Suchergebnisse

This work is focused on aspects of the general clauses used by the legislator in the Act on Collective Redundancies of 2003, i.e. reasons not attributable to an employee and their exclusivity. The first clause covers all cases of termination of an employment relationship that are caused by circumstances affecting the employer or independent of the parties to the employment relationship. On the other hand, "exclusivity" of the reasons not attributable to an employee is confirmed if circumstances not attributable to the employee and the way of performing employment relationship duties thereby constitute the original cause of a definite termination or a notice of change. Analysing the scope of application of the said indeterminate phrases, the author also refers to the principles of community life. ; University of Bialystok, Poland ; Iwona Sierocka – Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bialystok, head of the Labor Law and Social Insurance Institute, Poland. ; Iwona Sierocka – profesor Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, kierownik Zakładu Prawa Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych na Wydziale Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. ; i.sierocka@uwb.edu.pl ; 107 ; 118 ; 2 ; Baran K.W., Zbiorowe prawo pracy. Zarys wykładu z kazusami, Gdańsk‑Kracow 1998. ; Baran K.W., Lekston M., Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, (in:) K.W. Baran (ed.), Zbiorowe prawo zatrudnienia. Komentarz, Warsaw 2019. ; Cudowski B., Odprawa ustawowa z tytułu rozwiązania umowy o pracę z byłym członkiem zarządu spółki kapitałowej, "Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne" 2014, no. 4. ; Dral A., Powszechna ochrona trwałości stosunku pracy. Tendencje zmian, Warsaw 2009. ; Florek L., Zwolnienia pracowników z przyczyn dotyczących zakładów pracy, Warsaw 1992. ; Frąckowiak M., Ustawa o zwolnieniach grupowych a wypowiedzenie warunków pracy i płacy w świetle orzecznictwa TS, "Mmonitor Prawa Pracy" 2018, no. 10 ; Iwulski J., Jaśkowski K., Ustawa o zwolnieniach grupowych, Warsaw 1995. ; Jaśkowski K., Maniewska E., Komentarz do art 1 ustawy o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, (in:) K. Jaśkowski, E. Maniewska, J. Stelina (eds.), Grupowe zwolnienia, Kracow 2004. ; Liszcz T., Komentarz do ustawy z dnia 28 grudnia 1989 r. o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn dotyczących zakładu pracy oraz o zmianie niektórych ustaw, (in:) Z. Salwa (ed.), Prawo Pracy, Part II, Warsaw 1999. ; Liszcz T., Komentarz do art. 10 ustawy o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, (in:) Prawo pracy, Warsaw 2005, LEX. ; Łyda Z., Wzajemny stosunek klauzuli zasad współżycia społecznego i społeczno‑gospodarczego przeznaczenia prawa, "Nowe Prawo" 1988, no. 4. ; Pisarczyk Ł., Ogólna charakterystyka zwolnień z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, (in:) M. Latos-Miłkowska, Ł. Pisarczyk, Zwolnienia z przyczyn niedotyczących pracownika, Warsaw 2005. ; Rylski M., Zwolnienia grupowe. Komentarz do ustawy, Warsaw 2016. ; Sadlik R., Kryteria doboru pracowników do zwolnienia przy zmniejszeniu zatrudnienia z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, "Monitor Prawa Pracy"2020, no. 1. ; Sierocka I., Nowe przepisy o zwolnieniach grupowych, "Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne" 2003, no. 12. ; Szymczak M. (ed.), Słownik języka polskiego, Warsaw 1993. ; Wagner B., Dopuszczalność wypowiedzenia stosunku pracy z przyczyn dotyczących pracodawcy, "Studia Juridica" 1992, no. XXIII. ; Wypych‑Żywicka A., Komentarz do art. 10 ustawy o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracownika, (in:) Zbiorowe prawo pracy. Komentarz, WK 2016. ; Wypych‑Żywicka A., Prawo podmiotowe w prawie pracy, (in:) K.W. Baran (ed.), System prawa pracy. Vol I. Część ogólna, Warsaw 2017. ; Wypych‑Żywicka A., Zwolnienie z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, (in:) K.W. Baran (ed.), System prawa pracy. Vol. V. Zbiorowe prawo pracy, Warsaw 2014. ; Wypych‑Żywicka A., Zasadność wypowiedzenia umowy o pracę, Gdańsk 1996. ; Zieliński T., Klauzule generalne w prawie pracy, Warsaw 1988. ; Zieliński T., Prawo pracy. Zarys systemu. Część II . Prawo stosunku pracy, Warsaw‑Kracow 1986. ; Ziembiński Z., Teoria prawa, Warsaw‑Poznań 1977. ; 26

