Bram Akkermans Jaap Hage Nicole Kornet Jan Smits Who Does What? On the allocation of regulatory competences in European Private Law Ius Commune Europaeum Editors: Bram Akkermans Jaap Hage Nicole Kornet Jan Smits Who Does What? On the allocation of regulatory competences in European Private Law Intersentia Ltd Sheraton House | Castle Park Cambridge | CB3 0AX | United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1223 370 172 | Email: mail@intersentia.co.uk ISBN 978-17-8068-325-6 D/2015/7849/62 NUR 822 © 2015 Intersentia Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk Cover photo: © Per Swantesson – Stocksy British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photo copy, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the author. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF AUTHORS ................................................................................................................ xiii Bram Akkermans, Jaap Hage, Nicole Kornet, Jan Smits WHO DOES WHAT IN EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW? AN INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2. The Structure of this Book .................................................................................... 2 3. Towards Criteria .................................................................................................... 2 4. Conclusions........................................................................................................... 11 PART I: GENERAL PERSPECTIVES Jaap Hage THE JUSTIFICATION OF VALUE JUDGMENTS. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE BEST LEVEL TO REGULATE EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW ................ 15 1. The Role of Value Judgments in Law ................................................................ 15 2. Outline of the Argument ..................................................................................... 16 3. Syllogistic Justification ........................................................................................ 17 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Valuation ............................................................................................................... 18 The Naturalist Fallacy ......................................................................................... 18 Non-Cognitivism ................................................................................................. 20 Supervenience ...................................................................................................... 21 Universalizability ................................................................................................. 22 5. 5.1. 5.2. The Justification of Standards ............................................................................ 24 Deductive Validity? ............................................................................................. 24 Justification and Truth......................................................................................... 26 6. 6.1. Foundationalism and its Pitfalls ........................................................................ 27 Use of Existing Standards ................................................................................... 28 v Table of Contents 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. Naturalistic Fallacy .............................................................................................. 30 Appeal to Self-evidence....................................................................................... 30 The ‘Myth of the Given’ ...................................................................................... 31 7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. Justification through Coherence ........................................................................ 32 Consistency, Comprehensiveness and Completeness .................................... 33 Agent-Relativity of Justification ......................................................................... 35 Defeasible Coherentism ...................................................................................... 37 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. Justification on the Balance of Reasons ............................................................. 38 Reasons .................................................................................................................. 39 Balancing ............................................................................................................... 40 Reasoning about Relative Weight ...................................................................... 41 9. Comparative Value Judgments .......................................................................... 42 10. 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. Procedural Approaches to Justification ............................................................ 44 Pure, Perfect and Imperfect Procedures............................................................ 44 Single Agent Justification of Value Judgments ................................................ 45 Two-Agent Justification of Value Judgments................................................... 46 Concluding on Procedural Justification ............................................................ 48 11. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 48 12. Recommendations................................................................................................ 49 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 52 Jan M. Smits WHO DOES WHAT? ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF COMPETENCES AMONG THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE MEMBER STATES ....................................................................................... 57 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 57 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 3. 3.1. 3.2. State-of-the-Art: Focus on Subsidiarity and Federalism ................................. 59 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 59 The Legal Approach: Distribution of Competences and Subsidiarity .......... 60 The Economic Approach: the ‘Economics of Federalism’ .............................. 61 The Contribution of Political Science ................................................................ 62 Gaps in Present-Day Scholarship and a Search for Criteria ........................... 63 Introduction: Problems of the Present Approach ............................................ 63 How to make Progress? ...................................................................................... 64 4. Finally: the Academic Challenge ....................................................................... 66 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 68 Jaap Hage ON WHICH LEVEL SHOULD PRIVATE LAW IN EUROPE BE CREATED? ................................... 73 1. vi Introduction .......................................................................................................... 73 Table of Contents 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Methodic Preliminaries ....................................................................................... 74 Default Reasoning and Shifts in the Burden of Proof ..................................... 74 Comparing the Alternatives ............................................................................... 75 The Relevant Data ................................................................................................ 76 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. Utilitarianism ........................................................................................................ 77 Consequentialism................................................................................................. 78 One Intrinsic Value .............................................................................................. 78 Aggregation .......................................................................................................... 79 Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 79 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. The Best Rules ...................................................................................................... 80 What are the Best Rules? ..................................................................................... 81 Expertise ................................................................................................................ 81 Externalities .......................................................................................................... 83 Coherence.............................................................................................................. 83 Scope of Rules ....................................................................................................... 84 5. Autonomy ............................................................................................................. 86 6. Side-Constraints and Transition ........................................................................ 