Brussels, 16/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission has adopted an amended draft regulation on “Rome II”, the law applicable on non-contractual obligations (see EUROPE 8510) to ensure that courts in all Member States apply the same law in cross-border disputes relating t non-contractual obligations, thereby allowing mutual recognition of legal decisions in the EU. This proposal, which is of importance to every European citizen and company, is essential to the completion of a European justice zone, because the resolution of a dispute no longer depends solely on the Member State to whose courts the case has been referred, declared Commissioner Franco Frattini.
The new text modifies the original proposal adopted by the Commission in 2003, in the light of amendments proposed in July 2005 by the European Parliament following the first reading (see EUROPE 8987), while taking account of the outcome of the work of the Council. The modified proposal includes, for example, Parliament's requests to retain agreements on the choice of law to apply, concluded within the framework of relations between companies before the appearance of non-contractual obligations. As announced in EUROPE 9124, the European Commission also decided to propose the removal of invasion of privacy and personality rights (Article 6 of the original proposal) from the scope of the draft regulation. This article, one of the most controversial of the original draft proposal, allowed for the harmonisation of European legislation on defamation by the press. “We are not happy with this exclusion, because it allows legal uncertainty, especially with regard to victims of defamation,” said Friso Roscam Abbing, spokesperson for the Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner. To justify the Commission's choice, Mr Roscam Abbing explained that such a removal aimed at ensuring that agreement is reached on the text as a whole, since several thousand people were involved in cross-border disputes every year. Several countries, including France, Sweden and the United Kingdom (see EUROPE 9129) have looked favourably on the total exclusion of this question from the scope of the regulation. Others, like Austria, took the opposite view. “It would seem logical that the Council follow the proposal of the Commission,” said a source, who pointed out that Ministers had, of course, the opportunity to re-introduce the Article on defamation. According to the same source, it may be that some MEPs will want to add an amendment on this point.
The Commission has also decided not to exclude from the directive, the law applicable for damage to third parties in a traffic accident, given the great reluctance of some members of the Council. Five years after the regulation came into force, the Commission will submit to the European Parliament, Council and Economic and Social Committee a report examining among other things whether it would be opportune to bring in specific Community legislation on the law applicable in traffic accidents. On this point, MEPs considered that in cases of physical injury caused by an accident, the law to be applied should be the law of the country of residence of the victim, unless this was prejudicial to the victim.
On 21 February, Commissioner Franco Frattini will present the new draft proposal to the Justice and Home Affairs Council.