Differenzierte Gerechtigkeit: Diskriminierungsschutz und Vertragsrecht

The theme of this book is the perceived tensions between contract law's principle of private autonomy and non-discrimination law. I first analyse the notion of discrimination, and specify that I restrict the investigation to ascribed difference,more specifically to perceived race/ethnicty, sex/gender and disability. Based on an analysis of the aims of non-discrimination law which extends onto markets, I then presented potential structures of non-discrimination clauses addressing market inequalities. Turning to a doctrinal investigation of German contract law and its position towards discrimination on grounds, I first investigated whether international law, EU law or the German constitution form a stable base for contractual non-discrimination law. Having concluded that these bodies of law require some protection against discrimination based on ascribed difference, but that contract law needs to provide its own specification, I then offer a very short comparative chapter on British and Dutch non-discrimination law (I guess I have developed quite a bit in this field since then!). Finally, I analyse in how far German courts have offered protection against discrimination on markets in the past, and which position the doctrine has taken. From page 290, I finally offer a conceptual, paradigmatic and principled proposal of how to integrate a principle of non-discrimination into German contract law. To my own surprise, this was later endorsed by one of the "doyens" of German contract law, Professor Canaris. In any case, you can see from my edited collection of 2011, that I am still fascinated by discrimination on grounds of race/ethnicity, sex/gender and disability.

Constitutional Principles and Horizontal Effects: Kücükdeveci revisited

While German labour lawyers were still awaiting the German Constitutional Court’s final verdict on the principles established by the Mangold case, the Court of Justice of the European Union re-visited the question what exactly are the effects of Directive 2000/78 and the constitutional principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age. This article analyses the constitutional relevance of this case in two respects. First, it argues that the Court has accepted neither direct horizontal effects of directives nor direct effects of constitutional principles, but rather - much more cautiously - reiterated the rule that directives on constitutional principles such as non-discrimination can exclude the application of national legislation in horizontal cases. The article also demonstrates that this cautious approach has succeeded in convincing the German Constitutional Court that the Mangold judgment was not ultra vires. Consequently, the claim challenging that judgment was dismissed and a constitutional crisis avoided.

On Extraterritoriality and the Gazprom case

In September 2012 the European Commission opened a formal investigation of Gazprom’s business practices in the EU. The Gazprom investigation raises a number of questions. One of them is the issue of jurisdiction—whether EU competition law applies to Gazprom, a foreign company. A day after the opening of the proceeding, in a press note and alongside other issues, Gazprom raised the question of jurisdiction, noting that it complies with laws of the countries in which it operates and that is it ‘registered outside the jurisdiction of the EU’. This statement, possibly, prompted some commentators to consider the applicability of EU law in this case.
In a piece in the ECLR, entitled ‘Iron Curtain at the border: Gazprom and the Russian blocking order to prevent the extraterritoriality of EU competition law’, Sean Morris offered his views on some of the aspects of the Gazprom case, including the issue of jurisdiction. Morris discussed also the blocking Order issued by the Russian President in response to the European Commission’s investigation, and its possible effects in the Gazprom case.
This article seeks to add a few important and relevant issues of law relating to extraterritoriality and the reach of EU law generally and in particular— in the context of the Gazprom investigation and in the light of the Morris article. This piece also sheds some light on the considerations which might have informed Russia’s hastily enactment of the Blocking Order.

How high (and far) can you go? On setting fines in cartel cases involving vertically-integrated undertakings and foreign sales

O Ne bis in idem no Espaço de Liberdade, Segurança e Justiça e no Direito Europeu da Concorrência

