Abstract
The Member States failed to reach consensus on the Brussels IIter-Proposal. The current chapter distinguishes three distinct problems that underlie the failure of the establishment of common choice of law rules on divorce have been distinguished. In the first place, the position of Malta — the only Member State that does not provide for divorce in its substantive legislation — posed problems. Moreover, doubts existed concerning the EU competence in the field at hand: mainly the fulfilment of the internal market requirement on the one hand and the fulfilment of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality on the other posed problems. However, during the negotiations in the Council both these problems seem to have been solved. The last problem observed is the methodological approach of the common choice of law rules. The large differences in substantive law on divorce of the Member States seem to require the adoption of neutral choice of law rules. However, not all Member States agree with such an approach, as they wish to continue to apply the lex fori. The fundamental discord between the Member States concerning the Brussels IIter-Proposal has led to the search for alternatives. Several alternatives have been discussed, neither of which would lead to a proper or feasible solution. Therefore, an alternative to the establishment of a common choice of law does not currently seem to be present. Apparently, the European Union as a whole is not yet ready for a common choice of law on divorce. Consequently, the procedure on enhanced cooperation is the ‘last resort’ for establishing some form of cooperation between the Member States in the field of the choice of law on divorce. However, establishing enhanced cooperation in the field of divorce does create a possibly impeding precedent for all future EU projects on international family law, such as matrimonial property and succession.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Brussels IIter-Proposal has even been referred to as a ‘political minefield’. See ‘Justice and Home Affairs: EU divorce legislation too tricky to tackle’, European Report, No. 3332, 22 June 2007.
- 2.
Cf., supra Sect. 5.2.1: Malta is the only Member States that does not provide for divorce at all in its legislation. Maltese law does provide for legal separation.
- 3.
The United Kingdom and Ireland do not participate in measures pursuant to Title V of the third part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Pursuant to a Protocol both countries do have the possibility to join these measures by means of an ‘opt in’ clause. See further supra Sect. 4.6.1.
- 4.
See supra Sect. 4.4.5.
- 5.
See Press Release of the 2887th Meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 24 and 25 July 2008, p. 23, available at: http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/NewsWord/en/jha/102007.doc.
- 6.
Paulino Pereira 2007, p. 394.
- 7.
See background note of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 5–6 June 2008, pp. 7–8, at: http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Background_Information/June/0506_JHA.pdf.
- 8.
See Farrugia 2007, p. 205.
- 9.
Council Document No. 8038/08 JUR 48 and JUSTCIV 62 of 2 April 2008.
- 10.
See Council Document No. 9985/08 JUSTCIV 106 of 29 May 2008, para 11, p. 4.
- 11.
See Council Document No. 8549/07 JUSTCIV 91 of 17 April 2007, p. 6.
- 12.
Article 20e-1 as proposed in Council Document No. 8587/08 JUSTCIV 73 of 18 April 2008. This issue appeared for the first time in Council Document No. ST 8028/07 JUSTCIV 75 of 30 March 2007.
- 13.
‘Justice and Home Affairs: Rome III: Swedish opposition not yet insurmountable’, European Report, No. 3458, 28 January 2008.
- 14.
Article 20b-1 on the application of the law of the forum; see Council Document No. 9712/08 JUSTCIV 106 of 23 May 2008, p. 15. See further on this provision supra Sect. 5.5.3.3.
- 15.
See further supra Sect. 5.5.3.3.
- 16.
Cf., supra Sect. 4.7.
- 17.
See the Annex to the COSAC Report for the precise concerns raised by these Member States.
- 18.
See further supra Sect. 5.2.2.
- 19.
See Green Paper on Divorce, pp. 3–6.
- 20.
Kamerstukken I/II 2006–2007, 30 671, E and No. 5. The English translation was provided in the Dutch response to the COSAC Report; see its Annex, p. 92. The fulfillment of the internal market requirement of Article 65 EC was equally questioned by both the Czech Parliament (‘It is arguable to what extent a measure in the area of family law fulfills the last criterion, i.e. how unification of the conflict-of-law rules applicable in matrimonial matters contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market. […] neither the explanatory memorandum nor the impact assessment to the proposal removes doubts [about; NAB] the necessity of a Community legal instrument regulating such conflict-of-law rules.’) and the British House of Lords (‘[…] the House of Lords EU Committee doubts whether the Commission’s statistical analysis provides a sufficient basis on which to act.’); see Annex to the COSAC Report, pp. 24–25 and 120, respectively.
- 21.
See the letter of the Vice-President of the European Commission of 7 December 2006, Kamerstukken I/II, 2006–2007, 30 671, F and No. 6: ‘De omvang van het probleem in het licht van het vrije personenverkeer kan niet worden gemeten aan de totale bevolking van de EU, aangezien slechts een fractie van die bevolking thans gebruik maakt van het recht om naar een andere lidstaat te verhuizen in verband met werk. Een vergelijking van het aantal echtscheidingsgevallen waarbij collisieregels een rol spelen, met het totale aantal echtscheidingen is veelzeggender. Geschat wordt dat jaarlijks zo’n 170 000 « internationale » echtparen in Europese Unie scheiden, wat neerkomt op ongeveer 19% van alle echtscheidingen.’
