• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What does Dr. Symeonides mean when he characterises Rome II as a missed opportunity? Would it be fairer to see the Regulation as an essential step forward in the process of European harmonisation of conflict rules? Support your answer with practical examples.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In his article[1] Symeonides analyses the Rome II Regulation[2] (hereinafter the Rome II) and argues that this document is a ?missed opportunity?. He states that the Rome II could be a more efficient document if the EU legislator would take into consideration all the recommendations by the GEDIP[3] and rapporteur that were given during the drafting and formatting of the Rome II and proposed more flexible structure of the document. Symeonides argues that the EU legislator has ?failed to take advantage?[4] to create a modern and sophisticated document. Symeonides analyses the background and history of the Rome II, and he describes the original proposal of the Rome II as ?an elegant, sophisticated and flexible document?. Later in 2002 the first official draft of the Rome II became available for public comments. The new document received comments, mostly from corporations and industrial groups who supported the most regressive provisions of the drafted document. ...read more.

Middle

The aim of the Rome II is to make the system less open to interpretation thereby making the judicial system more stable and consistent, the uniformity of judicial decisions would leave less room for ‘forum shoppers’ as the place of forum would no longer matter. The Rome II provides legal support and protects interests of the parties, this can be seen in article 14 of the Rome II which gives to the parties the freedom of choice of contract, applicable to the legal dispute. However the Rome II provides two conditions that the parties in their choice of law have to comply with: · The choice shall be expressed with reasonable certainty and shall not prejudice the rights of the third parties; and · The choice shall not prejudice the application of mandatory provisions of the country where the damage occurs, if the law of the other country was chosen by the parties. ...read more.

Conclusion

Finally in regards to jurisdiction, recognition and enforceability of judicial decisions in Private International law, the Rome II is fully synchronised with the Brussels I and Rome I Regulations and aims to achieve same goals of harmonising EU Private International law. [1] Symeon Symeonides, ‘Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity’ [2008] 56 American Journal of Comparative Law < http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031803#> accessed 13 March 2013 [2] Regulation (EC) â864/2007 on the Law Applicable to non-contractual obligations [3] Groupe europeen de droit international prive [4] Symeon Symeonides supra 1, page 3 [5] According to Recital 40 of the Rime II, Denmark did not accept the Regulations and applies the Rome Convention 1968. [6] Case C68/93 Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-415 [7] The scope of the Rome II Regulation does not cover the cases arising from defamation, however the Rome I has adopted the general approach that was established by the judgements on these cases. [8] eDate Advertising GmbH v X (C-509/09) and Martinez v MGN Ltd (C-161/10) [2012] EMLR 12 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree European Union Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree European Union Law essays

  1. Predatory pricing strategies in the European union: A case for legal reform.

    The effects of inter-state trade as a requirement of an Article 86 abuse in the predatory pricing cases In all those decisions, both the Commission and the Court of Justice found that AKZO, Tetra Pak, British Sugar and Hilti had abused their dominant positions, in violation of Article 86 of

  2. Discuss the rules of Competition law and how the European Commission enforces these Laws.

    The geographical boundaries are not as wide spread as you may think; it can be only a problem in one Member State for Article 82 to be started. It does not have to affect the entire European Community. See the cases of Michelin v Commission20.

  1. How far has the creation of a single market in goods resulted in the ...

    "Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods" There is a difference between general economic, fiscal or social measures given by a state to a firm in that state and a State aid, however it is often difficult to distinguish between the two.

  2. Law of the European Union

    'The provisions of the decision and of the directives, taken together, produce direct effects in the relations between member states and their citizens and create for the latter the right to enforce them before the courts'. Stated by the Court of Justice4 Emanation of the state: Would the school be regarded as an emanation of the state?

  1. EU Law

    The Case 28 - 30/62 Da Costa en Schaake NV v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie [1963] ECR 31 and Case 166/73 Rheinmuhlen decided that Article 234 serves to ensure the harmonization of EC Law across all Member States. On the facts a Council Decision was addressed to the Member States including the

  2. FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN EU

    The second is the common customs duties. If goods produced in third countries are imported into any Member States, they are subject to the payment of the common customs duties. The third is the free movement of goods from a third country.

  1. What barriers must be removed in the European Union to ensure the free movement ...

    However, removal of physical barriers is dependent on the removal of both technical and fiscal barriers. Physical barriers often amount to a Measure Having Equivalent Effect to Quantative Restrictions, (MEQRs). These are the devious, subtle ways of restricting trade. They are measures that are harder to pin down and make

  2. EU Law - Albatros Pool problem case. Mark and Sunita must be advised that ...

    Therefore the main limitation to the power of EU law is that it only directly applies to Member-States or organizations that are monitored by the government of the Member-State. Direct Effect: The principle of direct effect has been approved in respect to vertical direct effect whereby a directive can be

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work