Unfair Advantage: An Intriguing Example of Legal Transformation in the Swiss Private Law

This paper demonstrates a mixed approach to the theme of the instrumentality of law by both analysing the goal of a legal transformation and the techniques adapted to achieve it. The correct recognition of a certain practical necessity has lead the Swiss Federal Tribunal to an intriguing judgement “Fussballclub Lohn-Fall” of 1997. The legal remedies provided for cases of unfair advantage have been then creatively modified praeter legem. The adaptation was strongly influenced by foreign legal patterns. The Swiss Code of Obligations of 1911 provides a norm in art. 21 on unfair advantage (unconscionable contract), prescribing that if one party takes unjustified advantage over the weaknesses of another in order to receive an excessive benefit, such a contract is avoidable. Its wording has been shaped over a hundred years ago and still remains intact. However, over the course of the 20th century the necessity for a more efficient protection has arisen. The legal doctrine and jurisprudence were constantly pointing out the incompleteness of the remedies provided by art. 21 of the Code of Obligations. In the “Fussballclub Lohn-Fall” (BGE 123 III 292) the Swiss Federal Tribunal finally introduced the possibility to modify the contract. Its decision has been described as “a sign of the zeitgeist, spirit of the time”. It was the Swiss legal doctrine that has imposed the new measure under the influence of the German “quantitative Teilnichtigkeit” (quantitative partial nullity). The historical heritage of the Roman laesio enormis has also played its role.

The doctrine of multilayered governance: The Example of Swiss Foreign Migration Policy

The New Swiss interdepartemental cooperation structure results in a new setting in negotiations and stimulates the counterpart or for the same setting and at least for the same domestic cooperation.

Is there a case to be made for a global patent system? The example of plant biotechnology

The assessment of patterns of patentability in plant biotechnology on the basis of existing statistics shows a considerable concentration of patents to a few countries, in particular the United States, Australia, Japan, China, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Spain and Hungary. These patterns suggest that there is a clear relationship between the choice of patent jurisdictions and the biotechnology regulatory framework. This observation of the geographic distribution of biotechnology patents lends credence to maintaining a system of territorial rights that allow for regulatory competition, but continuing the process of substantive patent law harmonization which potentially minimize trade barriers.