Advertisement

§ 3 A Role for the DCFR in Domestic Adjudication

Chapter
  • 231 Downloads

Abstract

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

Bibliography

  1. Abrantes Geraldes AS (2007b). Temas da Responsabilidade Civil, vol II-Indemnização dos danos reflexos, 2nd edn. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexy R (1995) Juristische interpretation. In: Alexy R (ed) Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs. Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 71–92Google Scholar
  3. Anweiler J (1997) Die Auslegungsmethoden des Gerichtshofs der Europäische Gemeinschaft. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldus C (2012) Europäischer Süden und Europäisches Privatrecht. GPR 9(3, June):105Google Scholar
  5. 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 101–112Google Scholar
  6. 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 35–47Google Scholar
  7. 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 HagueGoogle Scholar
  8. Brugger W (1994) Konkretisierung des Rechts und Auslegung der Gesetze. AöR 119:1–34Google Scholar
  9. Bydlinski F, Bylinski P (2012) Grundzüge der juristischen Methodenlehre, 2nd edn. Facultas, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvão da Silva J (2001–2002) Bicentenário do Code Civil (o Código Civil e a Europa: influências e modernidade). RLJ 134(3930):267–275Google Scholar
  11. Canaris C-W (1969) Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz entwickelt am Beispiel des deutschen Privatrechts. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Castro Mendes J (1982–1983) Direito Comparado. AAFDL, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  13. Clive E (2008) An introduction to the academic Draft Common Frame of Reference. ERA Forum 9(1):13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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 1–73Google Scholar
  17. 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 96–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. David R (2002) Os grandes sistemas do Direito Contemporâneo. Martins Fontes, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 131–199Google Scholar
  20. 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 3–21Google Scholar
  21. 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 127-147Google Scholar
  22. 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):659–708Google Scholar
  23. 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 2008Google Scholar
  24. 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 395–430Google Scholar
  25. Ferreira de Almeida C, Morais Carvalho J (2013) Introdução ao Direito Comparado. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  26. Freitas do Amaral D (2000) A crise da justiça. AS 34(154–155):247–257Google Scholar
  27. 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 57–77Google Scholar
  28. 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 23–44Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Grigoleit HC (2015) Against the background of DCFR and CESL: developing 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 33–51Google Scholar
  31. 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):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Groppi T (2013) The use of foreign precedents by constitutional judges. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Habermas J (1992) Faktizität und Geltung-Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall E (1976) Beyond culture. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hall E (1990) Understanding cultural differences. Intercultural Press, YarmouthGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 179–184Google Scholar
  37. Hesselink MW (2001) The new European legal culture. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  38. Hesselink MW (2008b) CFR & social justice. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  39. Hesselink MW (2009) The Common Frame of Reference as a source of European private law. TulLRev 83(4):919–971Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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 59:1–41Google Scholar
  42. Hériter A (2015) Covert integration in the EU. In: Richardson J, Mazey S (eds) European Union, power and policy-making. Routledge Cavendish, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 533–550Google Scholar
  44. 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 531–554Google Scholar
  45. 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 845–887Google Scholar
  46. Jansen N (2001) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Haftungsrecht. ZEup 9:30–65Google Scholar
  47. 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 15–45Google Scholar
  48. 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 147–172Google Scholar
  49. 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):98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 205–222Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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):156–165Google Scholar
  53. Jurčova M (2008) The influence of harmonisation on civil law in the Slovak Republic. JI 14(1):166–172Google Scholar
  54. Kahn-Freund O (1974) On uses and misuses of comparative law. MLR 37(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 696–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kischel U (2003) Die Begründung zur Erläuterung staatlicher Entscheidungen gegenüber dem Bürger. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  57. Kisfaludi A (2008) The influence of the harmonisation on the development of the civil law in Hungary. JI 14(1):130–136Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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 25–28Google Scholar
  60. Koziol H (2009) Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse im CFR. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 93–112Google Scholar
  61. Kropholler J (2004) Internationales Einheitsrecht. Allgemeine Lehren, 5th edn. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  62. Laborinho Lúcio Á (1986) O magistrado hoje. Actuação e formação. RCCS (18/19/20):291–309Google Scholar
  63. 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 263–289Google Scholar
  64. 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 123–132Google Scholar
  65. Lando O, Beale H (eds) (2000) Principles of European Contract Law, parts 1/2. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  66. Legrand P (1997a) Against a European civil code. MLR 60(1):44–63Google Scholar
  67. Legrand P (1997b) The impossibility of “legal transplants”. MJ 4(2):111–124Google Scholar
  68. Legrand P (2006) Antivonbar. JCL 13(1):13–40Google Scholar
  69. Lehmann M (2009) Anwendung des CFR in Schiedsverfahren. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen: Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 433–455Google Scholar
  70. 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 243–261Google Scholar