- 22.
See more elaborately supra Sect. 4.7.2.
- 23.
See House of Lords Rome III Report, pp. 8–11. The Commission’s proposal on a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM(2010) 104 final/2 shows that the previous statistical analysis was in fact slightly overdone. See p. 6 of the proposal: ‘In 2007 there were 1 040 000 divorces in the 27 Member States of the European Union, of which 140 000 (13%) had an ‘international’ element.’
- 24.
The reason that the Commission has not responded to these concerns is probably that the concerns have been published in a Report of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has not adopted a formal reasoned opinion as such. See the Annex to the COSAC-Report, p. 120.
- 25.
The same goes for the already observed inconsistency in the percentage representing the number of international divorces in the EU: is it 16 or 19%? See supra note 236 of Chap. 4.
- 26.
See Impact Assessment on Divorce, p. 28.
- 27.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, p. 2.
- 28.
See supra Sect. 4.7.2.
- 29.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, p. 7. See further supra Sect. 4.4.4 on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
- 30.
E.g. the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
- 31.
See the Conclusion of the COSAC Report, p. 14.
- 32.
The European Union Committee of the British House of Lords did frankly admit that in their view the concerns regarding the Brussels IIter-Proposal raise both vires and subsidiarity questions. See House of Lords Rome III Report, p. 10.
- 33.
See the Reply of the Dutch government to the Green Paper on Divorce, p. 2. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/divorce_matters/contributions/contribution_netherlands_en.pdf. A special Dutch Temporary Commission on Subsidiarity has examined the European Commission’s Proposal as to compatibility with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and has concluded that the Brussels IIter-Proposal does not comply with these principles, Kamerstukken I/II 2005-06, 30 671, D and No. 4. See for an in-depth analysis of the Dutch concerns raised with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality: Pontier 2007, pp. 203–216.
- 34.
The Czech Chamber of Deputies agreed with this point of view, although it considers the Brussels IIter-Proposal ‘disputable’ in terms of the principle of subsidiarity. See the Annex to the COSAC Report, p. 25: ‘The Commission’s effort towards the unification of conflict-of-law rules (that Commission wrongly designates this as “harmonization”) can be considered as a step towards the harmonization of family law of the Member States, since the main objective of the proposal, i.e. “legal certainty and predictability” can be attained in full only through the complete harmonization of substantive family law of the Member States.’
- 35.
See Kamerstukken I/II 2006–2007, 30 671, E and No. 5.
- 36.
- 37.
See supra Sect. 4.4.2.
- 38.
Cf., the letter of the Vice-President of the European Commission of 7 December 2006, Kamerstukken I/II 2006–07, 30 671, F and No. 6.
- 39.
See for a broad overview of these differences supra Sect. 5.2.1.
- 40.
- 41.
See for the Dutch reply to the Green Paper on maintenance obligations (COM(2004) 254 final): www.europapoort.nl/9345000/1/j9vvgy6i0ydh7th/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vguwawrau0qt.
- 42.
This differentiation can, however, be explained by the fact that maintenance is a field of law that is less sensitive than divorce, as it verges on the law of obligations and — unlike divorce — the substantive laws of the Member States on maintenance obligations resemble each other to a large extent. An account of the Member States’ laws on maintenance obligations is available on the European Judicial Network website:
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/maintenance_claim/maintenance_claim_gen_en.htm.
- 43.
Cf., the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 2 October 2006. Kamerstukken II, 2006–2007, 22 112, No. 465. In this letter the Minister states: ‘De kans is niet gering dat het resultaat van de onderhandeling zal zijn een regeling van het conflictenrecht die minder gunstig is dan de huidige Nederlandse regeling, en dat aldus voor echtgenoten in Nederland meer barrières worden opgeworpen om uit elkaar te gaan dan thans het geval is.’
- 44.
See supra Sect. 6.3.1.
- 45.
See House of Lords Rome III Report, p. 11.
- 46.
Cf., supranote 24 of Chap. 5.
- 47.
Although the Czech Republic considers this concern as an issue of proportionality, it is rather an issue of subsidiarity, as it regards the question of the appropriate level to achieve the policy objectives and to address the problems in the current situation. See further on the content of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality supra Sect. 4.4.4.
- 48.
See Resolution of the Czech Chamber of Deputies, Annex to the COSAC Report, p. 25.
- 49.
Cf., the issue of maintenance obligations. A European Regulation applies to the issues of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement in the matter of maintenance obligations. Ancillary to the 2007 Hague Convention on the Recovery of Child Support a separate Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligation has been concluded. In accordance with Article 24 of the Protocol, the European Council will most probably sign it on behalf of the European Community; see the Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, COM(2009) 81 final. See further infra Sect. 8.4.4.3.