European legal systems have long encompassed the concept of the "general clause", particularly in contract and labor law. The general clause includes unwritten legal norms such as good faith and public morality, and these principles are duly incorporated in the process of construing civil and labor contracts. While the general clause itself is formally absent in common law systems, its principles have found their way into modern British and American law. Two primary examples include the doctrines of good faith and unconscionability. In a broader sense, the idea of introducing rather indeterminate legal norms to be construed and interpreted by judges appears to be well‑ suited to a common law system. However, as applied to American labor law, the very indeterminacy of these terms has had rather negative effects on the rights of employees and the labor unions that represent them. Specifically, this article examines the good faith requirement in collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the doctrine of unconscionability in employment arbitration agreements, and concludes that they both should be supplemented by more definite standards in order to effectively protect employees. ; Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania ; Charles Szymanski – Lecturer and professor of law at the Faculty of Law of the Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, Lithuania. Practicing lawyer and professor of law in the United States of America. His scientific interests focus on European, international and comparative labor law as well as on the Alternative Dispute Resolution. ; Charles Szymanski – wykładowca i profesor na Wydziale Prawa Uniwersytetu Witolda Wielkiego w Kownie, prawnik praktyk i profesor prawa w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Jego zainteresowania badawcze koncentrują się na europejskim, międzynarodowym i porównawczym prawie pracy oraz na alternatywnych sposobach rozstrzygania sporów. ; charles.szymanski@gmail.com ; 11 ; 49 ; 2 ; Andrews R., Moroko R., Employment‑At‑Will in New York Remains Essentially Unchanged after a Century of Refinements, "N.Y. St. B.J." 1999, vol. 71-OCT. ; Andrias K., Sachs B., Constructing Countervailing Power: Law and Organizing in an Era of Political Inequality, "Yale L.J. 546" 2021, vol. 130. ; Arnow‑Richman R., Modifying At‑Will Employment Contracts, "B.C. L. Rev." 2016, vol. 57. ; Barnes T., Making the Bird Sing: Remedial Notice Reading Requirements and the Efficacy of NLRB Remedies, "Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L." 2015, vol. 36. ; Bingham L., Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect, "Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J." 1997, vol. 1. ; Bingham L., On Repeat Players, Adhesive Contracts, and the Use of Statistics in Judicial Review of Employment Arbitration Awards, "McGeorge L. Rev." 1998, vol. 29. ; Bodah M., Schneider M., Politics, Ideology, and Adjudication: The German Federal Labor Court and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, "Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J." 2014, vol. 36. ; Bodie M., Labor Interests and Corporate Power, "B.U. L. Rev." 2019, vol. 99. ; Broome S., An Unconscionable Application of the Unconscionability Doctrine: How the California Courts are Circumventing the Federal Arbitration Act, "Hastings Bus. L.J." 2006, vol. 3. ; Brudney J., Forsaken Heroes: Covid‑19 and Frontline Essential Workers, "Fordham Urb. L.J." 2020, vol. 48. ; Byrd R., When Arbitration Agreement Provisions Time Travel: Illusory Promises And Continued At‑Will Employment In Baker, "Mo. L. Rev." 2015, vol. 80. ; Lonegrass M., Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, "Loy. U. Chi. L.J." 2012, vol. 44. ; Maatman G., Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: An Overview of 2020 in Workplace Class Action Litigation, "Lab. Law J." 2021, vol. 889127. ; Malin M., Labor Law Reform: Waiting for Congress? "Chi.