Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

7.
Article 14 Rome I: A Political Perspective
Paulien M. M. van der Grinten *
‘In order to arrive at a common basis on which to determine questions
between inhabitants of the countries living under different
systems of jurisprudence, our courts recognise and act on a division
otherwise unknown to our law (…).’ 1
7.1. Introduction
This contribution tells of the ‘making of’ Article 14 on assignment of the
Rome I Regulation on the applicable law to contractual obligations. 2 I was
asked to write on this subject because I had negotiated Rome I on behalf
of the Netherlands. The contribution is a personal account of the negotiations,
which lasted from 2006 until November 2007. The anecdotes
may both comfort you, as they show that ‘Brussels’ is capable of having
in-depth discussions on Rome I, and shock you in their banality.
The contributions of Flessner and Verhagen also focus on the specific
subject of assignment in private international law and Article 14 Rome
I Regulation. 3 Their angle, however, is different from the more political
approach in this paper. Therefore, I will not go into every detail of the
rules in Article 14 Rome I, but leave that to the expertise of Flessner and
Verhagen.
*
Coordinating Counselor Department of Law, Ministry of Security and Justice
of the Netherlands
1
Farwell L.J. in Re Hoyles [1911] 1 Ch. 179 at 185.
2
Regulation (EC) No 593 / 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 June 2008, OJ 2008, L 177 / 16 on the law applicable to contractual
obligations (Rome I).
3
H.L.E. Verhagen, Party Autonomy and Assignment, Chapter 9 of this book
and A. Flessner, Between Articles 14 and 27 of Rome I: How to interpret a
European Regulation on Conflict of Laws?, Chapter 10 of this book.
145
© sellier. european law publishers
www.sellier.de