  71. Leible S (2009) Auswirkungen des CFR auf eine gemeinschaftsrechtskonforme Auslegung. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 217–233Google Scholar
  72. Lollini A (2007) Legal argumentation based on foreign law. An example from case law of the South African Constitutional Court. UtrLR 3(1, June):60–74Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. MacQueen HL (2010) The Common Frame of Reference. TulLRev 84(25):177–195Google Scholar
  75. Magnus U (2004b) Vergleich der Vorschläge zum europäischen Deliktsrecht. ZEuP (3):562–580Google Scholar
  76. 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 375–395Google Scholar
  77. 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 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mankowski P (2012) Comment to art. 5. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation, 2nd edn. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  79. Markesinis B (2006) Judicial mentality: mental disposition or outlook as a factor impeding recourse to foreign law. TulLRev 80(4):1325–1375Google Scholar
  80. Markesinis BS, Fedtke J (2005–2006) The judge as comparatist. TulLRev 80(11):11–167Google Scholar
  81. 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):8–21Google Scholar
  82. 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, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  83. Meyer O (2007) Principles of contract law und nationales Vertragsrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Miller L (2011) The emergence of EU contract law: exploring Europeanisation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ministerio de Justicia (2009) Propuesta para la modernización del Derecho de obligaciones y contratos. Gobierno de España/Ministerio de Justicia, MadridGoogle Scholar
  86. 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 57–80Google Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Moura Vicente D (2008) Direito Comparado, vol I-Introdução e parte geral. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  89. Müller F, Christensen J (2007) Juristische Methodik, vol II–Europarecht, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  90. Odersky W (1999) Harmonisierende Auslegung und europäische Rechtskultur. ZEup 2:1–4Google Scholar
  91. Oliveira Ascensão J (2013) O Direito. Introdução e teoria geral, 13th edn. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  92. 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
  93. 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):20–24Google Scholar
  94. Rajski J (2008) European initiatives and reform of civil law in Poland. JI 14(1):151–155Google Scholar
  95. Ranchordás S (2014) Constitutional sunsets and experimental legislation: a comparative perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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 457–476Google Scholar
  97. 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 173–216Google Scholar
  98. Roca Trías E, Fernández Gregoraci B (2009) The modern law of obligations in the Spanish High Court. ERCL 5(1):45–59Google Scholar
  99. 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 287–309Google Scholar
  100. 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 107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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 803–823Google Scholar
  102. 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 299–312Google Scholar
  103. 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 33–51Google Scholar
  104. Schmidt-Kessel M (2006) Reform des Schadensersatzrechts, vol I- Europäische Vorgaben und Vorbilder. Manz, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  105. Schulte-Nölke H (2001) Schuldrechtsreform und Gemeinschaftsrecht. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrechts. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  106. 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
  107. 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):142–145Google Scholar
  108. 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 47–71Google Scholar
  109. 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, MunichGoogle Scholar
  110. 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 9–22Google Scholar
  111. 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 609–620Google Scholar
  112. 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 55–62Google Scholar
  113. 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 11–30Google Scholar
  114. 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 11–20Google Scholar
  115. Schulze R (1997) Vergleichende Gesetzesauslegung und Rechtsangleichung. ZfRV 38(5):183–197Google Scholar
  116. 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 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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 221–230Google Scholar
  118. Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) (2001) Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  119. Scognamiglio C (2000) Prospettive europee sulla responsabilità civile e disciplina del mercato. Europa e dir. priv. (2):333–356Google Scholar
  120. 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 39–50Google Scholar
  121. Senden L (2004) Soft law in European Community law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  122. Senden L (2005) Soft law and its implications for institutional balance in the EC. UtrLR 1(2):79–99Google Scholar
  123. 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 181–199Google Scholar
  124. 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–VIICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Somma A (2009) The politics of the DCFR. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  126. Sousa Antunes H (2014) A alteração das circunstâncias no Direito Europeu dos Contratos. CDP 47(July–September):3–21Google Scholar
  127. Sousa Dinis JJ (2009) Avaliação e reparação do dano patrimonial e não patrimonial (no domínio do Direito Civil). RPDC 18(19):51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 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, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  129. Staudenmayer D (2005) Weitere Schritte im Europäischen Vertragsrecht. EuZW 4:103–106Google Scholar
  130. Stürner M (2010) Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Schuldvertragsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  131. Swann S (2003) Conceptual foundations of the law of delict as proposed by the Study Group on a European Civil Code. InDret 130:1–31Google Scholar
  132. Trstenjak V (2009) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen und der Europäische Gerichtshof. In: Schmidt-Kessel M (ed) Der Gemeinsame Referenzrahmen. Entstehung, Inhalte, Anwendung. Sellier, Munich, pp 235–253Google Scholar
  133. 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):1275–1302Google Scholar
