Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

C. Developments and Prospects in Europe and in European Law Projects
apply to the proprietary aspects of an assignment, at least as between the
assignor and assignee. 8 As regards the scope of Article 12 paragraph 2 of
the Rome Convention, the views differed considerably. Some – mainly
German – scholars believed that paragraph 2 should also govern the proprietary
aspects other than those between the assignor and the assignee,
including the effects against third parties. 9 To support their view, they
referred to a decision of the German Bundesgerichtshof of 1983 in a case
in which the Rome Convention did not even apply. 10 Others held the
view that Article 12 paragraph 2 did not contain any rule to govern the
proprietary aspects of an assignment. They argued that these aspects were
completely outside the scope of Article 12 of the Rome Convention and
were, therefore, left to the national choice-of-law rules of the Member
States. 11 In France, this led to the application of the law of the debtor’s
domicile to the effect of the assignment against third parties. 12
I had my first thoughts on Article 12 of the Rome Convention in 1994,
shortly after the Rome Convention had entered into force for the Nether-
1995 / 3, p. 61; M.V. Polak, Vermogensrechtelijke meerpartijenverhoudingen,
Deventer: Kluwer 1993.
8
In favour of application of paragraph 1 of Article 12 to all proprietary aspects
of an asssigment: the Dutch Hoge Raad in the Hansa-judgement and Dutch
legal literature, a.o. R.I.V.F. Bertrams, H.L.E. Verhagen, Goederenrechtelijke
aspecten van de internationale cessie en verpanding van vorderingen op
naam, WPNR 6088 (1993), p. 261-266; in favour of a more limited scope of
paragraph 1 only for the proprietary aspects as between the assignor and the
assignee: A. Senay-Cytermann, Les conflits de lois concernant l’opposabilité
de créance, Rev. crit. dr. intern. privé 81 (1) 1992, p. 35; H. Gaudemet-Tallon,
Le nouveau droit privé européen des contrats, Rev. trim. dr. eur. 1981, p. 275;
P. Lagarde, Le nouveau droit international privé des contrats après l’entrée en
vigeur de la Convention de Rome du 19 juin 1980, Rev. crit. dr. intern. privé
80 (1991), p. 335; C. Reithmann & D. Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht,
Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt 2004, p. 309.
9
Reithmann & Martiny, o.c. footnote 8, p. 310; C. Von Bar, Internationales
Privatrecht. Zweiter band. Besonderes teil, München 1991, nr. 33.
10
BGH 23.2.1983, BGHZ, 87, 19 / 22 f. In 1990 the Bundesgerichtshof decided
that Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Rome Convention did govern the proprietary
aspects of an assignment, BGH 20 June 1990, BGHZ, 111, 376.
11
E.g. in France, A. Senay-Cytermann, o.c. footnote 8, p. 48 and P. Lagarde, o.c.
footnote 8, p. 335.
12
Idejm footnote 11.
148
Paulien M. M. van der Grinten
© sellier. european law publishers
www.sellier.de