Party Dispositions and EU Consumer Contract Law

当事人处置和欧盟消费者合同法

• 批准号: 458643923
• 负责人: Professorin Dr. Susanne Gössl
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Institut für Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Publication Grants
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2020-12-31 至 2021-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/458643923?language=en
• 关键词: Party; Dispositions; EU; Consumer; Contract

The study deals with the question how national procedural law should respond to the consumer contract law adopted by the EU. There is a tension between these two legal areas: one fundamental principle of contract law is party autonomy, which allows the parties to take responsibility for their own legal relations. However, this party autonomy is restricted by EU directives in the business-to-consumer (B2C) relationship in order to compensate for an assumed unequal negotiating position of the consumer and, moreover, to promote the internal market. In order to enforce his rights, the consumer depends on procedural law, which has remained mainly unaffected by EU law. Whereas consumer contract law regularly assumes an imbalance requiring compensation, German procedural law assumes that the negotiating partners, even in a dispute between consumers and businesses, are – in principle – equally strong. The work emphasises intra-disciplinary, i.e. from the point of view of civil, civil procedural, EU and constitutional law, that and how German procedural law has to be applied in an appropriately adapted way. In addition to court proceedings, it deals with all other proceedings that lead to an enforceable title and are based on a party agreement - here the unequal negotiating position can become relevant in the proceedings and in the party agreement itself and, thus, require adjustments.First of all, the framework of party autonomy in German law is worked out, i.e. the constitutional and procedural barriers. Subsequently, the work is devoted to the requirements of Union law: To what extent does substantive law conflict with party agreements? Contrary to traditional German law, EU law does not only focus on the protection of consumers but also intents to harmonise the law to promote the internal market through predictable and clear rules. As a result, EU law impedes to set aside the rules even if the consumer does not need their protection. From EU primary law, subsequently, follows the Member States‘ obligation to implement these two objectives in procedural law.These principles are then implemented into the German legal system, focusing on court and arbitration proceedings, court, arbitration and attorney settlement and notarial deed. The result is a system of Europeanised German procedural law that is based on an obligation to provide information by the state authorities, in particular the judge. This obligation exceeds a similar obligation in purely national law. Union law requires judges, arbitrators and other state bodies to ensure that Union law is always examined and that the parties are given the opportunity to take decisions autonomously.

这项研究涉及国家程序法应如何回应欧盟通过的消费者合同法的问题。这两个法律领域之间存在着紧张关系：合同法的一项基本原则是当事人意思自治，允许当事人对自己的法律关系承担责任。然而，这种当事人自主权受到欧盟在企业对消费者(B2C)关系中的指令的限制，以补偿消费者假定的不平等谈判地位，并促进内部市场。为了加强消费者的权利，消费者依赖程序法，而程序法基本上不受欧盟法律的影响。消费者合同法通常假定需要赔偿的不平衡，而德国程序法假定，即使在消费者和企业之间的纠纷中，谈判伙伴原则上也是同样强大的。这项工作强调学科内，即从民事、民事程序法、欧盟和宪法的角度来看，这一点以及如何以适当适应的方式适用德国程序法。除法院程序外，它还处理导致可强制执行的所有权并基于当事人协议的所有其他程序--在这种情况下，不平等的谈判地位可能在诉讼程序和当事人协议本身中变得相关，因此需要进行调整。首先，制定了德国法律中的当事人自治框架，即宪法和程序障碍。随后，工作致力于联盟法律的要求：实体法在多大程度上与缔约方协议相冲突？与传统的德国法律相反，欧盟法律不仅关注消费者的保护，还打算通过可预测和明确的规则协调法律，以促进内部市场。因此，即使消费者不需要这些规则的保护，欧盟法律也会阻止他们搁置这些规则。随后，从欧盟主要法律出发，遵循成员国在程序法中实现这两个目标的义务。这些原则随后被落实到德国的法律体系中，重点是法院和仲裁程序、法院、仲裁和律师和解以及公证行为。其结果是形成了一个欧洲化的德国程序法体系，其基础是国家当局，特别是法官提供信息的义务。这一义务超过了纯粹国内法中的类似义务。工会法律要求法官、仲裁员和其他国家机构确保始终审查工会法律，并给予当事人自主作出决定的机会。