-Kent L. Rev." 1994, vol. 69. ; Malin M., Privatizing Justice - But by how Much? Questions Gilmer did not Answer, "Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol." 2001, vol. 16. ; Malin M., The Arbitration Fairness Act: It Need not and Should not be an All or Nothing Proposition, "Ind. L.J." 2012, vol. 87. ; Malin M., Two Models of Interest Arbitration, "Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol." 2013, vol. 28. ; Meeker C., Defining "Ministerial Aid": Union Decertification under the National Labor Relations Act "U. Chi. L. Rev." 1999, vol. 66. ; Morlath J., Individual Rights vs. A Seat at the Table: The Guffey Act as an Alternative Model to the Wagner Act, "Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y" 2013, vol. 21. ; Mueller E., Ferris S., House Passes Labor Overhaul, Pitting Unions against the Filibuster. Politico (March 9, 2021) https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/09/house-pro-act-labor-unions-474941. ; Murray J., The Uncertain Legacy Of Gilmer: Mandatory Arbitration Of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims, "Fordham Urb. L.J." 1999, vol. 26. ; Semet A., Political Decision‑Making at the National Labor Relations Board: An Empirical Examination of the Board's Unfair Labor Practice Decisions Through The Clinton And Bush II Years, "Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L." 2016, vol. 37. ; Nguyen X.-T., Disrupting Adhesion Contracts with #Metoo Innovators "Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L.", 2019, vol. 26. ; Nolan D., Lehr R., Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, "Tex. L. Rev." 1978, vol. 57. ; Norris L., The Parity Principle, "N.Y.U. L. Rev." 2018, vol. 93. ; Otte E., Toxic Secrecy: Non‑Disclosure Agreements and #Metoo "U. Kan. L. Rev." 2021, vol. 69. ; Poe K., Arbitration Agreements - What is the Employee Actually Signing up for?, "J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L." 2019, vol. 12. ; Prats J., Are Arbitration Agreements Necessary for Class‑Action Waivers to be Enforceable? "Fla. B.J." 2018, vol. 92-DEC. ; Ray D., Doing Well by Being Good: How U.S. Labor Law Encourages Employer Good Faith Behavior, "Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev." 2019, vol. 14. ; Rios F., Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Do They Protect Employers from Adjudicating Title VII Claims? "St. Mary's L.J." 1999, vol. 31. ; Rubenstein M., Attorney Labor Unions, "N.Y. St. B.J." 2007, vol. 79-JAN. ; Spitko E., Exempting High‑Level Employees and Small Employers from Legislation Invalidating Predispute Employment Arbitration Agreements, "U.C. Davis L. Rev." 2009, vol. 43. ; Steber R., Alternative Remedies for Undocumented Workers Left Behind in a Post‑Hoffman Plastic Era, "Cath. U. L. Rev." 2019, vol. 68. ; Sternlight J., Mandatory Arbitration Stymies Progress Towards Justice in Employment Law: Where to, #Metoo? "Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev." 2019, vol. 54. ; Summers C., Employment at Will in the United States: The Divine Right of Employers, "U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L." 2000, vol. 3. ; Thompson D., Supina S., What Ethical & Strategic Employers Should Do About Arbitration, 14 "Va. L. & Bus. Rev." 2020, vol. 14. ; Tippett E., The Legal Implications of the Metoo Movement, "Minn. L. Rev." 2018, vol. 103. ; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Work Stoppages Summary, (February 19, 2021) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.nr0.htm. ; Unfair Labor Practice Process Chart, National Labor Relations Board, https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/nlrb-process/unfair-labor-practice-process-chart. ; Union Member Summary, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), January 22, 2021, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm. ; Wynne S., Vaughn M., Silencing Matters of Public Concern: An Analysis of State Legislative Protection of Whistleblowers in Light of the Supreme Court's Ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, "Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev." 2017, vol. 8. ; Varner K., Hosak K., Blogging: Can Employers and Employees Avoid Getting Caught in the Web?, "Midwest L.J." 2008, vol. 22. ; Viscusi W., The Fatal Failure of the Regulatory State, "Wm. & Mary L. Rev." 2018, vol. 60. ; Von Mehren A., The Death of Contract, "Colum. L. Rev." 1974, vol. 75. ; Weston M., Buying Secrecy: Non‑Disclosure Agreements, Arbitration, and Professional Ethics in the #Metoo Era, "U. Ill. L. Rev." 2021, vol. 2021. ; Wexler L., Robbennolt J., Murphy C., #Metoo, Time's Up, and Theories of Justice, "U. Ill. L. Rev." 2019, vol. 2019. ; Wielsch D., Relational Justice, "Law & Contemp. Probs." 