  134. Valpuesta Gastaminza E (2011) Unificación del Derecho Patrimonial Europeo: Marco Común de Referencia y Derecho Español. Bosch, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  135. 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):6–40Google Scholar
  136. 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, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  137. 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 67–83Google Scholar
  138. Vendrell Cervantes C (2008) The application of the Principles of European Contract Law by Spanish courts. ZEuP 16:534–548Google Scholar
  139. 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 337–359Google Scholar
  140. 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, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  141. 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, MunichGoogle Scholar
  142. 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  143. 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 1–11Google Scholar
  144. von Bar C (2001a) Konturen des Deliktsrechtskonzeptes der Study Group on a European Civil Code. Ein Werkstattbericht. ZEuP (9):515–532Google Scholar
  145. von Bar C (2001b) Le Groupe d’Études sur un Code Civil Européen. Rev.int.dr.comp. 53(1, January–March):127–139Google Scholar
  146. 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-BadenGoogle Scholar
  147. 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, TrierGoogle Scholar
  148. 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 HagueGoogle Scholar
  149. 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 65–78Google Scholar
  150. 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 263–269Google Scholar
  151. 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):100–101Google Scholar
  152. 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, MilanGoogle Scholar
  153. 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 123–135Google Scholar
  154. 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 1217–1231Google Scholar
  155. von Bar C (2005) Working together towards a common frame of reference. JI 10(1):17–26Google Scholar
  156. von Bar C (2007) Coverage and structure of the academic Common Frame of Reference. ERCL 3(3):350–361Google Scholar
  157. von Bar C (2008a) A common frame of reference for European private law - Academic efforts and political realities. EJCL 12(1):1–10Google Scholar
  158. von Bar C (2008b) The launch of the Draft Common Frame of Reference. JI 14(1):4–9Google Scholar
  159. 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 35–45Google Scholar
  160. von Bar C (2009a) Das Europäische Projekt eines gemeinsamen Referenzrahmens. Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das Europäische Privatrecht - oder doch mehr? TPR:185 0-1871Google Scholar
  161. 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 23–33Google Scholar
  162. von Bar C (ed) (2009c) Principles of European Law on Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Caused to Another. PEL Liab. Dam. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  163. von Bar C (2009d) Ein “Werkzeugkasten” für das europäische Privatrecht? In: von Bar C (ed) Recht und Wirtschaft. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 49–62Google Scholar
  164. von Bar C (2010b) Die Rolle der juristischen Zeitschriftenliteratur bei der Harmonisierung des Privatrechts in Europa. JI 17(1):4–10Google Scholar
  165. von Bar C (2011a) Concorrência entre as ordens jurídicas e “Law made in Germany”. BFD 87(1):429–444Google Scholar
  166. 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 387–399Google Scholar
  167. von Bar C (2011c) Preamble. In: Schulze R, Schulte-Nölke H (eds) European private law - Current status and perspectives. Sellier, Munich, pp 265–267Google Scholar
  168. 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 201–212Google Scholar
  169. 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 3–6Google Scholar
  170. 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 3–11Google Scholar
  171. von Bar C (2013) The role of comparative law in the making of European private law. JI 20(1):5–11Google Scholar
  172. von Bar C (2014a) Privatrecht europäisch denken! JZ 69(1):473–479Google Scholar
  173. von Bar C (2014b) Rechtsvergleichung ist nicht mehr genug! LR 3(1):3–9Google Scholar
  174. 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
  175. von Bar C, Clive E (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law. Draft Common Frame of Reference - Full edition. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  176. 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, MunichGoogle Scholar
  177. 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, MunichGoogle Scholar
  178. von Bar C, Drobnig U (2004) The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  179. 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
  180. 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):183–248Google Scholar
  181. von Bar C, Schulte-Nölke H (2005) Gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen für europäisches Schuld- und Sachenrecht. ZRP 38(5):165–168Google Scholar
  182. Wallis D (2006) European contract law - The way forward. Political context, Parliament’s preoccupations and process. ERA Forum 7(1):8–11Google Scholar
  183. Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. Scottish Academic Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  184. Watson A (1991) Roman law and comparative law. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  185. Watson A (1996) Aspects of reception of law. AJCL 44(2):335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Watson A (2000) Legal transplants and European private law. EJCL 4(4):I–VIIIGoogle Scholar
  187. Weitenberg M (2008) Terminology. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort law of the European Community. Springer, Vienna/New York, pp 309–340Google Scholar
  188. 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 323–364Google Scholar
  189. 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 843–862Google Scholar
  190. 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 2–31Google Scholar
  191. Zimmermann R (2008) European contract law: general report. In: European Jurists’ Forum. 4. Europäischer Juristentag. Manz, Vienna, pp 185–204Google Scholar
  192. Zimmermann R (2012) Challenges for the European Law Institute. Edinburgh LRev 16(1):5–23Google Scholar
  193. 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 17–25Google Scholar
  194. 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 151–160Google Scholar
  195. 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 555–562Google Scholar
  196. Zweigert K (1949) Rechtsvergleichung als universale Interpretationsmethode. RabelsZ 15(1):5–21Google Scholar
  197. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  198. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) Introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations