shoulcl be present.The aim of the requirements of these conditi-ons in three cases are to establih a sufficiently close connection between the contract anci the place where the consumer is habi-tually resident to attain the applicatidon of the mandatory rules of that place to the contract.
The first conclition; where, prior to the conclusion of the contract, there was advertising, or a "specific invitaiton" add-ressed to the consumer in the country where the consumer was habitually resident, and the consumer took in that country all the steps necessary on his part tor the conclusion of the cont-ract (41). In this case it is not very olear vrhether the advertise-ments must be specifically addressed to the consun'ler in the country of his habitual residence in the sense that the supplier must have intended to advertise to consumers in that country.
According to the report such an intention is necessary since the condition is intended to cover mail order and doorstep sel'-ling (42).
According to Lasok ancl Stone this view might be thought to be unduly nalrow in the context of some methods and types of cross- border publication (43). Morse also points out that a supplier may intend to advertise to the "European" consumer in puUtlcations which are not specially produced for the Euro-p.un countries. A supplier mnt, because of his knowleclge of ihe publication in which he is advertising, reasonabl,v foresee th2t the advertisement will reach a consumer habitually resi-dent in a particular country and will gladly accept the commer-I cial benefit thereof although the supplier may have had no
spe-cific intention in relation to the country in question (44).
The second condition; is where the other party or his agent received the consumer's order in the country where the consu-mer is habitually resident. According to the Report "agent" "is intended to cover all persons acting on behalf of the trader"
(45). Based on this explanation it does not seem necessary that the legal raletionship of pirincipal and agent need exist. Altho-ugh this condition overlaps with the first one it is not, howeer, a complete overlaP (46).
The third condition; is limited to contracts for the sale of goocls and intended to deal with the problem of "border cros-ilng excursion selling." The example given in the Report is: a situation where a store owner in country A arranges one- day bus trips for consumers in neighbouring country B with the main purpose of inucing consumers to buy in his store (41).
When any of these conditions are met, a choice of law un-der Article 3 can not have the effect of depriving the consumer of protection of the mandatory rules of the country wherQ he is habitually resident. The choice of law will continue to govern the contract to the extent that it does not deprive the consumer of this protection.
What are the Problems?
Mandatory rules which are the concern of Article 5 are used in the definitional sense of Article 3 (3) (48). The relati-onship between Article 3 (1) and Article 5 (2) might cause dif-ficulties. As we know when there is a choice of law in the contract, that law will apply subject to Article 5 (2) and the mandatory rules of the chosen lavr will apply to the conract where those rules do not relate to the purpose of the consumer protection. But what happens if the madatory ruies of the cho-sen law that do relate to consumer protection are more protec-tive of the consumer than the law of his habitual residence? In Morse's view the law of the habitual residence defines the mi-nimum protection available but it does not necessarily define the maximum. It is not the purpose of Article 5 to prevent him
tiom gaining greater protection under the chosen iarv. Therefo-re the proper interpTherefo-retation of Article 5 (2) wor"rld enable a con-sumer to iely on the mandatory rule s of the law of his habitual residence if they are mole favoruablc to him than the chosen law, or on the chosen law if it is more favourable to him than the mandatory rules of the larv of his hirbitual residence. The s o l u t i o n i n h i i v i e w , i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f w h i c h e v e r , t l t e l a w o f habitual resiclence or the choscn lau,. that gives rlorc protecti-o n t protecti-o t h e c protecti-o n s u m e r ( 4 9 ) .
T h e c o n c e p t o f h a b i t r t u l r e s i c l c n c e i s n o t d e f i n e d i n t t t c 1 9 8 0 C o n v e n t i o n . T h e E u r o p c a n C o u r t m i g h t b r i n g a d e f i n i t i o n to prevent the problems that might conte lrom dit'fercnt irrtcrp-retitiols uncler national lirws. Obviously it constlnler can be ha-bitually resiclcnt in more than one country at the salllc tirtre itt t h a t c a s c t h i s m i g h t c a u s e m o r e c l i f f i c t r l t i e s in t l - r c a p p l i c a t i o n o l A r t i c l e 5 ( 5 0 ) .
W h e n t h e r e i s n o c h o i c e o t ' l a w i n r e l a t i o t ' t t o r \ r t i c l e 3 , t h c a p p l i c a b l e l a r v t o t h e c o n s u m e r c o n t r a c t i s t h e l a r , v o f t h e p l a c c w h e r e t h e c o n s u m e r i s h a b i t u a l l y r e s i c l e n t . T h i s c a s c i t s h o u l c l b c e n t e r n e d i n t o i n a n y o n e o f t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s o f A r t i c l e 5 ( 2 ) . W h e n . n o n e o f t h e s e c o n c l i t i o r l s a p p l y t h c a p p l i c a b l c l a u ' w i l l b e c l e i e r r n i n e d b y r e f e r a n c e t o A r t i c l e 4 ( 5 1 . t . I 1 ' t h e r c c l t r i -r e m e p t s o f A -r t i c l e 5 ( 3 ) a -r c p -r e s e n t t h e p l ' c s L l t n p t i o t t i n A r t i c l c 4 ( 2 ) d o e s n o t a p p l y .
T h e f o r m a r l v a l i d i t y o f s u c h a c o n s t u l l e r c o t r t t ' a c t ts g o v c r -n e c l b y t h e l a w o f t h e c o -n s u m c r ' s h a b i t t r a l r c s i c l e t t c c (5 2 ) . t s 1 ' virtue of Article'/ (2) the fot'um can apply its o\\'n ntanclatorl' r u l e s , i 1 a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h o s c r u l e s a r c m a n c i a t o r y ir r e s p e c t i -v e o f t h e l a w a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t ( 5 3 ) .
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
U n d e r A r t i c l e 6 s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s t o c o n s u l n e r c o n t r a c t s a p p l y . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e r n p l o y e e c a n n o t b e d e p r i v c d o f t h e [ ) r o -t e C -t i o n a f f o r d e c -t b y -t h e n r a n d a -t o r y p r o v i s i o n s o f -t h e c o -t -t n -t r y w h e r e s h e o r h e h a b i t u a l l y c a t r r i e s o u t h i s o r h e r w o r k ( 5 4 ) . U n d e r A r t i c l e 6 ( 2 ) , i n t h e a b s e n c e o l ' c h o i c e , e l c o t t t r a c t o f c n r p -l o y m e n t i s g o v e r n e d b y t h e -l a -l v o f t h e c o u n t -l ' \ ' r v i t i r u . ' -l r i c h it i s m o s t c l o s e l y c o n n e c t c c l . W h e n l h e s c t w o p r o v i s i o n s c o t t s i c l c r c c i t o g e t t r e r it b e c o m e s c l e a r t h a t t h e v c l e s i g n e c l t o g i v c t h e e n r p l o -y e l t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e n r a n c l a t o r -y ru l e s o l ' t l r c s \ ' . s t e m i n c l i c a -tect by the latter provision despite the choice of iarv.
T h e m a n t a t o r y r u l e s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f e m p l o y r n e n t c o n t -racts are similar to those under A.rticle 3 (3) which cannot be derogated from by contract (55). Once the mandatory protecti-u. piouisions have been identifiecl, they may not provide tnttch p r o t e c t i o n a f l e r a l l . G e n e r a l l y e m p l o y m e n t p r o t c c t i o n l e g i s l a t i -b n a p p l i e s o n l y i f t h e r e l e v a n t e r n p l o y r n e n t i s i n t h e e n a c t i n g r o u n t i y , w h a t e v e r l a w m a y b e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e m p l o y t n e n t contract. Therefore uncier s. 141 (2) of the Employnrent Protec-t i o n ( C o n s o l i c l a Protec-t i o n ) A c Protec-t 1 9 J 8 . p r o Protec-t e c Protec-t i o n a s Protec-t o u n f a i r d i s m i s s a l would nor be applicable where the employee ordinarily rvorked outsicle the U.K.
The relationship between the chosen law and Article 6
If the chosen law gives nlore protection than the law appli-cable in the absence of choice, it is suggested here that the cho-sen law would apply. If the employee receives more protection under the chosen law he or she would not seem to be deprived of the protection of the mandatory rules of the applicable law in the absence of choice (56). If we compare this situation with the protection of consumers in that catse it is not possible to find an implicit solution in the Report (57).
S,\)-F '\:470
AITGTJl}IEi\TIJ]TI
W h a t w o u l d b e l h e situation if the manclatory rules of the chosen larv and those of the law which would apply in the ab-sence of choice are not in direct conflict but provide different rights and remedies in the same situation? Mor,,re argues that A r t i c l e 6 ( I ) states that the choicc of law shall not have the ef-fect of clcpriving the employee of the protection of the manda-t o r y r u l e s o f manda-t h l a w a 1 ; p l i c a b l e in manda-the absence of choice bumanda-t imanda-t does nclt say that the employee cannot also have the protection o f t h e m a n d a t o r y r u l e s o f thc chosen law. I{is view in this case i s s i m i l a r t o h i s v i e w o n the consumer protection; in both cases h e i s i n f a v o u r o f a p p l y i n g the law'most favourable (58).
W h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Article 6 ( I ) i r r r d A r t i c l e 7 ( 2 ) , b y v i r t u e of the staternent in Article 7 (2) where the lorum is England, the forum can apply English rnan-rlatory rules providecl that they apply irrespective of thc larv a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t . W h e r e English law woulcl bc thc a p p l i c a b l e l a w i n t h e a b s e n c c of choice, English manclatory, r u -l e s w i -l -l a p n -l y b y v i r t u e o f A r t i c -l e 6 ( -l ) ( 5 9 ) .
A r t i c l c 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) a t t c i ( b ) p r o v i d e p r e s u m p t i o n s a s t o t f u e a p p l i c a b l e l a r . r , . u ' h i c h c a u be disprovecl if it appcars f}om thc c i r c t t n r s t a n c c s a s a w ' h o l e t h a t l h c c o n t r a c t i s n t o r c c l o s e l y , c c t l n e c t c c l u ' i t h a n o t h e r c o u n t r v . I n t h a t c a s e t h a t o t h e r c o -u n l r \ / ' s l a \ r ' n , i l l a p p i l ' . A r t i c l c 6 (2) (a) clcals only, ',vith tlrc sitr-r-a t i t : n t v l t c r e t h e e m p l o y e c h sitr-r-a b i t u sitr-r-a l i y c sitr-r-a r r i e s o u t h i . / h r i r ' " ' n i . t i t ' t o t t c c o u n t r y o n l y . W h c n l h e w o r k i s l r a t r i t u r l l r r r i i r ii . , i r , u l i t r m c r c t l t a n o n e c o L t n t r v . A r t i c l c 6 Q ) u p p i i r : s . f h c p r u b l c n r i n t l r i s c a s e w o L l l d b e . \ ' , ' l r e r e the ernployee hatlitually carries O u t h i s l r e r w o r k i n o n e c o u n l r r , . but then is transfemecl t o a n o t -her c'ottntry u'-here he/.shc is habitually to carry out hisAer rvork u n c l e r t. h e c o n t r a c t . a t r v h i c h p o i n t a clispute arises, the rcsoluti-o n rcsoluti-o f r v h i c h r e c l u i r e s c t r e t e r r n i n a t i o n o f ' t h e a p p l i c a b l c l a w ? I t r . r , o u l c l s c e m l i k e l y r h a r A r r i c l e 6 ( 2 ) ( b ) to bc appiied in rhis sit u a sit i o n ( 6 0 ) . A r sit i c l e 6 ( 2 ) ( l r ) u , i l l a p p l y i f ' sit h e w o r k i s h a b i sit u -a l l y c -a r r i e c l o u t i t r t u , o o r m o r c c'ountrics or if thc enrployee c a r r i e s o u t . h a b i t u a l l r . t n i - i r ) l, : r r t r - u l l i r c o L l n t r y a t a l l , o r i f h e / s h e h n L r i t u i t l l . ' ' c . r r r i l s i t t l r r l i r r l i n l ; 1 ; r . u ' h i c l i i s r r o l a c o u n t r \ ' , f o r e x a r n p l e o n a s h i r r n r r r i l n s i ( j l ) . I i n c l e r th e s c c i r -c u t n s t a t ) -c e s t h e l a r v o 1 - t h L l c o u l l t l - - \ , ' i n n ' h i c h t h c p l a c e o l ' b u s i -n c s t h l ' o u s h w h r c h h . / s h e r . r ' i t s o n t a g e ( l i s s i t u a l e c l lv i l l b c t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a r v .
Itt Sa.'r,er'.t l). Interttcttiorrul Dt'illirrg Contprtrr.t'(62) thc pla-i n t pla-i f f w a s a n E n g l pla-i s h o pla-i l r pla-i g r v o r k e r crnployecl by a Dutch opla-il c l r i l l i r t g c o m p a n y t o w o r k o n a r i g ol'f thc coast of Nigeria. The C o u r t o f A p p e a i h e l d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t of ernploylnct.lt was go-verned by Dutch law and therefore the Law Re form (Personal I n j u r i e s ) A c t 1 9 4 8 , s e c t i o n t ( 3 ) d i c l n o t a p p l y . W o u l c l t h i s c l e c i -s i o n h a v e b e e n d e c i d e d i n a d i l f e r e n t w a y u n c l e r t h e 1 9 8 0 C o n c v e n t i o n ? T h e r e s u l t w o u l d havc been the sarne as English l a w w a s n e i t h e r t h e p r o p e r l a w nor was E,ngland the place in w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f c o u l d be said habitually ro camy out his work. (63)
O R D R E P U B L I C
Another restriction on the scope of the proper law can be found in Article 16. This article provides that the application of a rule of the law of any country specified by the Convention may be refused only if such application is manilestly incompa-tible with the public policy (ordre public) of rhe forum. The Inclusion of the word "manifestly" emphasizes that the rule is t o b e a p p l i e d i n v e r y s p e c i a l c a s e s only, i.e.where the applica-tion of a foreign rule-not the rule itself-would violate the pub-lic: policy of the torum. It has been also stated in the Report tlrat the public policy of the forurz includes Community public
p o l i c y . w h i c h ha,s becone an intcgral part of the Mernber Sta-t e s o f Sta-t h e E E C . ( 6 4 1 IllegaliSta-ty also mighSta-t be clealr ',viSta-th by Sta-the c o u r t r e f u s i n g t o apply rules "nlanifestly incompatible with p u b l i c p o l i c y . "
Under the principles that have becn examined the courts by not re.specting the appiicable law can apply the mandatory ru-le s of the law rvith which the contract is in reality connected, apply fhe merndatory rules of the forum or disaply any rules of t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w w h i c h conflicr rvith rhe public policy of the l o r u m ( 6 5 ) .
C O N C L U S I O N
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e 1 9 8 0 C o n v e n t i o n i s b e i n g the first i n s t r t t t t t e n f o n c h o i c e o f ' l a w rules of thc Member States. Uncler A r t i c l e 3 " t h c p a r t i c s to a contract are free to choose which co-u n t r y ' s I a w s h a l l sor,'crn it." Bco-ut the lreeclonr of parties has be-e n r be-e s l t ' i c t c c l t t t t c l e r A r t i c l c 7 ( l ) rvhich leacls to a lot of uncerta-i r r t v uncerta-i n p r a c l uncerta-i c c . T h c r c l ' o r c thc nrauncerta-in objcctuncerta-ive of the 1980 Con-v e n t i o n . h r i r r g i n g unilbrrrritCon-v r.,u'hich r v o u l c l p r e v e n t t h e inequity l i r a t r c s l l l t s i ' i , ' t ! t - l " l o n r n l shopiltq", has bcen clistortecl. I f A i f f e -r e n t c o t l l l l t ' i 6 " ' ; L r r e .\ t ' t i c l t - ' 7 t l r c p o s s i b i l i t y of forum shopping r r i ' i : r , : . \ ii u l t l l r e l r i g h . S o n r c ] \ , ! c r n b c r . S t a t c s s u c h a s U . K . a u o -i t -i -i l r -i : . ' r l i r n ! : c r b y , n o t e i v i n g f o r c e t o t h e s e c o r n p l e x r u l e u n d e r , . \ r t i c l c 7 r I ) .
A r l i c l c . 5 ; r n d 6 a p p l y o r r l y t o c e r t a i n c o n s u m e r s a n d
emplo-\ 1 e c s b r r t n o t t o o t h e r g r o u p s o f w e a k parties. F'or other groups ol' r,l,eak parties Al'ticle 7 ntight be used to givc cffect to laws p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e g r o u p s . But this Article also cloes not provicle art aclcquately safe basis for protecting the weak parties. One of the problems under Articles 5 and 6 rvere about giving effect to thc system rvhich protects the weak party nlore, rvhen we con-sider thc -eoal of those Articles this view seem to be acceptable.
Similarly' the exclusion of tire provisions of Article 7 rn.nnsu-nle r and employment contracts can be supportecl in view of the a i m o f t h e A r t i c l e 5 a n d 6.
(l ) one can see this objectit,e v,ith looking at the pre-aniltle of it v,hich sdy.s "tt,ishing to estublish t)-niform iules con('erniryq^the lau, applicable to c'ontractua| obtigations,"
(2 )EC Convention on The Law, Appliccrbte-io Contractu-a l o b l i g c t t i o n s ( R o m e 1 9 8 0 ) , oJ (t980) Lzoot I. Ar-ricte l(t ).
(3) In the absence of an _express choice, tlrc cltoicle fttalt be inrlicated Ji'om the teritrs o.f tlie c'orttt'ect or tlte cit'cumstal-t:es ot'thc cuse, providecl tltat this is c!entortstrate.cl w,ith reaso-rruble c'e rtaintv .
