ARTICLES and NOTES - Notarius International

218 C. Hertel, Preventive Consumer Protection Notarius International 3-4/2002
Sumario
El Plan de Acción presentado por la Comisión Europea
en enero de 2003 relativo al derecho contratual europeo
propone en una primera fase crear un “marco común
de referencia” y en una segunda fase un “instrumento facultativo”.
El marco común de referencia se asemeja a
la propuesta (no vinculante) de Parte General de un futuro
Código Civil Europeo en tanto que recopilación de definiciones
y principios generales del derecho. Por el contrario,
el instrumento facultativo ya ofrecería a las partes
contractuales la elección de un derecho europeo, ya
que actualmente sólo pueden elegir entre los diferentes
derechos nacionales; no obstante, al mismo tiempo los
derechos nacionales continuarían existiendo.
El autor aboga por el instrumento facultativo como una
posibilidad de probar en la práctica un derecho de obligaciones
europeo sin grandes riesgos y, sin los habituales
riesgos inherentes a toda gran reforma legislativa. Se pronuncia
por la integración de normas de protección a los
consumidores en el instrumento facultativo, y asimismo
no olvidar la posibilidad de proteger a la parte contractual
más débil mediante prescripciones de forma, especialmente
mediante documentación notarial.
Preventive Consumer Protection in an
Optional Instrument
– A Practitioner’s View
Preliminary Remarks
In January 2003, the European Commission has
launched its Action Plan on European Contract Law 1 .
The Commission proposes to start a future harmonisation
of contract law by first creating a common frame of
reference and than an optional instrument:
- The first step is the Common Frame of Reference.
This should be completed within a timeframe of three
to five years, that is until 2007 or 2008. The common
frame of reference would be much more than just a legal
dictionary, but already contain general rules - like
the general part (Allgemeiner Teil) of the German BGB.
- Thus, the general frame of reference could serve as
the basis for the general part of an Optional Instrument.
However the optional instrument would also
regulate specific types of contracts, not necessarily all
at once, but may be one after the other.
- Finally – this has been adressed in the resolution of the
European Parliament 2 and is a logical consequence –
this optional instrument might some later day serve as
the basis for a truely harmonized European contract
law, replacing the national contract laws.
With its Action Plan, the Commission launched the
second phase of the public discussion of a future harmonisation
of European contract law. The first stage had
been the European Commission’s Communication on
European Contract Law published in July 2001 which
had initiated a broad debate in the academic community
as well as among the business organisations and the
lawyers and notaries professional organisations 3 .
Still, the European Commission has not yet decided on a
possible future harmonisation, but has only finetuned the
timetable and the structure of the ongoing discussion. The
Commission has taken great pains to argue that this is an
open ended consultation process and that the outcome as
not yet been defined. Similar as for the Communication on
European Contract Law, the Commission now has also invited
to submit comments to its Action Plan. It has held a
workshop on the Action Plan in June 2003. The comments
received will also be published in Internet.
This article gives a notarial practitioner’s view of the
proposed optional instrument.
1. Some General Remarks of a practitioner on European
Contract Law
1.1. Ambivalence: Fascinating Endeavour, but
demanding Task
What can a notary, that is a civil law notary, contribute
to the debate from his specific perspective
- First, it is the perspective of a legal practitioner. Every
practitioner will be concerned specifically with the
practical consequences of the proposals for a harmonized
European contract law. As a practitioner, I can
share the fascination of the vision of a common European
Law as well as the scepticism concerning the
necessary costs and efforts – an ambivalence which
also has been expressed in many of the written contributions
to the European Commission’s communication
on European contract law 4 .
1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council – A more coherent European contract law – An action
plan, COM (2003) 68 final, Official Journal 2003 C 063,
15/03/2003 p. 1-44, in internet see: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/cnc/2003/
com2003_0068en01.pdf; compare D. Staudenmayer,
The Commission Action Plan on European Contract Law, European
Review for Private Law 2003, 113. All information of the
Commission about European Contract Law may be found in internet
on the following site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/
cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/index_en.htm
2 European Parliament, resolution of 15 november 2001, COM-2001-
398 CS-047/2001/2187 – COS.
3 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on european contract law, COM (2001) 398 final,
Official Journal 2001 C 255, in internet see: http://europa.eu.int/ eurlex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_
0398en01.pdf; the comments are
published in internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/
safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/comments/index_en.htm; compare
H. G. Wehrens, Le Rapprochement du Droit Civil et Commercial
des États membres de L'Union Européenne, Notarius International
2001, 212, 214 ss.
4 Studying the written contributions to the European Commission’s
communication on European contract law, one might get the impression
that this is mainly a debate between the British and the Germans,
or to be more precise between British business organisations on the
one hand und German professors on the other hand – a debate in
which the German professors are mostly in favour of a harmonized
contract law, the business organisations mostly sceptical.
I think this is not a mere coincidence, but might represent two poles of
the debate on European contract law: On the one hand, creating a truly
European Law is a fascinating endeavour – that is what intrigues most
of the academics. On the other hand, any harmonisation would bring as
a consequence fundamental changes, legal uncertainty for the transition
period as well as und transition costs. Thus, for the business community,
a compelling case for harmonisation has not yet been made.