87 7. Summary ............................................................................................................... 88 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. Comparison .......................................................................................................... 89 Arguments from the Existing Literature........................................................... 89 Parameters ............................................................................................................ 90 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 92 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 93 PART II: SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES William Bull, Jiangqiu Ge, Catalina Goanţă, Mark Kawakami, Jan Smits WHO DOES WHAT IN CONSUMER LAW: A SEARCH FOR CRITERIA FOR CENTRALIZED LAWMAKING ......................................................................................................................... 97 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 97 2. The Starting Point: Consumer Law must be dealt with at the National Level ...................................................................................................... 98 3. Centralization of European Consumer Law: Justifying the Departure from the Starting Point ...................................................................................... 100 Fragmentation Criterion ................................................................................... 102 Consumer Confidence Factor ........................................................................... 102 Novelty Factor .................................................................................................... 104 Permeability Criterion ....................................................................................... 105 Application of the Criteria ................................................................................ 107 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.2. 3.3. vii Table of Contents 4. Doorstep Selling: Example of when Decision Making at Centralized Level is not Appropriate ................................................................................... 107 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. The Virtual Internal Market: Example of when Decision Making at Centralized Level is Appropriate .................................................................... 110 Joe the Consumer (Number Profile) ................................................................ 111 Joe the Consumer (Case Law Profile) .............................................................. 113 Centralization Criteria are Met ........................................................................ 114 Online Shopping – the Next Step in Terms of Trust ..................................... 116 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 117 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 119 Anna Beckers, Nicole Kornet, Janwillem Oosterhuis WHO DOES WHAT IN COMMERCIAL LAW? THE CASE FOR A MULTI-LEVEL & MULTI-ACTOR APPROACH TO REGULATING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS ................... 125 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 125 2. A Sketch of the Current Regulatory Landscape for Commercial Transactions ........................................................................................................ 127 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. How should Commercial Law be Regulated? ............................................... 131 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 131 Facilitating Party Autonomy ............................................................................ 132 Setting the Limits - Regulating Negative Externalities ................................. 134 Criteria for Determining Who should make Rules for Commercial Transactions ........................................................................................................ 137 Regulation Serving the Commercial Interest ................................................. 138 Regulation Serving the Interests of the Market and Society ........................ 140 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 145 3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.5. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. Case Studies ........................................................................................................ 146 Bills of Exchange – A Historical Perspective .................................................. 146 The Core of Commercial Exchange: Commercial Sales Transactions ......... 151 Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply-Chains: Regulating Adverse Human Rights Impact of Commercial Parties................................ 156 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 160 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 162 Bram Akkermans EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY LAW: SEARCHING FOR FOUNDATIONS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF REGULATORY COMPETENCES .......................... 177 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 177 2. European Economic Constitutional Law ........................................................ 180 viii Table of Contents 3. Property Law and the EU Internal Market ..................................................... 182 4. Scenario: Return to Socialism or a New Type of Planned Economy ........... 186 5. Who does What? ................................................................................................ 188 6. Scenario: South African Law ............................................................................ 191 7. Beyond the Economic Framework: Property as Democracy (or in Constitutional Context) ..................................................................................... 194 8. Multi-Dimensional and Multi-level Property Law........................................ 197 9. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 200 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 204 Willem Loof, Anna Berlee CASE STUDY: HARMONIZING SECURITY RIGHTS ................................................................ 211 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 211 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.4. The Netherlands ................................................................................................. 212 Security on Future Assets?................................................................................ 212 Pledging Claims ................................................................................................. 212 Specificity ............................................................................................................ 214 Pledging by Power of Attorney ....................................................................... 215 The Silent Pledge on Balance ............................................................................ 216 Retention of Ownership in Dutch Law ........................................................... 217 The Limitations of Retention of Ownership under Dutch Law ................... 217 Alternatives......................................................................................................... 218 The Balance of Powers....................................................................................... 219 3. 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. English Law ........................................................................................................ 220 Charges ................................................................................................................ 221 Fixed Charges ..................................................................................................... 221 Floating Charges ................................................................................................ 221 Judicial Inception, Legislative Dismantling ................................................... 223 Charges over Book Debts: Fixed or Floating? ................................................ 224 Spectrum Plus Ltd.............................................................................................. 225 Reservation of Title ............................................................................................ 227 Romalpa Aluminium Ltd. ................................................................................. 228 Balance of Interests in English Law ................................................................. 230 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Belgian Reform of Security Rights in Relation to Movables ........................ 231 Background to the Reform ................................................................................ 232 Pledge .................................................................................................................. 232 Reservation of Ownership ................................................................................ 234 The Balance of Interest in Belgian Law ........................................................... 