Overriding Mandatory Rules in EU Private International Law
Some Doubts and Tentative Answers from the Perspective of the Slovak Private International Law System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2024.8.2.865Keywords:
Overriding Mandatory Provisions, Public Interest, the Rome I Regulation, International Private LawAbstract
As a result of the increasing incidence of private law relationships with a foreign element, courts hearing cases are frequently obliged to apply foreign law. The interference of foreign law is liable to produce effects that may conflict with the public interest of the lex fori. Precisely for this reason, we consider it essential to be aware of the available protective mechanisms through which the court can protect the public interest, not only of the lex fori, but even, under certain circumstances, of the public interest of the foreign legal order. The present article deals with the mechanism of overriding mandatory provisions in private international law in order to identify the requirements for the activation of the selected mechanism in the Slovak courts' application practice. Given that this mechanism is not covered by the Slovak Act on International Private and Procedural Law, the article deals mainly with the rules enshrined in the Rome I Regulation. The first part of the present article deals with the definition of overriding mandatory provisions, the application in private international law, and the historical perspectives in the light of the so-called Rome Convention. Subsequently, the article focuses on the classification of overriding mandatory provisions and their impact within the limits relevant to Slovak courts.
References
Basedow, J. (2013). Exclusive Choice-of-Court Agreements as a Derogation from Imperative Norms. Essays in Honour of Michael Bogdan, 15–31. Lund: Juristförlaget i Lund.
Bělohlávek, A. J. (2010). Rome Convention Rome I Regulation. USA: Juris.
Bříza, P. et al. (2014). Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém [Private international law Act]. Praha: C.H. Beck.
Csach, K. (2007). Miesto dispozitívnych a kogentných noriem (nielen) v obchodnom práve. I. Časť – Všeobecné otázky a rozbor kogentných noriem [The Role of Dispositive and Mandatory Norms in (not only) Commercial Law. Part I – General Issues and Analysis of Mandatory Norms]. Právny obzor [The Legal Horizon], 90(2), 102-121.
Csach, K., Gregová Širicová, Ľ. and Júdová, E. (2018). Úvod do štúdia medzinárodného práva súkromného a procesného [Introduction to the study of international private and procedural law]. 2. ed. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer.
Ellger, R. (2012). Overriding Mandatory Provisions. Available at: https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Overriding_Mandatory_Provisions#c.29_Classification_of_overriding_mandatory_provisions_according_to_their_origin (accessed on 01.03.2024).
Hüßtege, R. and Mansel, H. P. (2019). BGB, Band 6: Rom-Verordnungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Kronenberg, A. (2022). Normen als tatsächliche Umstände. Lehmann, M. (2022). Kronenberg on Taking Account of Foreign Overriding Mandatory Provisions. Available at: https://eapil.org/2022/05/18/kronenberg-on-taking-account-of-foreign-overriding-mandatory-provisions/ (accessed on 01.04.2024).
Kučera, Z. (2009). Mezinárodní právo soukromé [International private law]. 7. ed. Brno-Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.
Lysina, P., Haťapka, M., Burdová, K. et al. (2023). Medzinárodné právo súkromné [International private law]. 3. ed. Bratislava: C.H.Beck.
Pauknerová, M., Rozehnalová, N. and Zavadilová, M. et. al. (2013). Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém. Komentář [Private international law Act. Commentary]. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR.
Pauknerová, M. (2021). Imperativní normy a mezinárodní právo soukromé – klasické téma v současnosti [Overriding mandatory provisions and private international law - a classic topic in the present day]. Právník [Lawyer]. 1/2021, 1-20.
Rozehnalová, N. et. al. (2021). Nařízení Řím I a Nařízení Řím II. Komentář [Rome I and Rome II Regulations. Commentary]. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR.
Štefanková, N. and Sumková, M. (2017). Medzinárodné právo súkromné [International private law]. Plzeň: Aleš Černek.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 47–390).
Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ L 266, 9.10.1980, pp. 1–19).
Czech Act No. 91/2012 Coll. on Private International Law.
European Council and Council of the EU (n.d.). Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=1988024 (accessed on 19.03.2024).
OLG Frankfurt 16. Zivilsenat, 25.09.2018, ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2018:0925.16U209.17.00, 2022. Available at: https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE190019717/part/K (accessed on 01.05.2024).
Reference for a preliminary ruling, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung, C-86/23.
Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (OJ L 199, 31/07/2007, pp. 40–49).
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, pp. 6–16).
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, pp. 1–32).
Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris I (Ú. v. ES C 282, 31.10.1980, pp. 1 – 50).
Slovak Act No. 97/1963 Coll, on Private International Law and Rules of Procedure.
CJEU, judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa/E.N.E.L., C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
CJEU, judgment of 23 November 1999, Arblade, C-369/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:575.
CJEU, judgment of 9 November 2000, Ingmar GB, C-381/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:605.
CJEU, judgment of 19 June 2008, Commission v Luxembourg, C‑319/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:350.
CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd, C-384/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:842.
CJEU, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker, C‑64/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:551.
CJEU, judgment of 17 October 2013, Unamar, C-184/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:663.
CJEU, judgment of 18 October 2016, Nikiforidis, C-135/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:774.
CJEU, judgment of 31 January 2019, Da Silva Martins, C-149/18, EECLI:U:C:2019:84.
CJEU, judgment of 14 September 2023, Diamond Resorts Europe and Others, C-632/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:671.
CJEU, judgment of 8 February 2024, Inkreal, C- 566/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:123.
Judgment of the Czech Supreme Court of 8 December 2008, file no. stamp 21 Cdo 4196/2007.
Judgment of the Regional Court in Prešov of 24.10.2017, file no. 10Co/56/2016.
Judgment of the Regional Court in Bratislava of 16.06.2016, file no. 3CoPr/6/2015.
Judgment of the Regional Court in Nitra of 15.10.2020, file no. 9Co/225/2019.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 20 April 2016, Nikiforidis, C- 135/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:281.
Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 21 April 2016, New Valmar, C-15/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:291.
Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 22 April 2021, SC Gruber Logistics, C-152/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:323.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
How to Cite