- 50.
See further supra Sect. 4.7.2.
- 51.
See supra Sect. 4.4.4.
- 52.
See also Fiorini 2008, pp. 185–186.
- 53.
‘Justice and Home Affairs: Rome III: Swedish opposition not yet insurmountable’, European Report, No. 3458, 28 January 2008.
- 54.
However, it cannot be stated with certainty that the problem of competence is solved, as the position of the Czech Republic in this respect is unclear. Possibly the Czech Republic never intended to use its power of veto with regard to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, considering the following statement in the Presidency Agenda of January 2009: ‘[T]he Czech Republic participated in the negotiations with the parliamentary reservations.’; see: http://www.justice2009.cz/en/justice-2009/redakce/presidency-agendas/civil-agenda/c66.
Yet, the mentioned statement can also be interpreted in a way that the Czech Republic has possibly felt that it should remain neutral on such politically sensitive issue while holding the European Presidency (first half of 2009). Consequently, the position of the Czech Republic as regards the Brussels IIter-Proposal remains unclear.
- 55.
Cf., the Maintenance Regulation has equally been adopted without the United Kingdom having opted in. Ireland did, however, opt into this Regulation. See Recitals Nos. 46 and 47 of the Preamble to the Maintenance Regulation. On 3 February 2009, after the adoption of the Maintenance Regulation, the United Kingdom has requested the Commission to opt in. The Commission has agreed to the UK’s participation on 21 April 2009. The difference is, however, that the Maintenance Regulation does not provide for choice of law rules. Although the first draft of the Maintenance Regulation did contain a regulation on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, the adopted Regulation refers as regards the applicable law to the Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations of 23 November 2007. The United Kingdom did, however, not opt in (yet) to this Protocol. The Protocol will, by contrast, apply to Ireland.
- 56.
See also Boele-Woelki 2008b, p. 785: ‘Ultimately, the Netherlands reluctantly accepted the Rome III proposal, although it strongly supported the lex fori camp.’
- 57.
See letter of the State Secretary of Justice of 2 July 2008 to the Committee on Justice and Home Affairs of the Dutch Upper House of the Parliament (No. 5551493/08/6). This letter can be found at: http://www.europapoort.nl/9345000/1f/j9vvgy6i0ydh7th/vhcedoimzey0.
- 58.
COREPER (‘Comité des représentants permanents’) is a European institution preparing the decision-making of the Council. It is a permanent liaison body for the exchange of information between the national administrations and the institutions of the European Communities. See further Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat 1998, p. 193 ff.
- 59.
Cf., supra Sect. 5.5.3.3 on the French proposal. See also infra Sect. 6.5.3.2.
- 60.
Kamerstukken II 2007–08, 23 490, No. 510, Parliamentary Report of a General Consultation, p. 6.
- 61.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has furthermore indicated that the decision of the United Kingdom and Ireland not to opt into the Brussels IIter-Proposal is an obstacle to the Netherlands: ‘Een Nederlands belang is ook dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Ierland een “opt-in”-verklaring afleggen.’ See Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 2 October 2006, Kamerstukken II, 2006–2007, 22 112, No. 465. Strangely enough, this argument has not been raised with regard to the Maintenance Regulation, which has been adopted without the United Kingdom having opted in to it.
- 62.
See supra Sect. 5.2.2. Two Member States do not come under the two categories mentioned: France applies unilateral choice of law rules which only determine when French law applies and Malta does not provide for divorce in its substantive law and does, hence, not have any choice of law rules on this issue either.
- 63.
These Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
- 64.
Seven Member States belong to this category: Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
- 65.
A very broad classification of the substantive divorce laws of the Member States is given above in the table included in Sect. 5.2.1.
- 66.
- 67.
See the Green Paper on Divorce, p. 7.
- 68.
Supra Sect. 2.4.
- 69.
Romano 2006, pp. 457–519. It is to be noted that seven of these countries are EU Member States and only one of them (the United Kingdom) expressly adheres to the lex fori approach. Cf., the position of the Netherlands, which currently belongs to the category of States that determine the applicable law on the basis of the closest connection. However, in its reply to the Green Paper on Divorce it has advocated a lex fori approach. See on this issue already De Boer 2001, p. 211.
- 70.
See De Boer 2008, p. 336: ‘The principle of party autonomy can hardly be reconciled with the notion that divorce cannot be granted on the grounds of mutual consent, a that view still prevails in a number of member states. The principle, allowing a choice between alternative laws, is useless as long as we are not agreed on the result to be favoured: dissolution of the marriage at the mere request of either spouse, or preservation of the marital status as long as possible. The principle of functional allocation, calling for the application of the law of the weaker party’s social environment, cannot be resorted to either, because it is impossible to mark either husband or wife as the weaker party. […] That leaves us — at least as a basis for unification — with the neutral choice-of-law criterion of the closest connection.’
- 71.
