European Regulatory Private Law Research Articles

Contractual remedies for banking misconduct under European regulatory private law

This article deals with the responsibility for the provision of financial services, particularly investment services, from the perspective of European regulatory private law blurring the conventional dichotomy between public and private law. The contract between the provider and the customer is analysed. Finally, the article examines the remedies for breaches of contractual obligations, taking Spanish law as the main reference, to conclude that the predictability of the consequences of breaches in the provision of investment services is an essential element of legal certainty and that it is the judge who determines due diligence, in accordance with contract law, using the conduct of business rules as a guideline criterion. Case law is contributing to the creation of a financial services contract law that complements the general framework of obligations and contracts with financial market conduct rules. The complementary model of European regulatory private law that preserves the autonomy of contract law in the judicial enforcement of conduct of business rules applies.

Droit privé, réglementation et justice

Cet article porte un regard critique sur la thèse du Droit privé réglementaire européen (ERPL). La plus grande force de l’ERPL est qu’il offre une perspective entièrement nouvelle sur le droit privé européen. Toutefois, en tant que théorie exhaustive du droit privé européen, l’ERPL est trop unilatéral, d’un point de vue à la fois descriptif et normatif. Le fait qu’il se concentre fortement sur le droit privé enfermé dans des silos réglementaires pour des secteurs du marché spécifiques dissimule la réalité de l’acquis touchant au droit de la consommation et sa force transformative. Un tableau plus complet inclurait les contours d’un système plus ou moins cohérent de droit privé européen qui émerge à l’heure actuelle. Les principaux piliers de ce système pragmatique sont (pour l’instant) les droits de rétractation, le contrôle des clauses abusives et les remèdes en cas de non-conformité. De plus, la contribution du droit privé européen à la justice de l’accès ne peut pas être l’unique standard pour son évaluation et sa critique ; la justice interpersonnelle et la légitimité démocratique sont au moins aussi importantes.

Entre droit privé réglementaire et droit privé fondé sur l’autonomie

Le Droit privé réglementaire européen (ERPL) émergent peut être interprété comme étant un ensemble d’instruments mis au service d’objectifs collectifs et donc comme étant le signe d’une rupture radicale du droit privé de l’Union européenne; mais cela n’est pas nécessaire. Le présent article propose une interprétation alternative des trois piliers fondateurs de l’ERPL que sont son recours à la notion d’autonomie réglementée, son soutien à la justice de l’accès en tant que fondement normatif et sa critique de la distinction public/privé en tant qu’elle se réfère au droit de l’Union européenne. L’ERPL, dans le cadre de ma reconstruction, est un modèle pour un système de droit privé qui recouvre les engagements normatifs à l’auto-détermination, et donc l’égalité substantielle, puisque son infrastructure normative sous-jacente n’est pas excessivement enracinée dans le modèle judiciaire et attache de l’importance aux considérations publiques. L’autonomie réglementée et la justice de l’accès, selon cette approche, constituent des manifestations locales des prescriptions de la justice relationnelle, qui se situe au cœur du droit privé fondé sur l’autonomie, correctement interprété. Cette vision est, selon moi, attirante à la fois normativement et doctrinalement ; elle est également particulièrement adaptée à notre ère transnationale, parce qu’elle fournit un fondement non statique aux prescriptions de la non-discrimination et de l’adaptation.

MiFIR, EMIR e strumenti derivati: un esempio di Diritto Privato Regolatorio Europeo

L'articolo affronta il fenomeno dei contratti derivati nel contesto del Diritto Privato Regolatorio Europeo (Dpre). Dopo aver definito cosa si intende per DPRE, viene esaminata la definizione di strumento finanziario derivato nel diritto europeo, per poi passare all'analisi della legislazione europea post-crisi. Prendendo in considerazione i testi normativi europei che affrontano direttamente la materia dei contratti derivati, l'articolo vuole dimostrare come l'interesse del Legislatore europeo sia volto soprattutto all'adozione di standard uniformanti e al favorire l'accesso ai mercati (aspetto regolatorio del diritto privato), piuttosto che ad una disciplina armonizzata del contratto - incluso quello derivato - a livello continentale (diritto privato in senso stretto). Nonostante l'estrema tecnicità economico-finanziaria dell'argomento ne renda difficile un inquadramento in termini giuridici, il rapporto tra gli strumenti finanziari derivati e il diritto europeo pare essere un chiaro esempio di Diritto Privato Regolatorio Europeo.

European Regulatory Private Law Going Global? The Case of Product Governance

The article claims that contract law principles are being used by transnational financial regulation to set a world-wide (proto)normative framework regulating intra-firm processes. This practice comes close to the European Regulatory Private Law (ERPL) phenomenon already employed by the EU lawmaker in quite technical fields, such as banking and financial services law. After an overview explaining what it is meant by ERPL, the article discusses the new Product Governance rules under the Market in Financial Instrument Directive II, which may be viewed as the most recent example of ERPL. The article then provides a description of the normative production of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), also regarding product governance rules. The result of the author’s analysis seems to suggest that IOSCO has paved the way for a European approach to product governance which, overall, is coherent with the ERPL theory.

