私法、市场监管及其在欧盟的区别

Candida Leone
{"title":"私法、市场监管及其在欧盟的区别","authors":"Candida Leone","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2949875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to engage with the theme of the conference, Private Law and Regulation, and with the organizers’ research theme, “coherent private law”, at two main levels. On the one hand, it connects to the question of private law and market regulation by zooming in on one specific manifestation of private law - unfair contract terms under European harmonised rules - which is arguably already regulatory private law. Rather than discussing the impact of public law rules on private law adjudication, then, the paper seeks to show how public law rationales impact private law rules when the latter are adopted and “used” as a regulatory instrument. This argument is sketched on the basis of a case study on the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Unfair Terms Directive. After having presented this study, the paper concludes by briefly exploring what options are available for private lawyers to claim a residual relevance of their subject and its principles in a context which seems to put all these consolidated ideas under increasing strain.","PeriodicalId":122974,"journal":{"name":"Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Of Private Law, Market Regulation and Telling Them Apart in the EU\",\"authors\":\"Candida Leone\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2949875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper seeks to engage with the theme of the conference, Private Law and Regulation, and with the organizers’ research theme, “coherent private law”, at two main levels. On the one hand, it connects to the question of private law and market regulation by zooming in on one specific manifestation of private law - unfair contract terms under European harmonised rules - which is arguably already regulatory private law. Rather than discussing the impact of public law rules on private law adjudication, then, the paper seeks to show how public law rationales impact private law rules when the latter are adopted and “used” as a regulatory instrument. This argument is sketched on the basis of a case study on the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Unfair Terms Directive. After having presented this study, the paper concludes by briefly exploring what options are available for private lawyers to claim a residual relevance of their subject and its principles in a context which seems to put all these consolidated ideas under increasing strain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":122974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2949875\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2949875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图在两个主要层面上探讨会议的主题“私法与法规”,以及组织者的研究主题“连贯的私法”。一方面,它通过聚焦于私法的一种具体表现——欧洲统一规则下的不公平合同条款——将私法和市场监管问题联系起来,这可以说已经是监管私法了。因此,本文并没有讨论公法规则对私法裁决的影响,而是试图说明当私法规则被采纳和“使用”为一种监管工具时,公法的基本原理是如何影响私法规则的。这一论点是在对欧洲法院对不公平条款指令的解释进行案例研究的基础上概述的。在介绍了这项研究之后,论文最后简要探讨了私人律师在一个似乎将所有这些巩固的思想置于日益紧张的背景下,声称其主题及其原则的剩余相关性的可用选项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Of Private Law, Market Regulation and Telling Them Apart in the EU
This paper seeks to engage with the theme of the conference, Private Law and Regulation, and with the organizers’ research theme, “coherent private law”, at two main levels. On the one hand, it connects to the question of private law and market regulation by zooming in on one specific manifestation of private law - unfair contract terms under European harmonised rules - which is arguably already regulatory private law. Rather than discussing the impact of public law rules on private law adjudication, then, the paper seeks to show how public law rationales impact private law rules when the latter are adopted and “used” as a regulatory instrument. This argument is sketched on the basis of a case study on the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Unfair Terms Directive. After having presented this study, the paper concludes by briefly exploring what options are available for private lawyers to claim a residual relevance of their subject and its principles in a context which seems to put all these consolidated ideas under increasing strain.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信