2013, vol. 76. ; Wilson J., Laird A., Practicing before the NLRB, "The Advoc. (Texas)" 2014, vol. 69. ; Wolfson T., King B., Even after Concepcion and Italian Colors, Some Arbitration Agreements are Not Enforceable, "Fed. Law." 2015, vol. 62-FEB. ; Worster R., If it's Hardly Worth Doing, it's Hardly Worth Doing Right: How the NLRA's Goals are Defeated Through Inadequate Remedies, "U. Rich. L. Rev." 2004, vol. 38. ; Zalesne D., The Consentability of Mandatory Employment Arbitration Clauses, "Loy. L. Rev." 2020, vol. 66 (Spring 2020). ; Altura Communication Solutions, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 85, *1 (2020). ; Apt Medical Transportation, Inc., 333 NLRB 760, 767 (2001). ; Arbah Hotel Corp., 368 NLRB No. 119 (2019). ; Ashford v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 954 F.3d 678, 684–85 (4th Cir. 2020). ; Barrasso v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. 2016 WL 1449567 (D. Mass. 2016), *5. ; Brinks USA, 354 NLRB 312, 325 (2009). ; Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 1996). ; Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). ; HTH Corp., 361 NLRB 709, 716 (2014). ; CP Anchorage Hotel 2, LLC, D/B/A Hilton Anchorage 370 NLRB No. 83 (2021). ; Delfingen US-Tex., L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791, 794 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2013, no pet.). ; Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 75 v. N.L.R.B., 866 F.2d 1537 (D.C. Cir. 1989). ; Epic Systems v. Lewis, 584 U.S., 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). ; Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 785 F.3d 729, 734 (2015). ; Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Systems, 500 U.S. 20 (1991). ; Great Lakes Coal Co., 268 NLRB 1207, 1215 (1984). ; Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., 602 F.3d 113, 126 n.7 (2nd Cir. 2010). ; Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 938 (4th Cir. 1999). ; In Re Konig, 318 NLRB 901, 905 (1995). ; In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex. 2010). ; Interfoto Picture Library Ltd. v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. [1989] 1 QB 433 (CA) at 439 (Lord Bingham LJ) (appeal taken from Lambeth Cty. Ct.) (Eng.)). ; K Mart Corp. 242 NLRB 855, 876 (1979). ; McKinney v. Creative Vision Resources, LLC 2013 WL 351655 (E.D. La. 2013), *25. ; Midwest Casting, 194 NLRB 523 n. 13 (1971). ; NLRB v. Cable Vision, Inc., 660 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1981). ; Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978). ; Richfield Hospitality, Inc. 369 NLRB No. 111 (2020). ; Colvin A., An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes, "J. of Empirical Legal Stud." 2011, vol. 8. ; Rivera‑Vega v. ConAgra, Inc. 876 F.Supp. 1350, 1363 (D. P.R. 1995). ; Salley v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 925 A.2d 115, 592 Pa. 323 (Pa. 2007). ; Scepter Ingot Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997 (2004). ; Stuart Radiator Core Manufacturing Co., Inc., 173 NLRB 125, 130 (1968). ; Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 912 A.2d 874, 2006 PA Super. 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). ; Triumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft Division, 369 NLRB No. 123 (2020). ; Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555, 562–563 (Pa. 2009). ; Wis. Dep't of Indus. Labor and Human Rel. v. Gould, 475 U.S. 282, 289 (1986). ; Yam Seng [2013] EWHC [151]. ; Compa L., Not Dead Yet: Preserving Labor Law Strengths while Exploring New Labor Law Strategies, "UC Irvine L. Rev." 2014, vol. 4. ; Corbett W., "You're Fired!": The Common Law Should Respond with the Refashioned Tort of Abusive Discharge, "Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L." 2020, vol. 41. ; Cremades B., Good Faith in International Arbitration, "Am. U. Int'l L. Rev." 2012, vol. 27. ; Dahlstrom E., ERISA Section 510 should be Interpreted to Cover Internal, Unsolicited Employee Complaints, "ABA J. Lab. & Emp. L." 2011, vol. 26. ; Dalrymple E., Would You Like Fries with that Non-Compete? Why Restrictive Covenants Should not be Enforced Against Low Wage Workers, "Wayne St. U. J. Bus. L." 2020, vol. 3. ; Dannin E., From Dictator Game to Ultimatum Game… and Back Again: The Judicial Impasse Amendments, "U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L." 2004, vol. 6. ; Dannin E., NLRA Values, Labor Values, American Values, "Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L." 2005, vol. 26. ; Davidson S., Determining Employment Discrimination Case Merits under State And