RotterdamInstituteofPrivateLaw AcceptedPaperSeries EuropeanTortLaw AnIntegratedorCompartmentalizedApproach? • W.H.vanBoom Publishedin:AntoniVaquer(ed.),EuropeanPrivateLawBeyond theCommonFrameofReference–EssaysinHonourofReinhard Zimmermann,EuropaLawPublishing2008,p.133-149(original pagenumbersarereferredtoinbrackets[page]) [Afternote:afterconclusionofthispapertheDraftCommonFrameofRefer- encewaspresented.Contrarytomysuggestioninthetext,theDCFRdoes containrulesontortlaw.] •ProfessorofPrivatelawattheRotterdamInstituteofPrivateLaw,ErasmusUniversityRotterdam,The Netherlands.TheauthorgratefullyacknowledgeshelpfulcommentsandsuggestionsbySimon WhittakerandSiewertLindenbergh.ThetextwasfinalizedinJanuary2008,subsequentdevelopments werenotincluded. 1 Abstract TheexistingmodestbodyofEuropeantortlawis,bynecessity,anorganicallygrown setofvariousrules,enteredintoforceasaresultofpiecemeallegislativeeffort, sometimesofacontradictorynatureinpractice,andalwayslackingthedogmatic depthsandoverarchingaspirationsthatnationalsystemsofprivatelawtendtohave. Workingwiththismaterialnecessitatesacompartmentalizedapproach.Byaddress- ingthepolicyissuesinvolvedineachofthesetortsonebyone,theEuropeanUnion canmakeharmonizedtortlawmoreattainable. Ratherthandiscussingtheintricaciesoftorttheory,thequestshouldbeaimedat findinga concretebalance betweentheinterestsofthoseinvolvedin specifictorts – businesses,consumers,andtheinsuranceindustry.InthispaperItrytodemonstrate thatsuchanapproachwouldtakeusawayfromprojectsaimedatrestating‘Princi- ples’andwouldleadtoamorecompartmentalizedapproach.Socialandculturaldi- vergenceanddifferencesindomesticpreferencesinthetortareadonotnecessarily excludesomelevelofharmonizationinconcrete‘tortfiles’aslongasthereisthepo- liticalwillandperceivedneedforharmonization.Thispaperidentifiesanumberof tortsthatseemmorereadyforharmonizationthanothers. Keywords Europeanprivatelaw,tortlaw,harmonization,CommonFrameofReference,en- forcement Tableofcontent I. Introduction........................................................................................................3 II. StateofaffairsinEUtortlaw..............................................................................7 II.1 Productsliability..........................................................................................7 II.2 Environmentaldamage...............................................................................7 II.3 Unfairtradepractices..................................................................................8 II.4 CSPliability.................................................................................................8 II.5 Ultrahazardousactivities.............................................................................8 II.6 Internationaltrafficaccidents.......................................................................8 II.7 Generalproductsafety................................................................................9 II.8 Carrierliabilityforpersonalinjuryandpropertyloss....................................9 III. Identifyingtortsthatare‘likelycandidates’forfurtherharmonization............10 IV. Andwhataboutremedies?...........................................................................13 V. Unlikelycandidates..........................................................................................14 VI. Appraisal:makingtortlawtangiblethroughcompartmentalization................15 2 I. Introduction [133] The2007LleidaCongressinhonourofReinhardZimmermanncentresaround theCommonFrameofReference.LetmeadmitthatIamnotanexperienced‘CFR watcher’,butthatIwasneverthelessstruckbythefactthatintheEnglishlanguage, theCFRmemorandaandreportsrefertoacommonframeofreferencerelatingto contractlaw ,whereassomehowinDutchthisisconsistentlytranslatedinto verbin- tenissenrecht .InDutchlegalterminology,however,“verbintenissenrecht”isthe law ofobligations ratherthanthelawofcontractsandthereforealsoincludestortlaw, restitutionaryremedies,benevolentinterventionandunjustenrichment.Somemuch foracommonframeofreference!Myfirstpropositionherewouldbethatacommon frameofreferencewillinevitablygetlostintranslation. 1 Havingsaidthat,asIunderstandtheCFRundertakingisanattempttorestateand perhapseventually‘horizontally’harmonizethecommunity’sconsumercontractlaw acquisevenfurtherbymethodoftechnocraticcommitteeprocessinthebestofEU traditionofcomitology. 2Moreover,itseemsthatalongthewaytheCFRendeavour hassomehowconvergedwiththePrinciplesprojectoftheStudyGrouponaEuro- peanCivilCode.Officially,theCFRdoesnotincludetortlawissues. ♦Sowecould stophereandnotbebotheredwithtortlawinrelationtotheCFR.Thereis,however, agoodreasonforlookingintotortlawasitmaybeoperating‘behindthescenes’of contractlaw.Indeed,theCFRundertakingdoesshedsomelightonthepositionof tortlaw.IntheEUcommission’ssecondreportontheCFRitissaidthatthereis consensusamongtheCFRparticipants“thattheCFRshouldcontainthetopicsdi- rectlyrelatedtotheexistingEUcontractlaw acquis incombinationwithgeneralcon- tractlawissueswhicharerelevantforthe acquis ”3andthatduringtheCFRwork “severalvoicesadvocatedincludingcertaingeneralcontractlawissuesthatarerele- vantfortheexistingEUcontractlaw acquis .” 