See equally Bonomi 2007, p. 783. Bonomi argues furthermore that allowing party autonomy would join the development in several Member States of increasingly submitting divorce to the free disposal of the spouses: ‘Sur le plan des principes, elle peut cependant se justifier si l’on considère que dans la plupart des Etats la dissolution du mariage au cours des dernières décennies a été de plus en plus soumise à la disponibilité des époux. L’évolution en grande partie achevée en Europe du principe de divorce par faute, voire de la prohibition du divorce, en faveur d’un régime fondé sur le constat de la rupture irréversible de la communauté conjugale, l’introduction de procédures facilitées en cas de requête conjointe et plus récemment, l’admission, même dans des pays traditionnellement restrictifs, de mécanismes presque automatiques de divorce, fondés sur la simple requête unilatérale de l’un des époux et sans aucun véritable pouvoir de contrôle de la part de l’autorité compétente sont autant de manifestations d’une véritable métamorphose du droit de divorce. Dans ce contexte, l’attribution aux époux, dans des situations internationales, du droit de désigner la loi applicable n’est, pour la plupart des pays européens, pas choquante.’ See equally Kohler 2008b, p. 195.
- 72.
- 73.
See further infra Sect. 8.4.3.
- 74.
Bonomi 2007, pp. 774–775.
- 75.
Cf., De Boer 2008, p. 336.
- 76.
See Pontier 1997, p. 377.
- 77.
This resistance is (partly) connected with the universal character of the proposed choice of law rules, as they can designate the law of a Member State or the law of a third State. See further supra Sect. 5.4.1.1. In extra-European cases it might happen that the applicable law is the law of a country where, for instance, religion (such as the Islam) plays a central role, which might disrespect the principle of the equality of the spouses. See on this issue Boele-Woelki 2008b, p. 784.
- 78.
See also Kohler 2008a, p. 1678.
- 79.
See e.g. www.thelocal.se/9784/20080126/. Jänterä-Jareborg 2008, p. 340 has listed the three intertwined objections on which Sweden’s opposition is primarily based. Firstly, according to Swedish law the right to divorce is a fundamental right. Secondly, the Swedish Parliament considers that the Brussels IIter-Proposal does not pay due regard to the effects of immigration from countries outside of the European Union and the importance of integration and equality. Finally, as far as forum shopping or rush to court occur, it is not motivated by the differences between the Member States’ choice of law rules on divorce. Decisive is instead what rules apply to the various ancillary claims to divorce. The Brussels IIter-Proposal does not solve this essential problem.
- 80.
- 81.
See supra Sect. 5.5.3.3.
- 82.
- 83.
See equally Kohler 2008b, pp. 195–196: ‘Während in dem Vorschlag der Kommission eine materielle Aufladung der Anknüpfungen vermieden wird, zeigen […] die bisherigen Arbeiten in dem Rat ein anderes Bild. Hier stehen sich favor divortii […] gegenüber.’ See also Fiorini 2008, p. 193 observing that ‘the proposal is based on a number of substantive presuppositions: there is a right to divorce, divorce should be egalitarian, easy, and quick, à la carte.’
- 84.
Provided that neutral choice of law rules can be provided for at all; very sceptic on this issue is De Boer 2004, pp. 39–55.
- 85.
Cf., Van den Eeckhout 2004, pp. 58–59; Van den Eeckhout 2008a, pp. 89–90. The proposed amendments of the jurisdictional rules in the Brussels IIter-Proposal liberalise these rules even more by introducing the possibility of a choice of court (Article 3a Brussels IIter-Proposal) and the forum necessitatis (Article 7a Brussels IIter-Proposal).
- 86.
- 87.
De Boer 2008, p. 339.
- 88.
Ibid., p. 339.
- 89.
See supra Sect. 5.7.
- 90.
See equally Boele-Woelki 2008a, p. 261.
- 91.
Cf., Kohler 2003, p. 412. See further on this approach supra Sect. 4.4.4.2.
- 92.
Kohler 2008a, p. 1675. See equally Kohler 2002, pp. 711, 713: ‘Es muß in das Bewußtsein gerückt werden, daß bei divergierenden Kollisions-und Sachrecht der Mitgliedstaaten die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung fremder Entscheidungen ohne Rücksicht auf das angewendete Recht zu Widersprüchen führt, welche die Kohärenz der nationalen Rechtsordnungen in Frage stellen und die gerade im Familien- und Erbrecht häufig nicht erträglich sind. Sind aufgrund der einheitlichen Zuständigkeitsregeln die Gerichte mehrerer Mitgliedstaaten mit divergierenden Kollisionsnormen konkurrierend zuständig, so bestimmt die Wahl des Gerichts zugleich das anwendbare Recht, ohne daß dem in dem oder den Anerkennungsstaaten entgegengetreten werden könnte.’
- 93.
See background note of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 5–6 June 2008, pp. 7–8, available at: http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Background_Information/June/0506_JHA.pdf.
- 94.
See EU Council Factsheet on decisions in civil law matters, p. 2, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/101000.pdf.
