Abstract
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. Résumé: L'usage de directives visant á un maximum d'harmonisation en droit privé européen combiné avec des concepts légaux ouverts est sujet á controverses. Etant donné l'existence de cultures juridiques différentes, les concepts légaux ouverts sont susceptibles d'être interprétés différemment dans les Etats membres. Ceci semble être contraire au but del'harmonisationmaximaletellequeprésentéeparlaCommissioneuropéenne:réduire la fragmentation juridique et accroître la sûreté juridique parmi les consommateurs et les entreprises. Quoique défendant la notion selon laquelle il est probable que les interprétationsnationalesdeconceptsjuridiquesouvertssoientdifférentes, leprésentarticle soutient que ceci n'est pas incompatible avec le but d'une harmonisation maximale. Il propose une explication différenteduconceptdel'harmonisationmaximalequipermetdesapplications nationales différentes de régles. Cette interprétation est basée sur la distinction entre l'harmonisationd'uncadrejuridique (les régles écrites) etl'harmonisationdel'application dececadrejuridique.Enreconnaissantl'importanced'unepleineharmonisationdesrégles écrites sans harmonisation des applications nationales de ces régles, il démontre que l'harmonisation maximale n'est pas nécessairement en conflit avec l'usage de concepts juridiques ouverts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.