(4) withi.n the Grott\t, Ihere y,erc tn,o lines of orgument,.
one group oJ experts v,onterl to limit tlre por-ties fi-eeclom oJ cltoice crncl use it u.t u c'rtrrec'ting fur;tot' iri the sin;ations that rlo rtot involve
.another frtrcign element as the choice of a fore-ign lavv vt't;ulcl be unsufJ'icient in those situutions. The other gt'ottp's concern vlcts that u,hen the par-ties' choic:e appearec) justifiecl, rnade in good faith, qncl capable of sert'ing interets worthv of pruttection, .guch a correciing faCrcr n,orid be too great attrl obstacl_e. They also stressecl- ihat clepartures f,.om t.he pirinciple of the treaties'freeclom of choice shoutct bi aut-horizecl only in exceptional circunrstaices. (The Guiliano ancl Lagaryle Report on the Rorne Conventiort, oj tIgs7l C2g2lI.
( T h e Reporr), p. I8.) (s ) ihid .
(6) MERKIN; "Editoriel", (1991)Moy, .Iotu'nal of Busi-n e s s L e v , , p p . 2 l 3 _ 2 1 4 .
(7) Article 3(3).
(8) HARTLEY; "Beyond R e v , p . 2 3 8
(9 ) ibid.
the Proper Lerv", (1979) 4 EL
(10) In this case the court must deterntine whether, opat-t
ARGUIlTEi\TUM
fi.om the choice of lev,, all the other elements relevurtt to the
"sitttcttion
are connected v;ith one couhtry only-. If a c-'rtttt't w'ere t o b e s e i z e d u ' i t h a c ' a s e in v o l t , i n g a s i t u a t i o n w ' h c r e q l l elc-ments y)ere ConneL'terl v'ith a Jbreign ctsttt'ttt'y, and w'here the parties hacl not themselt'c,s mocle a c:hoi.ce of l..rr\', the cour'l
rut-^cler
Artic'le 4 undoubteclly aPPlt- the luv'rt thut.f'oreigrt co' untry, ntondatory or ttot.-
(l t ) FLETCHER; Conflict of Lavt's anrJ Eurrtpcan Com-m t t n i t v L c t w , 1 9 8 2 , p . l 7 l .
(12) N^'ORTH; (ed), Contract ConJ'licts, The EEC Conven-tion On The Law, Applic'able To Contractuul Obligatiotts, l 9 8 2 , p . 9 4 , 9 6
0 3) MORSE; ""Cotttrcrcts OJ Employntent Ancl The EEC C o r t t r a c t u a l O b t i g a t i o r t s C o n v e n t i o t " t " , i n l i t t r t h ( e d ) , 1 9 8 2 , p , 1 2 4
- (14) Council Direc:tive of 25 .luly 1985 on the upproxim1' ticsrt of the lav,s of the Mentlter States conL'erning liabilitl- for deJ'ective proclucts, O..1. 1985 I- 2I0129.
"
M a i d a t o r \ t p r o t , i s i o n s g o t , e r n i n g t h e c ' o r t t r t t t : t s t v i r h t h e sclf-emplol:sd commercial agent have been enocte(l in tt Court' c : i [ D t r i r : t i t , e o f l B D e c e r n b e r ] 9 6 8 , O . . 1 . 1 9 8 6 L 3 8 2 1 1 7 .
( t 5 ) LAI{DO; "The EEC Cont'entiort On Tlte Luu' t'\ppli-c ' a b l e T o C o n t r a t'\ppli-c t u a l O b l i g t t i ( t t t s " , ( 1 9 8 7 ) 2 4 C I V I [ ' I l e v , 7 t ' l B t 1 8 2 ; T w o e x a n t p l e s lt a t ' e b e e r t g i v e n h e r e : u n I t u l i u n s c l -lcr-ctncl u Gerntan bu1,er o"l'goocls u,ill not be permitterl trt (tt''()i d A r t (tt''()i c l e l 2 o f t h e D (tt''()i r e c t (tt''()i t , e 2 5 , l u l t , l 9 E 5 u n d a B r (tt''()i t (tt''()i s h l t r (tt''()i t r -t'i1tal unrl his Frenc'h agent v,ill not lte uble Io ut'rtiil tltc nl(Itt-rlatory pt'ot'isions oftltc otlter Directit'c l^' Q D(it't)' r'r'.|'t'rttrt{'c t o t h ; i c t w ' o f a n o t t - n r e m b e r S t u t r ' . ( S c e l t o t ( i i c t b t t i ' t ) . 5 r r w , h e n c r c , t , t i r a c t i . s ( ' o n n e ( ' t e t l v ' i t h t h e E , C c o u n t t ' i e . s r t n l . t ' t l t c parties' choice af lav, shull not prej,urlice the nrurrtuilorl rules
o.f EC lau,. Frorn thc poirtt of EC tlresT' 1)(,)ntt'crr't.s (tt'( .\(t'tt us oi'Er,'upeon Layv, pp. 146- 147. Accorrling trt Lundo, howerer, tintil ricentl.v the courts oJ'the Civil Lun' c'rtturtries shovt'ed u persistent state egoisnt in their applic'utiort ot''public' luu' t'ttlcs.