- 95.
See Commission proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM(2010) 104 final/2, p. 3.
- 96.
- 97.
See Kortenberg 1998, p. 833, stating that ‘closer cooperation must […] be temporary, and everything possible should be done to allow those States who are not part of an initial group to join in as soon as possible.’
- 98.
See Commission proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM(2010) 104 final/2, pp. 3–12.
- 99.
See equally Boele-Woelki 2008b, p. 789.
- 100.
See: http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=534: ‘incoming EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding said she would present a demand for “enhanced cooperation” in this area within three months of taking office.’
- 101.
See Council Document No. 11984/08 JUSTCIV 150 of 23 July 2008, para 14.
- 102.
See Kamerstukken II 2008–2009, 23 490, No. 541, p. 5: ‘De meeste ministers die het woord voerden, gaven aan weinig heil te zien in versterkte samenwerking voor Rome III. Daarbij merkten enkelen op dat het familierecht nu juist een terrein is waar samenwerking met minder dan 27 lidstaten geen goede optie is, anderen wilden versterkte samenwerking op dit gebied niet uitsluiten, maar benadrukten dat de groep van deelnemende landen dan wel belangrijk groter moet zijn dan het minimum van 8 lidstaten. Weer andere landen hielden vast aan hun wens tot versterkte samenwerking.’
- 103.
At this meeting the then Commissioner for justice and home affairs, Mr. Barrot, declared that there was, as yet, not enough support. See: www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3950713,00.html.
- 104.
See Vandystadt 2009, p. 11; ‘Brussels seeks compromise over divorce laws proposal’, Times of Malta of 28 March 2009, available at: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090328/local/brussels-seeks-compromise-over-divorce-laws-proposal: ‘In a bid to secure a deal, EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot said the Commission intended to present a fresh proposal on transnational divorce, known technically as Rome III, without resorting to the mechanism of enhanced cooperation requested by 10 member states.’
- 105.
See: http://blog.divorce-online.co.uk/?p=205. However, from a communication of the Commission of 10 June 2009 it seemed strangely enough as if the Brussels IIter-Proposal was still pending. See the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Justice, Freedom and Security in Europe since 2005: An Evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan of 10 June 2009, COM(2009) 263 final, p. 12: ‘A legislative proposal on the law applicable to divorce (known as ‘Rome III’) is being discussed in the Council and Parliament.’
- 106.
See Stockholm Programme, p. 24: ‘the European Council considers that the process of harmonising conflict-of-law rules at Union level should also continue in areas where it is necessary, like separation and divorces.’ However, the Commission considers that using enhanced cooperation is in line with this statement in the Stockholm Programme; see Commission Proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM(2010) 104 final/2, p. 12.
- 107.
E.g. the application of the lex fori if the foreign applicable law ‘does not provide for divorce’ is defined more clearly in Article 10 of the regulation on enhanced cooperation. Cf., supra Sect. 5.5.3.3.
- 108.
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain.
- 109.
Cf., Article 21 of the Regulation on enhanced cooperation in the field of divorce.
- 110.
The Estonian government even fears that enhanced cooperation would ‘open up a Pandora’s box’. See http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1217000821.83/.
- 111.
- 112.
Boele-Woelki 2008b, p. 790.
- 113.
See Commission Proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM(2010) 104 final/2, p. 12.
- 114.
Ibid., p. 9.
- 115.
See supra Sect. 5.4.1.1.
- 116.
- 117.
P. Beaumont in response to Q5 in the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E), 18 October 2006; appendix to the House of Lords Rome III Report.
- 118.
Provided that this restriction can be made; as seen in Sect. 5.4.1.1 above, the differentiation between intra- and extra-European cases is intricate.
- 119.
- 120.
De Boer 2008, p. 339 ff.
- 121.
This idea is equally supported by the German Senate and the British International Committee of Resolution. See respectively Bundesrat 3 November 2006, Ratsdok. 11818/06, Drucksache 531/06 (Beschluss), para 3 and the Reply of Resolution to the Green Paper on Divorce, available at: http://ec.euro-pa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/divorce_matters/contributions/contribution_icr_en.pdf.
- 122.
- 123.
Ibid.
- 124.
De Boer 2008, p. 339.
- 125.
See Explanatory Memorandum to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, pp. 3–4; see also supra Sect. 5.3.
- 126.
De Boer is in general very sceptic concerning the strengthening of legal certainty and predictability; see De Boer 2008, p. 321 ff, on ‘the myth of certainty and predictability’. See supra Sect. 5.8, in which is argued that legal certainty and predictability with regard to divorce are not only dependent on the law which is applicable to divorce.
- 127.
In this respect Fiorini 2008, p. 189 pointed out that this approach does not bring any changes with respect to legal certainty and predictability if the couple or family is particularly mobile. However, of all people this category of persons should be aware of the issues surrounding questions of international family law and one can, therefore, wonder whether this category of persons needs special protection.
- 128.
