Search results

Eva-Maria Kieninger behandelt eine Grundfrage der gegenwärtigen Rechtsentwicklung in der EU: Soll der Prozeß der Harmonisierung fortgesetzt werden oder wäre es besser, die mitgliedstaatlichen Rechtsordnungen einem Wettbewerb untereinander zu überlassen? Diese Frage stellt sich nicht nur im Hinblick auf das Steuer-, Umwelt- oder Sozialrecht, sondern auch für das Privatrecht, das wegen der in weiten Bereichen herrschenden Rechtswahlfreiheit auf den ersten Blick sogar besonders prädestiniert für einen institutionellen Wettbewerb erscheint.Zunächst wird ein ökonomisches Modell des institutionellen Wettbewerbs aufgestellt und auf das Privatrecht übertragen. Dann wird für die Bereiche des Gesellschafts- und Vertragsrechts untersucht, ob die Voraussetzungen eines funktionsfähigen Wettbewerbs gegeben sind und mit welchen Wirkungen im Erfolgsfall zu rechnen wäre. Dabei werden rechtsvergleichend die US-amerikanischen Erfahrungen mit dem Wettbewerb im Gesellschaftsrecht einbezogen. Schließlich widmet sich Eva-Maria Kieninger der Frage, ob und inwieweit ein institutioneller Wettbewerb mit dem Binnenmarktziel kompatibel wäre. Aktueller Anlaß der Arbeit ist unter anderem die 'Centros' -Entscheidung des EuGH aus dem Jahr 1999, in der der Gerichtshof erstmals den Topos des 'Wettbewerbs der Rechtsordnungen' verwendet und zu einer ausdehnenden Interpretation der Niederlassungsfreiheit herangezogen hat.

The period of economic growth of the 19th century created a huge demand for increased credit. Under the pre-existing law of all European legal systems, it was not possible to create a security right in movable property without transferring actual possession to the creditor. This requirement was increasingly seen as unsuited to commercial needs, and new methods of creating security rights were introduced. Each legal system devised its own way of doing this. As a result there are several mutually incompatible approaches to the creation of security rights in the different European legal systems. This leads to problems in international trade, notably when a trader believes that he has obtained a security right over property in his home state, but that right is not recognised in the state to which the property is delivered. The rules of conflict of laws have only been able to provide limited solutions to this problem. Attempts to harmonise the law on securities in movable property within the European Community have also so far proved fruitless. However, a partial solution may also be available under article 30 of the EC Treaty. It is possible to regard differences in the law relating to securities between Member States as measures having effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of that article. For example, the use of aretention of title clause is a method of extending credit which constitutes a marketing device. If such clauses can only be used in certain Member States, a seller will have lo modify his marketing strategy in relation to other Member States and will consequently have to bear the extra expense associated with maintaining different marketing strategies which puts him at a disadvantage as compared with domestic traders. Since laws relating to security in movable property apply equally to imported goods and domestic products, Member States may be able to justify them on the basis of the need to protect third parties purchasers. To succeed in this, however, they must also be able to prove that the rules adopted are necessary and proportionate to the aim to be achieved. An examination of the case law indicates that in some cases this requirement would prevent Member States insisting on a strict application of their domestic rules and would ameliorate the situation of foreign exporters.