^Dentostic
luw rules were upplied artcl .f'orcigrt rrrlc.s rver(' reJit-secl applicatiort irrespectit'e of v,here the crtrttt'uct 11'r/.t loculi-secl. Ai'ticte 7(l) reflec'ts u c'hunge o-f ottitude trtvvrtrtls foreigrt public policy.
^
( i 7 ) T h e R e p o r t ; p . 2 8 . T h e R e p t t t ' t e - \ p t ' e s s b ' r e f e r s t o d i -rectl,v applicable rules sruclr us nrles on curtels, competitiott ancl i'esi,:ittit,e Isractic'es, cotlsutner proteclion ctncl c'ertctitt t'tt-les cortcerning curriage.
( I B) LAIVDO ; I987 , p. 247 . ( l 9 ) The Report, 7t. 27 .
(20) MERKII{ ; I991 , p. 214.
(21)Acc'orcling to the Report" .... it is essential thcrt there
be a genuine connectiort w,ith the other crtuntry ancl.thctt Q nrc-rely iague connection is adequute. For example,.there w'ttulcl be-a geiruine coLtnection v,hen the cortratct is to be pefornted in that other cotuttry or v,hen one party is resiclent or has ltis main place of busit?ess in that other country; just a conttection e x i s t i i t g h e f w e e n t h e i s s u e in d i s p u t e a n c l t h e l a w ' o f s u c h a c o -untry is not enough. " (The Report, p. 27).
(22 ) ibid,
( 2 3 ) M O R S E : 1 9 8 2 , p . 1 4 6 , N O R T I I ; 1 9 8 2 , p p . 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 . (24) .1980 Rome Convention; Atlicle 22 (I )
(251 IIARTLEY; "Beyond The Proper Law"', (1979) 4 EL Rev, pp 237- 238. His conclusions in relation to the case law' in lqSZ are: a) in general the courts have paid little intention to the lsw chosen by the parties in the contracts of this kind, b) those provisictns of legislation that they look ut relat.ing to tlle creating of the contitact hatte genarally been he!d to apply
y , h A f ' C th e C f l n t f U ( t 1 , 1 ' ( / . t t : n { a r C t l t n t i t i t t l i ' , . ' , , ) ! ! t . , ' r ' \ ( , t t t ( ' ( ' ' t ' t t r ' t l '
(27) rls q ri,sult ot''thi.r rlc.f'initiotr tlte itttt'ttdttl I/.r(' rt.f tltt' g o o r l s o r s g t ' t ' i t ' c s b t , t ' ( ) m e s i m p r t r t u r t l ; .fltr (.Yilt)Il)la i I u l r t v ' \ ' t ' t '
(34) Thc neg,otirtting, gt'ottp f-ind it rli.fticult trt de.l'ittt' tt ltackug( totu' urttl "r;on.firtctl it.selJ' lit tt cle.fittitirttt vrhir:lt trtttlri''
^lines
thc nruin elements ofthis t1,pc o.l'r:ortlt'crt't x'cll- krrott'rt rtrt p t ' e c t i c e , l e u t , i t t g it t o t h e t ' o u t ' t s to s o l t ' e a t t \ : p u t ' t i t ' t r l u r tl r t u l t t 'cts
to the erucl clelimitcttirtrr." (The Rtpot't ; 1t. 25 1.
( 3 5 ) T h e R e p o r r ; p . 2 5 . M O R S E , 1 9 9 2 , p , ( > .
( 3 6 ) " T h e e.rclusiott ot'' corttructs o.f currirtge is ,itr.stifiecl b t ' t h c Jar:t titut the spec'iul prote('tit'a mausut'cs.l'rtt' n ' h i c l t p t ' r t t ' i s i -ort"i.s nru/c in Article 5 ere not ultytt'rtltrictta .[ot' ,qovct'nittg t ' o t t f r u c t s o f t h i , s t t ' 1 t c . " ( T h e R e p o r t ; p . 2 1 ) .
( 3 7 ) M O R S E : 1 9 9 2 , P 5 .