Public Policy through Private Law: Introduction to a debate on European Regulatory Private Law

Public Policy through Private Law: Introduction to a debate on European Regulatory Private Law

Private Law, Regulation, and Justice

AbstractThis paper critically engages with the European Regulatory Private Law thesis (ERPL). The main strength of ERPL is that it offers an entirely new perspective on European private law. However, as a complete theory of European private law, ERPL is too one‐sided, both from a descriptive and from a normative point of view. With its strong focus on the private law locked up in regulatory silos for specific market sectors, it obscures the reality of the consumer acquis and its transformative force. A fuller picture would include the contours of a loosely coherent system of European private law that is currently emerging. The main pillars of that pragmatic system are (for now) the withdrawal rights, unfair term control, and remedies for nonconformity. Moreover, the contribution of European private law to access justice cannot be the only standard for its evaluation and critique; at least as important are interpersonal justice and democratic legitimacy.

Between Regulatory and Autonomy‐Based Private Law

AbstractThe emergent European Regulatory Private Law (ERPL) can be interpreted as a set of instruments in the service of collectivist aims and thus a radical departure of EU law from private law; but it need not. This article offers a competing interpretation of the three core pillars of ERPL: its reliance on the notion of regulated autonomy, its endorsement of access justice as a normative basis and its critique of the public/private distinction as it relates to EU law. ERPL in my reconstruction is a model for a private law system that embraces the liberal commitments to self‐determination, and thus, substantive equality, as its underlying normative infrastructure, is not overly embedded in the adjudicatory model and is sensitive to public concerns. Regulated autonomy and access justice, in this view, are local manifestations of the prescription of relational justice, which stands at the core of an autonomy‐based private law, properly interpreted. This understanding, I claim, is both normatively and jurisprudentially attractive; it is also particularly befitting to our transnational era, because it provides a non‐statist foundation for the prescriptions of non‐discrimination and accommodation.

Private Law, Regulation and Justice

This paper critically engages with the European Regulatory Private Law thesis (ERPL). The main strength of ERPL is that it offers an entirely new perspective on European private law. However, as a complete theory of European private law, ERPL is too one-sided, both from a descriptive and from a normative point of view. With its strong focus on the private law locked up in regulatory silos for specific market sectors it obscures the reality of the consumer acquis and its transformative force. A fuller picture would include the contours of a loosely coherent system of European private law that is currently emerging. The main pillars of that pragmatic system are (for now) the withdrawal rights, unfair terms control, and remedies for non-conformity. Moreover, the contribution of European private law to access justice cannot be the only standard for its evaluation and critique; at least as important are interpersonal justice and democratic legitimacy.

Between Regulatory and Autonomy-Based Private Law

By way of an alternative to the failed project of codifying private law for the European Union, a socio-legal account of the effects of EU legal integration on private law in Europe describes the emergence of European Regulatory Private Law (ERPL). ERPL offers a coherent conception of this vast body of law and refines its underlying normative foundations. It also offers a provocative and exciting perspective on private law, which upsets conventional wisdoms and challenges us to rethink some of the most fundamental premises of our understanding of private law. This article addresses what I see as three core pillars of ERPL: the reliance on the notion of regulated autonomy, the endorsement of access justice as a normative basis, and the critique of – or at least ambivalence about – the public/private distinction as it relates to EU law. My aim is to expose some ambiguity in each of these pillars and to offer some friendly refinements to this emerging conception of EU private law.I embrace the ERPL critique of the traditional understanding of private law as the bastion of independence and of formal equality; and yet I argue against erasing the public/private distinction, and with it, the idea of private law. As the law of our interpersonal relationships as free and equal persons – as opposed to our interactions as patients of the welfare state or as citizens of a democracy – private law offers a distinctive and valuable source of normativity, which is particularly important in our transnational private relationships where there is no common loyalty to a public (state) actor. Since the conventional, private law libertarian, conception of the laws of property, contracts, torts, and unjust enrichment cannot plausibly play this role, it should be supplanted by its liberal counterpart, which is founded on the commitment to individual autonomy as self-determination (rather than independence) and thus to substantive (not formal) equality. Hence my claim that ERPL can, and I argue should, be refined to stand for a prominent exemplar of a via media approach to private law, premised on a commitment to core liberal values.My two key interventions in this article follow from its main point as per my proposed interpretation of ERPL. Thus, I suggest unpacking the notion of regulated autonomy, which currently conflates two different features of the term. The prescription of extending autonomy by, for example, non-discrimination rules that ensure inclusion in market activity, is a straightforward implication of the underlying normative commitments of private law, properly understood. But the interpretation of regulated autonomy as commandeering individual interactions to collective purposes is quite different: while in principle, a liberal private law, which must be attuned to collective obligations, can accommodate such purposes, it should do so cautiously given their possible ramifications on both individuals and their private relationships.Similarly, this article offers an autonomy-based foundation to the notion of access justice, which is the underlying theme of ERPL. Access justice, to be sure, serves also public considerations. But it need not, indeed should not, be based solely on these concerns. Reciprocal respect to our right to autonomy as self-determination (as opposed to the impoverished sense of independence) entails a duty of relational justice, which provides a non-statist foundation for the prescriptions of non-discrimination and accommodation. This means that setting aside access barriers (especially barriers that exclude weaker people from markets) should be interpreted as an implementation of this duty, which perfects private law, rather than undermining its premises.