4 [134]Toinclude‘generalcontractlawissues’intheCFRworkposesaproblemof demarcationwithtortlaw.Ithasbeenpointedoutrightlybeforethatthedividingline betweentortandcontractvariesfromcountrytocountry. 5So,iftheEUisdesigninga 1Cf.M.W.Hesselink,'TheIdealofCodificationandtheDynamicsofEuropeanisation:TheDutchEx- perience',in:StefanVogenauerandStephenWeatherill(ed.), TheHarmonizationofEuropeanContract Law-ImplicationsforEuropeanPrivateLaws,BusinessandLegalPractice (Oxford2006),p.55fn.68. NotethatChristianvonBaretal.,'CommunicationonEuropeanContractLaw:JointResponseofthe CommissiononEuropeanContractLawandtheStudyGrouponaEuropeanCivilCode',(2002) Euro- peanReviewofPrivateLaw ,p.193fn.14seemtoturntheargumentaroundandimplythattheDutch translationisthebetterone. 2ForanoverviewofwhattheCFRisormaybe,see,e.g.,Hesselink(2006),citedabovefn.1atp.52ff. withfurtherreferences. ♦[Afternote:afterconclusionofthispapertheDraftCommonFrameofReferencewaspre- sented.Contrarytomysuggestioninthetext,theDCFRdoescontainrulesontortlaw.] 3ReportfromtheCommission-SecondProgressReportonTheCommonFrameofReference, COM/2007/0447final,p.8-9. 4Idem ,p.11. 5See,e.g.,R.Zimmermann,'PrinciplesofEuropeanContractLawandPrinciplesofEuropeanTortLaw: ComparisonandPointsofContact',in:H.KoziolandBarbaraC.Steininger(ed.), EuropeanTortLaw 2003(TortandInsuranceLawYearbook) (Vienna/NewYork2004),p.10f.;ChristianvonBarandUlrich Drobnig, TheInteractionofContractLawandTortandPropertyLawinEurope-AComparativeStudy (München2004),p.11ff.,p.44ff. 3 commonframeofreferenceregardingcontractlawingeneral,itmayhavetodecide underwhichheadingtofileproblemsofprecontractualdutiesofcare,ofprovidinga quasi-contractualprotectionintorttothirdparties,somehowlinkedtoacontract,and thematterofdealingwithlegalrelationshipsinchainsofcontracts.Inshort,itmay havetoengageindefininganddividingcontractsandtortsinsomerespects.Sucha taskseemsratherdifficult,tosaytheleast. 6 Havingsaidthat,itmustbestressedthattortlaw assuch isnotontheregulatory agendaoftheEU. 7Andrightlyso.Whoneedsharmonizedtortlaw?Inthesenseofa dogmaticallycoherentsystemofabstractrules,harmonizedtortlawseemsrather superfluous.WhywouldweneedaEuropeanstandardontheissueofsubjectiveor objectivefaultintortlaw?Whywouldweneedauniformminimumagefortortious capacityofchildren?Whywouldweneedtohaveuniformityonabstractnotionsof wrongfulness,dutiesofcareandthelike? IntheacademicdiscussiononEuropeanharmonizationofprivatelaw,thepropo- nentsofharmonizationoftortlawarguethatapan-Europeansystemoftortlaw wouldservegoalsofequaltreatmentofwrongsandrightsandequalprotectionof, e.g.,businessinterestsinEurope(levelplayingfield,ironingoutalleged‘economic distortions’).OpponentstendtostressthatbusinessstrategyinEuropeisindifferent tothedetailsoftortlawsystemsandthatdifferencesbetweenthelegalsystems stemfromgenuinedifferencesin preferences ofdomesticlegalpolicy. 8AlthoughIam notanexpert,Iwouldthinkthatthelatter [135]argumentisnotentirelysoundfroma Europeanpolicyperspective:thebasicideaofharmonizationisinfacttodiscuss, negotiateandthenagreeonapan-Europeanpreference(indeed,itisthebasicidea oftheEUitself). Someauthorsjustifynon-interventionattheEUlevelwiththe“regulatorycompeti- tion”rationale. 9SufficetosayherethatEUpoliticsarenotalwaysdrivenbythecon- ceptofregulatorycompetition,especiallywhenconsumerinterestsareinvolved. 10 Moreover,thetheoryofregulatorycompetitioninthefieldoftortlawseemstoover- estimatetherationalityoftortlawsystemsandhowtheyevolve.Ratherthanaflexi- bletaxoncorporateorindividualbehaviour,whichcanberaisedorloweredannually inordertoadjusttomarketcircumstances,tortlawisperceivedbymanytoreflect socio-legalandculturalpreferenceswhicharenoteasilyadjustedinviewofsome ‘legalcompetition’paradigm. 6Cf.GerhardWagner,'TheProjectofHarmonizingEuropeanTortLaw',(2005) CommonMarketL.Rev. , p.1296. 7Cf.UlrichMagnus,'EuropaundseinDeliktsrecht-GründefürundwiderdieVereinheitlichungdes ausservertraglichenHaftungsrechts',in:HelmutKoziolandJaapSpier(ed.), LiberAmicorumPierre Widmer (Vienna/NewYork2003),p.221. 8Foranoverviewofthemainargumentsproandcontra,see,e.g.,MichaelG.Faure,'ProductLiability andProductSafetyinEurope:HarmonizationorDifferentiation?'(2000) Kyklos ,p.467ff.;M.Faure, 'HowLawandEconomicsMayContributetotheHarmonisationofTortLawinEuropa',in:R.Zimmer- man(ed.), GrundstrukturendesEuropäischenDeliktsrechts (Baden-Baden2003),p.31ff.;Gerhard Wagner,'TheVirtuesofDiversityinEuropeanPrivateLaw',in:JanSmits(ed.),