See equally German Bundesrat 3 November 2006, Ratsdok. 11818/06, Drucksache 531/06 (Beschluss), para 3.
- 129.
- 130.
See the Borrás Report, para 30.
- 131.
- 132.
ECJ Case C-168/08 Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady) [2009] ECR I-06871. See equally the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in this case.
- 133.
See the Borrás Report, paras 28 and 29. The ECJ has confirmed the exclusive character of the jurisdictional grounds of Article 3 of the Brussels IIbis-Regulation in case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v. Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECR I-10403, para 28.
- 134.
By contrast, the Brussels IIter-Proposal has explicitly embraced ‘ensuring access to court’ as one of the objectives it seeks to attain. See Explanatory Memorandum to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, pp. 3–4. See also supra Sect. 5.3.
- 135.
This brings Kreuzer 2006, p. 80 to the conclusion that a unification of the choice of law rules can prevent forum shopping and a race to the court in a better and more practical way than attempts to do so through jurisdictional methods.
- 136.
Cf., Eyl 1965, p. 11.
- 137.
Supposing that there is a theory underlying the European private international law at all. See on this issue further infra Chap. 8
- 138.
See for these characteristics infra Sect. 8.4.3.
- 139.
See supra Sect. 6.3.3. This proposal of the Dutch Parliament is striking, considering the negative stand of the Dutch Standing Committee on the doctrine of facultative choice of law. See Staatscommissie 2002, para 27. See in general on the doctrine of the facultative choice of law De Boer 1996.
- 140.
Council Document No. 11295/07 JUSTCIV 183 of 28 June 2007, p. 10, footnote 31. This provision came up for the first time in Council Document No. 6258/07, to know from Council Document No. 7144/07 JUSTCIV 47 of 9 March 2007, p. 9, footnote 2.
- 141.
See in general on the question whether or not to introduce the doctrine of the facultative choice of law in European context: Van den Eeckhout 2008b, pp. 258–262.
- 142.
See for an enumeration of the objections against a facultative choice of law: Staatscommissie 2002, para 27.
- 143.
Cf., supra Sect. 6.4.
- 144.
Cf., Ten Wolde 2009, pp. 55–56.
- 145.
Council Document No. 11295/07 JUSTCIV 183 of 28 June 2007, p. 9. In the last Council draft of 23 May 2008 this escape clause had been removed.
- 146.
Cf., De Boer 2008, p. 329.
- 147.
Article 3 of the Rome Convention stipulates that a contract shall in principle be governed by the law chosen by the parties. Article 4(1) of the latter Convention determines that, in the absence of a professio iuris, a contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. Article 4(2) stipulates that a contract is presumed to be most closely connected to the place where the party performing the service characterising the contract has his habitual residence.
- 148.
See supra Sect. 6.4.
- 149.
- 150.
By contrast, one of the objectives of the Brussels IIter-Proposal is to strengthen legal certainty and predictability. See supra Sect. 5.3.
- 151.
Practice has also shown that Article 4 of the Rome Convention affords national courts plenty of opportunity to continue to apply the choice of law rule on contract they used to apply before the Convention entered into force, whether that rule is based on the principle of the characteristic performance, as in the Netherlands, or on the proper law of the contract approach, as in the United Kingdom, or on the presumptive will of the parties, as in Germany. Cf., De Ly 1996.
- 152.
Article 4(1) specifies the applicable law based on the principle of the closest connection for different categories of contracts (e.g. contract of sale, contract of carriage, contract relating to intellectual property, etc.). For contracts that are not specified by Article 4(1) a special choice of law rule is provided for in Article 4(2).
- 153.
See Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome I-Regulation, COM(2005) 650 final, p. 5.
- 154.
Cf., supra Sect. 5.5.3.4.
- 155.
See Press Release of the 2887th Meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 24 and 25 July 2008, p. 23.