Federal Law, "Aspatore" 2012, vol. 2012 WL 3058210. ; DeMichele M., Bales R., Unilateral‑Modification Provisions in Employment Arbitration Agreements, "Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J." 2006, vol. 24. ; Drummonds H., Beyond the Employee Free Choice Act: Unleashing the States in Labor‑Management Relations Policy, 19 "Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y" 2009, vol. 19. ; Drummonds H., Reforming Labor Law by Reforming Labor Law Preemption Doctrine to Allow the States to Make More Labor Relations Policy, "La. L. Rev." 2009, vol. 70. ; Eaton L., Arbitration Agreements in Labor and Employment Contracts: Well within the Reach of the FAA, "J. Disp. Resol." 2002, vol. 2002. ; Enger N., Offers You Can't Refuse: Post‑Hire Noncompete Agreement Insertions and Procedural Unconscionability Doctrine, "Wis. L. Rev. " 2020, vol. 2020. ; Fisk C., Pulver A., First Contract Arbitration and the Employee Free Choice Act, "La. L. Rev." 2009, vol. 70. ; Frankel R., Concepcion And Mis-Concepcion: Why Unconscionability Survives The Supreme Court's Arbitration Jurisprudence, "J. Disp. Resol." 2014, vol. 2014. ; Gardner A., George R.R. Martin's Faith Militant in Modern America: The Establishment Clause and a State's Ability to Delegate Policing Powers to Private Police Forces Operated by Religious Institutions, "Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J." 2020, vol. 29. ; Ghaffary S., Kantrowitz A., "Don't be evil" isn't a normal company value. But Google isn't a normal company. Vox, (Feb. 16, 2021) https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/2/16/22280502/google-dont-be-evil-land-of-the-giants-podcast. ; Giesbrecht‑McKee J., The Fairness Problem: Mandatory Arbitration in Employment Contracts, "Willamette L. Rev." 2014, vol. 50. ; Glynn M., #Timesup for Confidential Employment Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims, "Geo. Wash. L. Rev." 2020, vol. 88. ; Gordon J., Silence for Sale, "Ala. L. Rev." 2020, vol. 71. ; Gross J., Yet Another Reappraisal of the Taft‑Hartley Act Emergency Injunctions, "U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L." 2005, vol. 7. ; Grundmann S., Mazeaud D., General Clauses and Standards in European Contract Law: Comparative Law, EC Law and Contract Law Codification, The Hague 2005. ; Hengemuhle L., Striving for Consistency: The Battle of Jurisdiction in Enforcing Arbitration Awards, "B.C. L. Rev. E-Supplement" 2018, vol. 59. ; Hodges A., Employee Voice In Arbitration, "Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J." 2018, vol. 22. ; Hodges A., Trilogy Redux: Using Arbitration to Rebuild the Labor Movement, "Minn. L. Rev." 2014, vol. 98. ; Hogg M.A., The Implication of Terms in Fact: Good Faith, Contextualism and Interpretation, "Geo. Wash. L. Rev." 2017, vol. 85. ; Horton D., The Arbitration Rules: Procedural Rulemaking by Arbitration Providers, "Minn. L. Rev." 2020, vol. 105. ; Iannaccone C., Spada G., Silversten R., Arbitration and Employment Disputes: Drafting to Maximize Employer Protection, "ACCA Docket" 2000, vol. 18, no. 2. ; Kaspar D., Stallworth L., The Impact of a Grievant's Offer of Apology and The Decision‑Making Process of Labor Arbitrators: A Case Analysis, "Harv. Negot. L. Rev." 2012, vol. 17. ; LaJeunesse R.Jr., The Controversial "Card-Check" Bill, Stalled in the United States Congress, Presents Serious Legal and Policy Issues, "Tex. Rev. L. & Pol." 2010, vol. 14. ; Li Y., Applying the Doctrine Of Unconscionability to Employment Arbitration Agreements, with Emphasis on Class Action/Arbitration Waivers, "Whittier L. Rev." 2010, vol. 31. ; 26

This article deals with the tension between general clauses in European Private Law and the minimum provision which allows member states to adopt or retain stricter national law. Several private law directives contain general clauses, such as the standard of 'good faith' in the Unfair Terms Directive, which introduce a very broadly defined common standard into the private law of the member States. Further examples are the 'likelihood of confusion' in the Trademark Directive and the Community Trademark Regulation, the 'conformity with the contract' under the Consumer Goods Directive or the definition of misleading advertising in the Directive on Misleading Advertising. The author argues that it is up to the Court of Justice to give a common, european interpretation of such general clauses and to provide the national courts with the respective guidance. The freedom of the member states to adopt or retain stricter national law, does not mean that the national courts are free to develop and apply a different standard from the Court of Justice — even if this leads to 'stricter' results. As a precedent in favour of this approach, the author cites the Nissan case of 1992, where the Court held that a certain slogan could not be qualified as misleading advertising under the directive, even though the referring national court proposed to treat it as such and advocated a stricter solution.