236 5. 5.1. Harmonization of Security Rights; Article 9 UCC and Book IX DCFR ...... 237 The Functional Approach ................................................................................. 237 ix Table of Contents 5.2. Article 9 UCC...................................................................................................... 237 6. 6.1. Book IX DCFR..................................................................................................... 238 Key Elements of Harmonization of Security Rights ...................................... 239 7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 240 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 242 Caroline Cauffman, Niels Philipsen WHO DOES WHAT IN COMPETITION LAW: HARMONIZING THE RULES ON DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF THE EU COMPETITION RULES? .................................. 245 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 245 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. Aims and Content of the Directive .................................................................. 247 Aims of the Directive ......................................................................................... 247 Content of the Directive .................................................................................... 247 Scope and Definitions ........................................................................................ 248 Disclosure of Evidence ...................................................................................... 249 Effect of National Decisions, Limitation Periods, Joint and Several Liability ............................................................................................................... 251 Passing-on of Overcharges ............................................................................... 252 Quantification of Harm ..................................................................................... 254 Consensual Dispute Resolution ....................................................................... 254 Final Provisions .................................................................................................. 255 2.2.4. 2.2.5. 2.2.6. 2.2.7. Evaluation of the Directive ............................................................................... 255 Creating a Level Playing Field: was Harmonization as such Desirable? ... 255 Arguments against Harmonization ................................................................. 257 Economics of Federalism .................................................................................. 257 Experimentation ................................................................................................. 257 Arguments in Favour of Harmonization ........................................................ 258 Economic Arguments ........................................................................................ 258 Non-Economic Arguments in Favour of Harmonization ............................. 264 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 268 Increasing the Possibilities for Victims of Antitrust Infringements to Obtain Compensation ................................................................................... 269 3.2.1. Collective Action Mechanisms? ....................................................................... 270 3.2.2. Fault Requirements ............................................................................................ 271 3.2.3. Burden and Standard of Proof ......................................................................... 271 3.2.4. Collection and Presentation of Evidence ........................................................ 272 3.2.5. Evidential Value of National Competition Authorities and National Court Decisions .................................................................................................. 273 3.2.6. Quantification of Damages ............................................................................... 273 3.2.7. The Passing-on Defence and Indirect Purchaser Claims .............................. 273 3.2.8. Amount of Damages .......................................................................................... 274 3.2.9. Time Limitations ................................................................................................ 274 3.2.10. Costs..................................................................................................................... 275 3. 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.1.1. 3.1.1.2. 3.1.2. 3.1.2.1. 3.1.2.2. 3.1.3. 3.2. x Table of Contents 3.2.11. Applicable Law .................................................................................................. 275 3.2.12. Other Obstacles? ................................................................................................ 276 Improving the Interaction between Public and Private Enforcement 3.3. of the Competition Rules .................................................................................. 276 4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 279 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 281 Kristel De Smedt, Michael Faure WHO DOES WHAT? ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY IN THE EU ............................................ 289 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 289 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Environmental Liability at European Level: a Law and Economics Analysis ............................................................................................................... 291 Justification for the ELD .................................................................................... 291 The Arguments of the Commission tested ..................................................... 293 Centralization to Satisfy Demand of Interest Groups? ................................. 296 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. Implementation of the ELD in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany ... 298 Relevant Aspects of the ELD’s Transposition in Belgium ............................ 299 Relevant Aspects of the ELD’s Transposition in the Netherlands .............. 300 Relevant Aspects of the ELD’s Transposition in Germany .......................... 301 4. Harmonization via the ELD? ............................................................................ 303 5. The ELD’s Effects in Practice and Way Forward ........................................... 307 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 309 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 311 xi LIST OF AUTHORS Bram Akkermans is assistant professor in European Private Law and associate director of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Anna Beckers is assistant professor of Private Law and Legal Methodology and fellow of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Anna Berlee is a PhD candidate of Comparative Property Law, specializing in Access to Property Registration and Privacy, and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). William Bull is a PhD candidate of European Private Law and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Caroline Cauffman is associate professor at Maastricht University, associate director of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI) and an assessor to the Belgian competition authority. Kristel De Smedt is assistant professor of Foundations and Methods of Law and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Michael Faure is professor of International and Comparative Environmental Law, at the Faculty of Law at Maastricht University, and professor of Comparative Private Law and Economics, at the Erasmus School of Law Rotterdam, and fellow of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Jiangqiu Ge is a PhD candidate of Comparative Consumer Contract Law and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Catalina Goanţă is a PhD candidate of European Private Law and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). xiii List of Authors Jaap Hage is professor in Jurisprudence and fellow of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Mark Kawakami is a PhD candidate researching the role of private actors in reducing instances of labour exploitation in the global supply chain. He is a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Nicole Kornet is associate professor in Commercial law and associate director of the Maastricht Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Willem Loof is a PhD candidate of Comparative Property Law, specializing in Comparative Trust Law, and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Janwillem Oosterhuis is assistant professor of Foundations and Methods of Law and a member of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). Niels Philipsen is associate professor in Law and Economics and Vice-Director of the Maastricht European Institute for Transnational Legal Research (METRO), and a resident fellow at (M-EPLI). Jan M. Smits is professor of European Private Law and director of the Maastricht European Private Law Institute (M-EPLI). xiv