{"title":"Autonomy of Common European Sales Law in Lithuania","authors":"Stasys Drazdauskas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2250757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sį dokumentą lietuvių kalba galima rasti adresu: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243074 Private law is the area of law in which the resistance to unification in Europe is probably the strongest. Private law codification initiative, which began in 1989, after more than twenty years was recently reduced to optional non binding common sales law draft, which is gradually making its way through the EU institutions’ legislative process. Choice of EU regulation as a form indicates that the willingness to reach objective results is strong enough, but the reasoning in support of this project faces equally strong argument against it. Lithuanian experience expands this discussion in several important respects. Rome I Regulation Article 6.2. deadlock solution is specifically beneficial for smaller countries, where market participants have less bargaining power. In addition, an optional supplementary regulatory framework that the parties could choose, would allow testing existing legal systems by competition. Lithuania's recent reform experience suggests that the draft regulation provides for a smooth change in Europe. Multilingualism, some of the Common European Sales Law solutions, radically different from the Lithuanian national legal provisions will certainly require revision of the existing concepts, but that is not a reason not to try to improve the EU's common private law.","PeriodicalId":382921,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation (European) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2250757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Sį dokumentą lietuvių kalba galima rasti adresu: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243074 Private law is the area of law in which the resistance to unification in Europe is probably the strongest. Private law codification initiative, which began in 1989, after more than twenty years was recently reduced to optional non binding common sales law draft, which is gradually making its way through the EU institutions’ legislative process. Choice of EU regulation as a form indicates that the willingness to reach objective results is strong enough, but the reasoning in support of this project faces equally strong argument against it. Lithuanian experience expands this discussion in several important respects. Rome I Regulation Article 6.2. deadlock solution is specifically beneficial for smaller countries, where market participants have less bargaining power. In addition, an optional supplementary regulatory framework that the parties could choose, would allow testing existing legal systems by competition. Lithuania's recent reform experience suggests that the draft regulation provides for a smooth change in Europe. Multilingualism, some of the Common European Sales Law solutions, radically different from the Lithuanian national legal provisions will certainly require revision of the existing concepts, but that is not a reason not to try to improve the EU's common private law.
szudokumentolietuviokalba galima rasti adresu: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243074私法是在欧洲对统一的抵制可能是最强烈的法律领域。始于1989年的私法法典化倡议,经过二十多年的发展,最近被简化为可选的无约束力的共同销售法草案,正在逐步进入欧盟各机构的立法进程。选择欧盟监管作为一种形式,表明达成客观结果的意愿足够强烈,但支持这一项目的理由也面临着同样强烈的反对。立陶宛的经验在几个重要方面扩展了这一讨论。罗马法规第6.2条。僵局解决方案对较小的国家特别有利,因为那里的市场参与者议价能力较弱。此外,各方可以选择一个可选的补充监管框架,允许通过竞争测试现有的法律制度。立陶宛最近的改革经验表明,法规草案为欧洲的平稳变革提供了条件。多语言制,欧洲共同销售法的一些解决方案,与立陶宛国家法律规定截然不同,当然需要修改现有的概念,但这不是不尝试改善欧盟共同私法的理由。