Abstract: In many national legal systems and in some supranational European sets of rules, the legal concepts of 'public policy' and 'good morals' can be found. These concepts constitute open norms, 'general clauses', which need to be interpreted in order to be applied to specific cases. This paper starts from the assumption that public policy and good morals are vehicles for social justice, especially in contract law. It is submitted that the traditional doctrines on the interpretation of the law do not fit the interpretation of such open norms, which is more a 'concretization' and 'application' than an interpretation. This paper takes a position in favour of the competence of the Court of Justice of the EU to interpret, that is, concretize such general clauses contained in Regulations or Directives. Finally, the paper highlights the public law influence on the interpretation of 'public policy' and 'good morals', especially for what the references made to fundamental rights are concerned. Résumé: On peut trouver les concepts juridiques d' "ordre public'' et de ''bonne mœurs'' dans de nombreuses systèmes juridiques et dans quelques ensembles de règles européennes supranationales. Ces concepts constituent des normes ouvertes, "clauses générales'', qui doivent être interprétées afin d'être appliquées à des cas spécifiques. Cet article part du principe que l'ordre public et les bonnes mœurs sont des vecteurs de justice sociale, spécialement en matière de droit des contrats. Il est indiqué que les doctrines traditionnelles d'interprétation de la loi ne s'adaptent pas à l'interprétation de telles normes ouvertes, qui sont plutôt une ''concrétisation'' et une ''application'' qu'une interprétation. Cet article prend position en faveur de la compétence de la Cour de justice de l'UE pour interpréter c. à d. concrétiser de telles clauses générales contenues dans les Règlements ou Directives. Enfin, l'article souligne l'influence du droit public sur l'interprétation de l' ''ordre public'' et des ''bonnes mœurs'', spécialement en ce qui concerne les références aux droits fondamentaux.

Abstract: In this article, O. Lando investigates if good faith can be considered an overarching principle in European contract law. It looks at the principle from a historical and comparative law perspective. In all continental European countries a general principle of good faith can be found. The principle is also encountered in the Principles of European Contract Law, the Unidroit Principles of Commercial Contracts and, to some extent, in the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods. However, in English law good faith is not treated as an over-arching principle, although the principle can be found incidentally in specific regulations and cases. O. Lando concludes that, in spite of logical and technical arguments to the contrary made by H. Beale, good faith is an over arching principle.
Résumé: Dans cet article, O. Lando étudie si la bonne foi peut être considérée comme un principe primordial du droit européen des contrats en l'analysant du point de vue historique et du point de vue du droit comparé. Le principe de bonne foi se retrouve dans tous les pays continentaux européens et est également présent dans les Principes du droit européen des contrats, les Principes d'UNIDROIT relatifs aux contrats du commerce international, et dans une certaine mesure, dans la Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises. Le droit anglais cependant ne traite pas la bonne foi comme un principe primordial, bien que le principe puisse incidemment être trouvé dans des législations spécifiques et dans la jurisprudence. O. Lando conclut qu'en dépit des arguments techniques et logiques contraires exposés par H. Beale, la bonne foi est un principe primordial.
