The aim for complete uniformity in EU private law: An obstacle to further harmonization

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The use of maximum harmonization directives in EU private law in combination with open legal concepts is controversial. Due to differing legal cultures, it is likely that open legal concepts will be interpreted differently in the Member States. This seems to conflict with the aim of maximum harmonization as put forward by the European Commission: reducing legal fragmentation and increasing legal certainty among consumers and businesses.

Although supporting the notion that national interpretations of open legal concepts are likely to differ, this article posits that this is not incompatible with the aim of maximum harmonization. It proposes a different understanding of the concept of maximum harmonization that allows for different national applications of the rules. This understanding is based on the distinction between harmonizing a legal framework (the written rules) and harmonizing the application of this legal framework. By acknowledging the importance of fully harmonizing the written rules without harmonizing the national applications of these rules, it demonstrates that maximum harmonization does not necessarily conflict with the use of open legal concepts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)913-931
Number of pages19
JournalEuropean Review of Private Law
Volume20
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

private law
European Law
harmonization
European Commission
fragmentation
interpretation

Keywords

  • private law
  • European Integration
  • maximum harmonisation
  • consumer law
  • general clauses
  • open norms
  • legal culture

Cite this

@article{f4cfaf0e1d5c4879a17fdd3485647bf1,
title = "The aim for complete uniformity in EU private law: An obstacle to further harmonization",
abstract = "The use of maximum harmonization directives in EU private law in combination with open legal concepts is controversial. Due to differing legal cultures, it is likely that open legal concepts will be interpreted differently in the Member States. This seems to conflict with the aim of maximum harmonization as put forward by the European Commission: reducing legal fragmentation and increasing legal certainty among consumers and businesses. Although supporting the notion that national interpretations of open legal concepts are likely to differ, this article posits that this is not incompatible with the aim of maximum harmonization. It proposes a different understanding of the concept of maximum harmonization that allows for different national applications of the rules. This understanding is based on the distinction between harmonizing a legal framework (the written rules) and harmonizing the application of this legal framework. By acknowledging the importance of fully harmonizing the written rules without harmonizing the national applications of these rules, it demonstrates that maximum harmonization does not necessarily conflict with the use of open legal concepts.",
keywords = "private law , European Integration, maximum harmonisation, consumer law, general clauses, open norms, legal culture",
author = "{de Vries}, A.",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "913--931",
journal = "European Review of Private Law",
issn = "0928-9801",
publisher = "KLUWER LAW INT",
number = "4",

}

The aim for complete uniformity in EU private law : An obstacle to further harmonization. / de Vries, A.

In: European Review of Private Law, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2012, p. 913-931.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The aim for complete uniformity in EU private law

T2 - An obstacle to further harmonization

AU - de Vries, A.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The use of maximum harmonization directives in EU private law in combination with open legal concepts is controversial. Due to differing legal cultures, it is likely that open legal concepts will be interpreted differently in the Member States. This seems to conflict with the aim of maximum harmonization as put forward by the European Commission: reducing legal fragmentation and increasing legal certainty among consumers and businesses. Although supporting the notion that national interpretations of open legal concepts are likely to differ, this article posits that this is not incompatible with the aim of maximum harmonization. It proposes a different understanding of the concept of maximum harmonization that allows for different national applications of the rules. This understanding is based on the distinction between harmonizing a legal framework (the written rules) and harmonizing the application of this legal framework. By acknowledging the importance of fully harmonizing the written rules without harmonizing the national applications of these rules, it demonstrates that maximum harmonization does not necessarily conflict with the use of open legal concepts.

AB - The use of maximum harmonization directives in EU private law in combination with open legal concepts is controversial. Due to differing legal cultures, it is likely that open legal concepts will be interpreted differently in the Member States. This seems to conflict with the aim of maximum harmonization as put forward by the European Commission: reducing legal fragmentation and increasing legal certainty among consumers and businesses. Although supporting the notion that national interpretations of open legal concepts are likely to differ, this article posits that this is not incompatible with the aim of maximum harmonization. It proposes a different understanding of the concept of maximum harmonization that allows for different national applications of the rules. This understanding is based on the distinction between harmonizing a legal framework (the written rules) and harmonizing the application of this legal framework. By acknowledging the importance of fully harmonizing the written rules without harmonizing the national applications of these rules, it demonstrates that maximum harmonization does not necessarily conflict with the use of open legal concepts.

KW - private law

KW - European Integration

KW - maximum harmonisation

KW - consumer law

KW - general clauses

KW - open norms

KW - legal culture

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 913

EP - 931

JO - European Review of Private Law

JF - European Review of Private Law

SN - 0928-9801

IS - 4

ER -