( 3 8 ) " l n t h e ( e s e o f c ' o r t t r u c t s r c l t t t i r t g , t o t l t t : . \ u p p l ; ; o l s e r t ' i c ' e s v , h i c h e r e s u p l ) l i e d r ' - t r ' / t t s i l r ' / - t ' r t r r t . s i d c l l t c S t r t t e i t r v , h i c l t t h e c : o r t s u m e r i s i e s i d c t t t , t h e lu t c t ' ( Q t t t I ( ) l t' ( Q S o t t Q b l v e t -c'ept the lctu,rf his State of origin to be u1tplietl itr rlcrugcttirtrt
|i'itrrt the gtnei'al rules of Artic'les 3 crncl 4. Irr tltc cuscs
refer-" r e d
t p t l i r l c r ( h ) t h e c ' o t l t t r u c t i , s n t o r e r : l r t s e l t ' t : r t t t r t c t ' t e d v i t l t t h c S r u r t , i t t n , h i c ' h t h c o t h e r c o n t r u ( ' t i t t g lt t r r ' l t ' i s t' t ' s i d u t t , e v e r l i.f rht: luttct' hu,s pe4f'ornrctl one, of the ucts clascriberl in parQg-i:'aph 2 t ,,J i\rtic'lc 5l (aclt'ertisitr.e, J'ot'r'.rttntplc) irt tltc State itt
y t ' i r i c h t l t c t ; o n s t t t t t c t ' i s t ' t : s i d c n t . " (T h e R e p o r l ; l)p. 24- 25.) ( 3 9 ) A s g i i , c n u s ( r n e - y e n t p l e i n t h e c t r t i c l e o . f fu I o r s e , l 9 9 2 ; nnst of the tinte thc c'onsumer an'unges the t'esct'r'cttirttt lr)'tr-l e p h o i r e o r t e lr)'tr-l e f a x J't'ont his ot'her c:iioutttt'\, o J ' h u b i t u a l r e s i -tlence and has to puy u cleposit irt nclvunc'c.
( 4 0 ) A r t i c ' l e 5 ( 2 ) p r o t , i c l e s th a t " u t ' h o i c e r t J ' l a v ' m c t c l c b 7 ' the porties shall not hat,e the result o.f rcleytrit'irtg the consu-, r r r consu-, l o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r c l e d t o h i n t b t ' t h e n r u n d u t o r ' 1 ' 7 ' v l g r of the lctrv Af the couil;i in u,hich he hcis his hcrbitunl resitlen' c ' e " in a n y 0 f t h r e e e c Q s e s .
g I j A-tI the steps necessary o,t his part for the conclusi-on of the cconclusi-ontract; these vvorcls vvere odctptecl to "avoicl tlte clas,sic problent o.f cleterntining thc plctcc, v,ltcre the corttrctc't vves conclucle(l." (the Report; p 24.).
( 4 2 ) I n t h e s a m e p a r t o f t h e R e p o t ' t i r i s s u i t l t l t u t ; " t h u s the truder ntust hut,e clone c'ertuirt ucts sttch as aclvertisirtg irt
SAYF''A: 472
ARGTJNTEI\TUIVIthe pres.s, or on radio or televisiott, or in the cinenta or b7, catulog,ues ainted specific'ally at that c'ountry, or he must have rncrrle business proposals indit,idiully tlvough a rniddletnan or b7, canvassing. If, for exantple, e Germon mukes u c'ontruct irt respot?se to an ady,ertisentent Ttublished by u Frenc'h compony in a Germart publication, the contruc'r is gouerned by the spe-cial rule. If, on the other hund, the Get'tn(tn replies to an ad-vertisetnent in Anteric:crn publicatiotts, cyen tf thcy ure sold itt Gerrnarty, the rule cloes not upplv- unless the udvertisement up-pearecl in speciol eclitiorts of the publiccrtiort intenclecl frtr Eu-ropean c'ountries, In the latter case the seller v,ill hut'e mude a special ctclvertisentent intenclecl .f'or the countt'1t oJ'the purcha-ser." (7-he Report; p.24 ).
(43 ) LASOK ancl STOlllE; Con.flict Of Luv,s In The Euro-p e e n C o m m u n i t y , 1 9 8 7 , Euro-p . 3 8 3 .
(14 ) MORSE; 1992 , p. 7 . (45 ,) The Report; p. 24.