Does 'European Regulatory Contract Law' Enhance Citizens' Rights? An Analysis of Consumer and Services Law from Theory to Practice

The paper analyses the interplay between European regulatory private law and citizens' rights. The financial and sovereign debt crisis has strongly weakened the confidence of the European citizens in the European Union. The Author argues that European regulatory contract law, conveyed by EU secondary law, constitutes a valuable tool to strengthen the citizens' access to goods and services offered by the internal market. This hypothesis is supported by the analysis of recent developments of consumer and services law with regard to law-making and enforcement. In particular, the Court of Justice (ECJ) has assumed a prominent position in ensuring high standards of contractual protection for consumers, clients and users in mortgages and services markets (e.g. energy, telecoms). The high contractual protection of vulnerable parties does not only create the conditions for an effective functioning of internal market but it also grants access to essential goods and services.

European Regulatory Private Law The Paradigms Tested

The working paper collects the research presented in the second annual external workshop of the ERPL Project that took place on 16 and 17 May 2013 at the EUI in Florence. The second year of the project was devoted to the collection of empirical evidence in the various sub-projects, as well as in further elaboration of the theoretical and conceptual parameters that frame the project research. The theoretical parts of the working paper collects contributions on the relation between private autonomy and regulation (in Part I) as well as on the transformation of private law, including the drivers of the transformation in the public/private divide that in turn affects the purview of private law, as well as the transformation in the form and function of contract law and tortious liability (in Part III). The empirical part of the working paper contains contributions investigating the topics of remedies, standardisation of services, and telecommunications, analysed from the perspective of the parameters of hybridization, convergence and self-sufficiency, as elaborated in the previous working paper of the project LAW 2012/31 ERPL-01.

Public Supervision over Private Relationships: Towards European Supervision Private Law?

Abstract: The rise of public supervision over private relationships in many areas of private law has led to the development of what, in the author's view, could be called 'European supervision private law'. This emerging body of law forms part of European regulatory private law and is made up of contract-related conduct of business rules that are cast as public supervision standards and are enforced by public authorities through administrative law means. The development of European supervision private law puts under pressure the leading role of private law and civil courts in setting standards of behaviour in private relationships and raises many important issues concerning the future of European private law, in particular, contract law. This article explores the origins and main characteristics of European supervision private law, with emphasis on the financial services field. It also underlines the need for conceptualizing the relationship between European supervision private law and traditional private law using the contract governance approach. Resumé: L'accroissement du contrôle public des relations privées dans de nombreux domaines du droit privé a conduit au développement de ce que, d'après l'auteur, on pourrait appeler 'le droit privé européen de la supervision'. Cette catégorie émergente du droit forme une partie du droit privé réglementaire européen et est constituée de règles de conduite relatives aux contrats qui sont désignées comme normes de supervision publique et sont appliquées par les autorités publiques au moyen de règles de droit administratif. Le développement du droit privé européen de la supervision exerce une pression sur le rôle prépondérant du droit privé et des cours et tribunaux civils en fixant des normes de conduite dans les relations privées et soulève de nombreuses questions importantes concernant l'avenir du droit privé européen, en particulier, le droit des contrats. Cet article examine les origines et les caractéristiques principales du droit privé européen de la supervision, en mettant l'accent sur le domaine des services financiers. Il souligne également le besoin de conceptualiser la relation entre le droit privé européen de la supervision et le droit privé traditionnel, par l'approche de la question de la gouvernance dans les contrats.

The Public and the Private – European Regulatory Private Law and Financial Services

The Public and the Private – European Regulatory Private Law and Financial Services

The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law—The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation

The Visible Hand of European Regulatory Private Law—The Transformation of European Private Law from Autonomy to Functionalism in Competition and Regulation

Contract and Fiduciary Duty

During the last two centuries, courts have been adapting this duty of loyalty and its remedy to other agency relations, under the title "fiduciary" duty.1 That is adaptation, not extension. The many agency relations that fall under the "fiduciary" banner are so diverse that a single rule could not cover all without wreaking havoc. Courts have applied the term to relations as diverse as guardian-ward, attorney-client, and bank-borrower. Does anything other than the word "fiduciary" and an appeal to a duty of loyalty (in its strong form, a duty that the agent work for the "exclusive benefit" of the principal) unite these situations? Principles of ethics? Is the fiduciary morally bound to act in a particular way, perhaps? Or are the different situations wholly distinct, so that a union's fiduciary "duty of fair representation" in labor law is unrelated to a corporate manager's fiduciary obligations to investors?