Zusammenfassung: In seinem Beitrag untersucht O. Lando, ob das Institut des Treu und Glaubens als allumfassender Grundsatz innerhalb des europäischen Vertragsrechts angesehen werden kann. Der Beitrag stellt diesen Grundsatz sowohl in einem historischen als auch in einem vergleichenden Zusammenhang dar. In allen Staaten des europäischen Kontinents ist ein allgemeiner Grundsatz des Treu und Glauben wiederzufinden. Dieser Grundsatz ist ebenfalls in den Principles of European Contract Law, den Unidroit Principles sowie zum Teil auch im Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verräge über den internationalen Warenkauf aufgenommen. Im englischen Recht wird der Grundsatz des True und Glaubens nicht als ein allumfassender Grundsatz angesehen, obwohl er gelegentlich in einigen spezifischen Bestimmungen und gerichtlichen Entscheidungen wiederzufinden ist. O. Lando folgert, dass der Grundsatz des Treu und Glaubens trotz einiger logischer und technischer Gegenargumente, die insbesondere durch H. Beale vorgetragen wurden, im Ergebnis als ein allumfassender Grundsatz angesehen werden kann.

This paper is a comparative study of the remedies available for economic losses caused by incorrect financial advice or information in a system of extracontractual liability working with General Clauses (French law), and two other systems working with restrictive concepts of tort liability intended to relativise the protection of economic interests (English and German law). The extent to which recovery for such losses is allowed in the three legal systems is analysed and compared, and the practical significance of the conceptual differences considered. Additionally, the paper discovers the emergence of the new idea of voluntary assumption of responsibility as a foundation of tort liability serving different dogmatic and legal policy goals in English and German law.

A general clause can be described as a legislative construct that allows the application of various legally undeĕned criteria and values in a legal decision. ćese criteria and values are determined axiologically and come from outside the legal system, though they are oęen contained in statutory provisions. In cases involving general clauses the role of the court is to take into account such values and to apply them in an individual and concrete process of law-application. će main aim of this paper is to answer the question whether general clauses are a tool for universalizing the content of case law in the times of European integration and globalization or rather an expression of local (regional) values. će paper argues that for supra- and international courts the case is and should be the latter. će argument is illustrated by judgments and decisions of the Polish, European and international courts concerning general clauses of 'public morals' and 'public interest'. ; Adam Szot

Abstract: The term 'good faith' or rather 'objective good faith' is the 'king clause' of People's Republic of China (PRC) law. This is also tied to the value system implied by the Chinese term chengshi xinyong. This article offers an analysis of the Chinese term and how the PRC courts utilize the principle, which is a neologism from the 1931 Republican Civil Code, much influenced by German and Japanese laws. The introduction of the term in 1931 was meant to strike a balance between modernity and traditional Chinese values and 'good faith's' collective quality was considered instrumental to social justice. Socialist interpretation does not necessarily lead to particularly original solutions: The use of the notion of 'good faith' in a judicial context is consistent with the judicial practice in several countries belonging to a Western legal tradition. However, 'good faith' is often placed alongside traditional Chinese criteria such as 'reasonableness' and 'fairness', and as such 'good faith' is frequently used to achieve the end of 'justice' in specific cases, leading the author to conclude that the application of rules borrowed from Western legal cultures, in several cases, seemingly mirrored solutions developed within the Chinese tradition.
Résumé: La notion de 'bonne foi', ou plutôt de 'bonne foi objective', est une notion clé du droit de la République Populaire de Chine (RPC). Cette notion s'inscrit dans le système de valeurs que recouvre le terme chinois 'chengshi xinyong'. Le présent article offre une analyse de cette notion de droit chinois et de la manière dont les cours de la RPC utilisent ce principe, un néologisme introduit en 1931 par le Code civil républicain et fortement infl uencé par les droits allemand et japonais.