References
Regulations, Conventions, Reports and other Documentary Sources
Borrás Report. Explanatory Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters, [1998] OJ C221/27
Brussels II-Convention. Convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement in matrimonial matters of 28 May 1998, [1998] OJ C221/1
Brussels II-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, [2000] OJ L160/19
Brussels IIbis-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility, [2003] OJ L338/1
Brussels IIter-Proposal. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, COM(2006) 399 final
COSAC Report. Report of the subsidiarity and proportionality check on the Brussels IIter-Proposal organised in November 2006 by COSAC, Report No. 1/2006. The COSAC-Report and the Annex thereto are available at: http://www.cosac.eu/en/info/earlywarning/doc/results/
EPEC Study on divorce. Study to inform a subsequent Impact Assessment on the Commission Proposal on jurisdiction and applicable law in divorce matters, undertaken by EPEC, April 2006 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/divorce_matters/study.pdf
Green Paper on Divorce. Green Paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce maters, COM(2005) 82 final
Green Paper on Matrimonial Property. Green Paper on conflict of laws regarding matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition, COM(2006) 400 final
House of Lords Rome III Report. House of Lords - European Union Committee, Rome III - Choice of Law in Divorce, 52nd Report of Session 2005-06 (HL Paper 272) December 2006
Impact Assessment on Divorce. Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, SEC(2006) 949
Regulation on enhanced cooperation in the field of divorce. Council Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L343/10
Staatscommissie (2002). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Rapport Alge-mene Bepalingen IPR, Report of 1 June 2002, available at: http://www.justitie.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving/over_wet-geving/privaatrecht/commissies-privaatrecht/staatscommissie-ipr.aspx
Books and Articles
Amtenbrink F, Kochenov D (2009) Towards a more flexible approach to enhanced cooperation. In: Ott A, Vos E (eds) Fifty years of European integration: foundations and perspectives. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 181–200
Ancel JP (2007) La libre circulation de la famille en Europe. Petites Affiches 199:4–7
Antokolskaia MV (2006) Harmonisation of family law in Europe: a historical perspective. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Antokolskaia MV, De Hondt W, Steenhoff G (1999) Een zoektocht naar Europees familierecht. Kluwer, Deventer
Boele-Woelki K (1997) The road towards a European family law. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 1.1:1–12
Boele-Woelki K (2007) Building on convergence and coping with divergence. In: Antokolskaia MV (ed) Convergence and divergence of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 253–268
Boele-Woelki K (2008a) Europese unificatie conflictenrecht echtscheiding van de baan. FJR 30:261
Boele-Woelki K (2008b) To be or not to be: enhanced cooperation in international divorce law within the European Union. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 39:779–792
Boele-Woelki K et al (2004) Principles of European family law regarding divorce and maintenance between former spouses. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Bonomi A (2007) Le divorce en droit communautaire entre règles de droit international privé et objectifs de droit matériel. In: Epiney A et al (eds) Die Herausforderung von Grenzen. Festschrift für Roland Bieber. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 771–783
Cadet F (2004) La gestion de l’internationalité par les méthodes communautaires: vers un droit international privé unifié dans l’Union européenne? Petites Affiches 157:3–12
De Boer ThM (1996) Facultative choice of law. The procedural status of choice-of-law rules and foreign law. Recueil des Cours 257:225–427
De Boer ThM (1999) Brussel II: een eerste stap naar een communautair IPR. FJR 21:246
De Boer ThM (2001) Prospects for European conflicts law in the twenty-first century. In: Borchers PJ, Zekoll J (eds) International conflicts of laws for the third millennium, essays in honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, pp 193–226
De Boer ThM (2004) Forum preferences in contemporary European conflicts law: the myth of a ‘neutral choice’. In: Mansel H-P et al (eds) Festschrift für Erik Jayme. Sellier. European Law Publishers, München, pp 39–55
De Boer ThM (2008) The Second revision of the Brussels II Regulation: jurisdiction and applicable law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Sverdrup T (eds) European challenges in contemporary family law. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 321–341
De Ly F (1996) Het Balenpers-arrest en de eenvormige uitleg van artikel 4 (5) EVO. In: Schmidt GE, Freedberg-Schwartzburg JA (eds) Het NIPR geannoteerd, Annotaties opgedragen aan Dr. Mathilde Sumampouw. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, pp 125–133
Ehrenzweig AA (1960) Lex fori—basic rule in the conflict of laws. Michigan Law Review 58:637–688
Ehrenzweig AA (1965) A proper law in a proper forum: a “restatement” of the “lex fori approach”. Oklahoma Law Review, pp 340–352
Ehrenzweig AA (1967) Private international law. A comparative treatise on American international conflicts law, including the law of admiralty. General part, vol 1. Sijthoff, Leyden
Eyl HR (1965) Internationale echtscheiding in Nederland. Scheltema & Holkema N.V, Amsterdam
Farrugia R (2007) The impact and application of the Brussel II bis Regulation in Malta. In: Boele-Woelki K, González Beilfuss C (eds) Brussels II bis: its impact and application in the Member States. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 205–216
Fiorini A (2008) Rome III—choice of law in divorce: is the Europeanization of family law going too far? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 22:178–205
Gaertner V (2008) Die Privatscheidung im deutschen und gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht (diss. Heidelberg). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Hatfield HN (2005) Private international law concepts in divorce. American Journal of Family Law 19(2):4
