonian Law on the Principles of the Civil Code; Art 1221 s 1 of the III. part of the Russian Civil code; Art 1130 s 1 and 2 of the Civil code of Belarus.Google Scholar
22 Above 476 and n 9.Google Scholar
23 OLG Köln, VersR 1993, 110.Google Scholar
24 See Art 4 and 5 of the Hague Convention of 1973 (n 3).Google Scholar
25 Grehan v Medical Incorporated [1986] ILRM 627.Google Scholar
26 This approach was adopted by the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) 29 Oct 1987, IPRax 1988, 363. It was adopted, for the purpose of international jurisdiction, by the Court of Appeal in Castree v Squibb [1980] 1 WLR 1248.Google Scholar
27 For the merits of this solution, see Graziano, T KadnerLa responsabilite delictuelle (n 15) 31; for party autonomy in English Conflict of Laws in Tort and Delict, see Morin v Bonham and Brooks Ltd [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 36 and Carruthers, J and Crawford, E ‘Variations on a Theme of Rome II’ (n 4) Part I, Ch III.Google Scholar
28 For details see Graziano, T KadnerLa responsabilité délictuelle (n 15) 70 et seq, particularly 72 et seq; Gemeineuropäisch.es Internationales Privatrecht (n 15) 286 et seq.Google Scholar
29 See for Switzerland: Schlussbericht der Expertenkommission zum schweizerischen Gesetzesentwurf (1979) 243;Google ScholarVischer, F and Volken, PBundesgesetz tiber das Internationale Privatrecht (IPR-Gesetz) Gesetzesentwurf der Expertenkommission und Begleitbericht (Schulthess Zürich 1978) 150;Google Scholar for Italy. Pocar, F, in: (ed) Commentario del Nuovo Diritto Internazionale Privato (Giuffrè Milano 1996)Google Scholar Art 63 no 2: the aim was to find for Italy a rule that was less complicated than the rules of the Hague Convention; for Germany U Drobnig Produktehaftung in von Caemmerer, E (ed) Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen Privatrechts der aufiervertraglichen Schuldverhältnisse (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen 1983) 312 et seqGoogle Scholar; von Bar, CInternationales Privatrecht (vol I, Beck München 1987) no 653 n 18;Google ScholarKegel, G and Schurig, KInternationales Privatrecht (8th ednBeck München 2000) § 18 IV 3. b;Google ScholarWandt, MInternationale Produkthaftung (n 10) no. 4; Kropholler, JInternationales Privatrecht (n 10) § 53 V 3.Google Scholar
30 See, eg, Fawcett, JJ ‘Policy Considerations in Tort Choice of Law’ (1984) Modern L Rev 650, 669 et seq;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMayer, P/Heuzié, VDroit international privé (7th ednMontchrestien Paris 2001) no. 679;Google ScholarLoussouarn, Y/Bourel, PDroit international privé (7th ednDalloz Paris 2001) no 180;Google Scholarde la Muela, A MiajaDerecho international privado (vol II, 10th ednB Vidal, Madrid 1987) 401;Google ScholarHohloch, GDas Deliktsstatut—Grundlagen und Grundlinien des internationalen Deliktsrechts (Metzner Frankfurt am Main 1984), eg, 222.Google Scholar
31 See, eg, Fawcett, JJ ‘Products Liability in Private International Law’, (1993–1) Rec des Cours, vol 238 123 et seq; A Saravalle Responsabilità del produttore (n 10) 217.Google Scholar
32 ibid, Saravalle.
33 Cf the results of the study presented by Drobnig, UProduktehaftung (n 29) 298, 301.Google Scholar
34 See, eg, Tebbens, H Duintjer ‘Besprechung von M Wandt, Internationale Produkthaftung‘ (1997) Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 442, 444;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoth, W-HDer Einfluss des europaischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das Internationale Privatrecht Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 55 (1991), 623, 668;Google ScholarWandt, M Internationale Produkthaftung (n 10) for ex no 734, nos 1043 et seq.Google Scholar
35 Tebbens, H DuintjerInternational Product liability (n 10) 377.Google Scholar
36 See von Hein, JDas Gunstigkeitsprinzip im Internationalen Deliktsrecht (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen 1999) 404 et seq.Google Scholar
37 Note 26.Google Scholar
38 [1980] 1 WLR 1248; [1980] 2 All ER, 589, 592; see also the Privy Council's decision in Distillers Co v Thompson [1971] AC 458: application of Australian law (ie the law of the marketplace).Google Scholar
39 See Tebbens, H DuintjerInternational Product liability (n 10) 378; Wandt, MInternationale Produkthaftung (n 10) nos 113 et seq.Google Scholar
40 See, eg, Tebbens, H DuintjerInternational Product Liability (n 10) 381 et seq; A Saravalle Responsabilità del produttore (n 10) 217 et seq; Wandt, MInternationale Produkthaftung (n 10) no. 1086 et seq, 1100, 1231; Kropholler, JInternationales Privatrecht (n 10), § 53 V 3;Google Scholarvon Hoffmann, B and Thorn, KInternationales Privatrecht (7th ednBeck Miinchen 2002) § 11 no 49; von Hein, JGünstigkeitsprinzip (n 36) 419 et seq.Google Scholar
41 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, OJ L 12, 16 Jan 2001, p 1 (‘Brussels I Regulation’).Google Scholar
42 For an example see Graziano, T KadnerLa responsabilité délictuelle (n 15) 124, 135.Google Scholar
43 Art 4—Product liability, provides: ‘Without prejudice to article 3(2) and (3) [i.e. habitual residence of both parties in the same country, manifestly closer connection with another country, ThKaG], the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of damage or risk of damage caused by the defective product shall be that of the country in which the person sustaining the damage is habitually resident, unless the person claimed to be liable can show that the product was marketed in that country without his consent, in which case the applicable law shall be that of the country in which the person claimed to be liable is habitually resident.‘Google Scholar
44 See Explanatory Memorandum to the Commission's proposal (above n 4) 14.Google Scholar
45 Explanatory Memorandum (above n 4) 15.Google Scholar
46 Art 22—Public policy of the forum: ‘The application of the law of any country specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (‘ordre public’) of the forum.’Google Scholar
47 Art 24—Non-compensatory damages: ‘The application of a provision of the law designated by this Regulation which has the effect of causing non-compensatory damages, such as exemplary or punitive damages, to be awarded shall be contrary to Community public policy.’Google Scholar
48 Product liability, invasion of personality rights by mass media, unfair competition, and—in some countries—damages to the environment; for details see Graziano, KadnerLa responsabilité delictuelle (n 15) 46; above Gemeirwuropäisches Internationales Privatrecht (n 15) 236 with further references.Google Scholar
49 Art 63 of the Italian Private International Law Act; Art 135 of the Swiss Private International Law Act.Google Scholar
50 § 166 of the Estonian Principles on the Civil code; Art 114–16 of the Romanian Private International Law Act; Art 1221 of part HI of the Russian Civil code; Art 1130 of the Civil code of Belarus.Google Scholar
51 Contra a tort specific approach: House of Lords. European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–1 (n 4) no 106: ‘We do not believe that a case has been made for a special rule on product liability. […] If additional consumer protection is needed (and we do not rule that out) then that is a matter to be addressed in the context of the Directive.’Google Scholar
52 See the general rule in Art 3 (1) and (2) of this proposal.Google Scholar
53 The ‘Justification’ states: ‘Paragraph 3 covers residual cases and also seeks to deal with cases involving defective products where the product in question was not intended to be marketed in the country in which the harmful event occurred.’Google Scholar
54 For exceptional cases, the private international law rules of almost all countries as well as the Commission's current proposal contain a measure of judicial discretion, see for the UK: Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, s 12; see Art 3(3) of the Commission's proposal (n 4).Google Scholar