Ne bis in idem, understood as a procedural guarantee in the EU assumes different features in the AFSJ and in european competition law. Despite having a common origin (being, in both sectors the result of the case law of the same jurisdictional organ) its components are quite distintic in each area of the integration. In the AFSJ, the content of bis and idem are broader and addressed at a larger protection of individuals. Its axiological ground is based on the freedom of movements and human dignity, whereas in european competition law its closely linked to defence rights of legal persons and the concept of criminal punishment of anticompetitive sanctions as interpreted by the ECHR´s jurisprudence. In european competition law, ne bis in idem is limited by the systemic framework of competition law and the need to ensure parallel application of both european and national laws. Nonetheless, the absence of a compulsory mechanism to allocate jurisdiction in the EU (both in the AFSJ and in the field of anti-trust law) demands a common axiological framework. In this context, ne bis in idem must be understood as a defence right based on equity and proportionality. As far as its international dimension is concerned, ne bis in idem also lacks an erga omnes effect and it is not considered to be a rule of ius cogens. Consequently, the model which the ECJ has built regarding the application of the ne bis in idem in transnational and supranational contexts should be replicated by other courts through cross fertilization, in order to internationalize that procedural guarantee and broaden its scope of application.

Bargaining Power Dynamics and the Negotiation of Commercial Rights and Obligations: A Case of Athlete Agreements

This qualitative case study explored how the structural power imbalance in high performance sport influenced the bargaining process and resulting commercial rights and obligations of a single Canadian national sport organization’s (NSO1) Athlete Agreement. Principles comprising the doctrine of unconscionability, specifically the identification of a power imbalance between contracting parties, and the exploration of how that power imbalance influenced the terms of the contract, provided a framework to analyze factors influencing the commercial contents of NSO1’s Athlete Agreement. The results of this analysis revealed that despite the overarching influence of the inherent structural power imbalance on all aspects of NSO1 and its membership, an athletes’ level of commercial appeal can reach such heights as to balance the bargaining positions of both parties and subsequently influence the commercial contents of the Athlete Agreement.

Contentious Contracts

This paper offers an explanation of rationally contracts where incompeteness refers to unforeseen contingencies. Agents enter a relationship with two-sided moral hazard in which a commitment to discard parts of the joint resources may be ex ante efficient.

La qualification des contrats

La qualification est centrale à l'activité du juriste. Les règles de droit positif ne reçoivent application qu'au moment où les faits reçoivent une certaine qualification. Cette réalité prend une dimension particulière face au contrat, lequel est l'objet de multiples dispositions législatives. Le législateur a cru bon au fil du temps, de réglementer diverses formes contractuelles, les contrats nommés. On oppose à ceux-ci les contrats innommés, pure création extra-législative. La détermination de la nature du contrat passe par un processus de qualification indépendant de notions connexes et qui doit s'éloigner d'une méthode intuitive. La qualification du contrat passera principalement par l’analyse des obligations en vue d'identifier l'obligation fondamentale ou la prestation caractéristique du contrat. Il s'agit d'une analyse qu'on veut objective. Les parties auront peu d'influence sur la qualification qui sera ultérieurement donnée à leur contrat, celle-ci étant une question de droit en principe réservée au juge. Le juriste tentera d'abord de lier le contrat aux modèles nommés connus et prévus par le législateur, soit en lui donnant un seul nom ou en reconnaissant la nature mixte de la convention. Dans l'éventualité où ces tentatives ne sont pas concluantes, une qualification innommée devra être choisie. La distinction entre les différentes qualifications possible sera réalisée en fonction de la hiérarchie des obligations au contrat et par l'écart de celle-ci avec les modèles connus.

La politique commune des transports aériens de l'Union européenne : compétence partagée ou occupation du terrain?

L’objet de ce travail vise à déterminer si le transport aérien en Europe relève d’une compétence partagée entre l’Union européenne (UE) et les États membres, ou s’il s’agit plutôt d’une occupation du terrain par l’UE dans cette matière ? Ainsi, nous verrons en quoi consiste le cadre règlementaire communautaire portant sur le transport aérien en Europe. Dans un premier temps, nous porterons notre attention sur des aspects généraux entourant l’aviation en Europe, comme par exemple la mise en place d’un marché unique de l’aviation ainsi que les ententes « ciel ouvert ». Puis, dans un second temps nous procéderons à l’analyse du cadre règlementaire spécifique portant sur des aspects tels que l’environnement, les droits des passagers aériens, la sécurité et la sûreté.