Einde inhoudsopgave
Draft Common Frame of Reference
64 Improving the acquis: developing a coherent terminology
Geldend
Geldend vanaf 01-01-2009
- Redactionele toelichting
De dag van de datum van afkondiging is gezet op 01. De datum van inwerkingtreding is de datum van afkondiging.
- Bronpublicatie:
01-01-2009, Internet 2009, ec.europa.eu (uitgifte: 01-01-2009, kamerstukken/regelingnummer: -)
- Inwerkingtreding
01-01-2009
- Bronpublicatie inwerkingtreding:
01-01-2009, Internet 2009, ec.europa.eu (uitgifte: 01-01-2009, kamerstukken/regelingnummer: -)
- Vakgebied(en)
Civiel recht algemeen (V)
EU-recht / Bijzondere onderwerpen
Internationaal privaatrecht / Algemeen
Directives frequently employ legal terminology and concepts which they do not define.46. The classic example, seemingly referred to in the Commission's papers, is the Simone Leitner case,47. but there are many others. A CFR which provides definitions of these legal terms and concepts would be useful for questions of interpretation of this kind, particularly if it were adopted by the European institutions — for example, as a guide for legislative drafting.48. It would be presumed that the word or concept contained in a Directive was used in the sense in which it is used in the CFR unless the Directive stated otherwise.49. National legislators seeking to implement the Directive, and national courts faced with interpreting the implementing legislation, would be able to consult the CFR to see what was meant. Moreover, if comparative notes on the Articles are included, as they will be in the full version of the DCFR, the notes will often provide useful background information on how national laws currently deal with the relevant questions.
Voetnoten
In the CFR workshops on the consumer acquis, texts providing definitions of concepts used or pre-supposed in the EU acquis were referred to as ‘directly relevant’ material. See Second Progress Report on the Common Frame of Reference, COM (2007) 447 final, p. 2.
Case C-168/00 Simone Leitner v TUI Deutschland [2002] ECR 1-2631. The ECJ had to decide whether the damages to which a consumer was entitled under the provisions of the Package Travel Directive must include compensation for non-economic loss suffered when the holiday was not as promised. This head of damages is recognised by many national laws, but was not recognised by Austrian law. The ECJ held that ‘damage’ in the Directive must be given an autonomous, ‘European’ legal meaning — and in this context ‘damage’ is to be interpreted as including non-economic loss.
In the absence of any formal arrangement, legislators could achieve much the same result for individual legislative measures by stating in the recitals that the measure should be interpreted in accordance with the CFR.
We note that the draft Directive on consumer rights (fn. 44 above) at present often adopts the words of the existing Directives, even where these are known not to be very clear. We hope that before the Directive is adopted, its drafting will be checked against the DCFR and brought into line with it, save where a different outcome is intended.