Hau W (2000) Das System der internationalen Entscheidungszuständigkeit im europäischen Eheverfahrensrecht. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 47:1333–1341
Israël J (2001) Europees internationaal privaatrecht. De EG, een comitas Europaea en ‘vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid’. NIPR 19:135–149
Jänterä-Jareborg M (2008) Jurisdiction and applicable law in cross-border divorce cases in Europe. In: Basedow J et al (eds) Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspecive. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 317–343
Kapteyn PJG, VerLoren van Themaat P (1998) Introduction to the law of the European Communities, 3rd edn. edited and further revised by L.W. Gormley. Kluwer Law International, London
Kohler C (2001) Status als Ware: Bemerkungen zur europäischen Verordnung über das internationale Verfahrensrecht für Ehesachen. In: Mansel HP (ed) Vergemeinschaftung des Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, pp 41–53
Kohler C (2002) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Justizraum für das Familien- und Erbrecht. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 41:709–714
Kohler C (2003) Der europäische Justizraum für Zivilsachen und das Gemeinschaftskollisionsrecht. IPRax 23:401–412
Kohler C (2008a) Zur Gestaltung des europäischen Kollisionsrecht für Ehesachen: Der steinige Weg zu einheitlichen Vorschriften über das anwendbare Recht für Scheidung und Trennung. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 55:1673–1681
Kohler C (2008b) Einheitliche Kollisionsnormen für Ehesachen in der Europäische Union: Vorschläge und Vorbehalte. Familie Partnerschaft und Recht, pp 193–196
Kortenberg H (1998) Closer Cooperation in the Treaty of Amsterdam. CMLR 35:833–854
Kreuzer K (2006) Zu Stand und Perspektiven des Europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts. RabelsZ 70:1–88
Küchler T (2006) Member States attack divorce law scheme. Available at: http://euobserver.com/9/22882
Mansel HP (2003) Das Staatsangehörigkeitsprinzip im deutschen und gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Internationalen Privatrecht: Schutz der kulturellen Identität oder Diskriminierung der Person? In: Jayme E (ed) Kulturelle Identität und Internationales Privatrecht. C.F. Müller Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 119–154
Mansel HP, Thorn K, Wagner R (2009) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2008: Fundamente der Europäischen IPR-Kodifikation. IPRax 29:1–23
McNamara R, Martin F (2006) Brussels calling: the unstoppable Europeanisation of Irish family law. Irish Journal of Family Law 9:8–21
Meeusen J (2007) What has it got to do necessarily with the European Union?: international family law and European (economic) integration. The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2006–2007, pp 329–355
Mostermans PMM (2006) Echtscheiding, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Deventer
Oderkerk AE (2006) Het Groenboek inzake het toepasselijke recht en de rechterlijke bevoegdheid in echtscheidingszaken. NIPR 24:119–128
Paulino Pereira FR (2007) Rome III: La compétence juridictionnelle et la loi applicable en matière matrimoniale. Revue du Marché commun et de l’Union européenne, pp 390–394
Pocar F (2007) Quelques remarques sur la modification du règlement communautaire no. 2201/2003 en ce qui concerne la competence et la loi applicable au divorce. In: Mélanges en l’honneur de Mariel Revillard. Defrénois, Paris, pp 245–252
Pontier JA (1997) Conflictenrecht: grondslagen, methoden, beginselen en belangen (diss. Amsterdam). Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen
Pontier JA (2007) Verantwoording van Europese IPR-wetgeving: ‘Rome III’. Herziening Brussel IIbis, subsidiariteit en evenredigheid. In: Feteris ET (ed) ‘Alles afwegende....’ : bijdragen aan het Vijfde Symposium Juridische Argumentatie 22 juni 2007 te Rotterdam. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, pp 203–216
Prinssen JM (2008) Flexibiliteit in het Verdrag van Lissabon. In: Meeusen J et al (eds) Het Verdrag van Lissabon: de Europese impasse doorbroken (?). Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 57–75
Romano GP (2006) La bilatéralité éclipsée par l’autorité. Développements récents en matière d’état des personnes. RCDIP 95:457–519
Rüberg S (2005) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Scheidungskollisionsrecht (diss. Konstanz). Available at: http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2005/1694/pdf/Rueberg.pdf
Schack H (2001) Das neue internationale Eheverfahrensrecht in Europa. RabelsZ 65:615–633
Shannon G (2007) The impact and application of the Brussel II bis Regulation in Ireland. In: Boele-Woelki K, Borrás A (eds) Brussels II bis: its impact and application in the Member States. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 145–166
Ten Wolde MH (2009) Inleiding Nederlands en Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht, Deel A Algemeen deel en materieel IPR Personen-, familie- en erfrecht. Hephaestus, Groningen
Van den Eeckhout V (2004) Communitarization of private international law: tendencies to liberalize international family law. Tijdschrift@ipr.be 51–70. Article available at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/16146/2/Microsoft+Word+-+engelsveerleiprtijdschriftdefinitief.doc%5B1%5D.pdf
Van den Eeckhout V (2008a) Het Hof van Justitie als steun en toeverlaat in tijden van Europeanisatie van het ipr? NTER, pp 84–90
Van den Eeckhout V (2008b) Europeanisatie van het ipr: aanleiding tot herleving van discussies over facultatief ipr, of finale doodsteek voor facultatief ipr? NIPR 26:258–262
Vandystadt N (2009) Cross-border divorce: we want to avoid enhanced cooperation. Europolitics (3715):11
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baarsma, N.A. (2011). The Failure of the Establishment of a Common European Choice of Law on Divorce. In: The Europeanisation of International Family Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-742-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-743-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