(46) ils conclitiort lt+,o "upplies in sitttrttiorts v'here the L'onsutne,r hqrl acldressecl ltintseff'tct the stttnd of a.foreign /'irnt ut a fair or exltihitiort taking plac'e in the consunter's couiltr'yt or' trt o perltlencnt brarrclt or egenc\t oj-a forcign J'irm establis-hecl in tlte consumer's r:ountrr e.ve tt thotr,gh the ,foreign firnt l r u s t t o [ t t c l v e r t i s e c l it t t i t c t ' o t t s u m e r ' s c o t t n t r ) , i t t o r r , o y cove-r c d " ( T h c R c p o t ' t ; p . 2 4 ) b v - L ' o n ( l i t i o cove-r t o n e .
(47 1 Tlte Repzrt : p. 2,1 .
( 4 8 ) i . e . u r e r u l e s r;f the lr"tu,oj'thut (ountry v,hich r:un ttot be clerogutccl fi"om by contruct.
149 ) For detailed dicussion o.f this view see; I,IORSE;
1 9 8 2 , p p . 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 , 1 9 9 2 , p p . B - 9 ( 5 0 ) M O R S E ; 1 9 9 2 , p . 9 .
(5 I ) See MOR.SE,' I992 , p. I9 , rtctre. 42.
(52) Article 9 (5) provicles thut the frtrmul vuliditl, nY such u (:onsttnter c'otttrucl is goy ernecl by y1r, luvt' of the t:ottsuftter's habiturtl resirlence.
( 5 3 1 T h e y ckt not ncL'ess(trilt rclctte lo c:onsurner p r o t e c t i -ott, itt r:ottlt'rt.st to tlte msttdtttot't, t'ules n,hose uppliccttiort is se-c r t r e t l b y A r t i r : l e 5 . L A S O K u n t l S T O N E ; 1 9 8 7 , p p . - 3 8 3 - 3 8 4 , srr,ggrs/s thut the Cont,ention a.\ e v,holc ,r'tr,ti lru taken to imply that u consumer r'rtrtlt'rtct w'irltirt the sc'ope ctf Article 5 is exc:ludecl from Artirle 7.
(54) Article 6 (l ) prot'itles that "Ftottttithstancling the pro-uisions oJ' Artic'le 3, in a controc't ,r,l' r:nrployment u choic'e oJ lau' ntude by the parties shcrll not huve the restdt oJ'tlepriving the employee ofthe protection a.flrtrtlecl to him b),the rnancla-tor'7t rules of tlie law,v,ltich v+,ottlcl be uppliccrble uncler pero,g-roplr 2 in the absence ofc'hoice."
(55) Accorclin to the Report, p.25; these nmnclatrtry rules
4. Jtiri, geEerli bir nedcne dayanmaksrztn iqtirak etmeyen sanrfrn yoklugunda cla y'argrlirmaya clevam eder.
5. Sekreterlik gorevini Bagkanln saptadrfr itirinin bir iiyesi gergekleqtirir ve htiktirn jririsinde yer alrnaya devam eder.
madde 92
(Yargr lamanl n gerEekle gtirilmesi)
1. Yargrlama igin belirlenen tarihten iig gtin oncesini geg-memek izere, soruqturrnacl veya sanrk gafinlmalannr istedikle-ri tanrk listeleistedikle-riyle birlikte toplanmalannr istedikleistedikle-ri delil liste-sini yargrlamayr iistlenen makama vermek zorundadrrlar. Jtirj
(*) Bu metnin ilk boliimii Ekim saymtzda yaytnlannustr.
(**) R. Ytlmaz YAZICIOGLU; M.U. Hukuk Fakiiltesi Ceza t,e Ceza Usul Hukuku Anabilim Dalt Ogretim Elemanrdu'.
"consist nrtt qnly oi the provisiorts relating to the. crtrttrac,t oJ employment itself, but also provisiorts such us those concening industrial safety ancl hygiene v,hich ere regarded in ce r-tain Member States as be:ing provision.r of public lav,."
(561 This solution is intplic'it itt T'he Report, p. 25: "if the lav, upplicable pursuunt to pot'ct groph 2 grunis etnplovees prote(tirtn v,hich is gereater than thut resulting fi-ont the law c'hose.n h),the parties, tlte result is nrtt thut the r:hoic.e of this l o v , b e t : o n t e s c o m p l e t e l y v , i t h o u t e.f.fect. O n t h a c o f i t r a | 1 t , i t r this cctsc the lcw vvhich vvas cho.sen c'orttirtues in prirtcipte to be upplicable,"
( 57 1 See; supra nzte . 52 . ( 5 8 ) M O R S E ; 1 9 9 2 , p p . l 5 - 1 6 .
(59) In a case concerning on enry)loynrcnt corttrctct v,hiclt c o n t ( t i n i ' , c c h o i c ' e o J ' t h e l u w ' o f cout'ttry X but the lav,appli-cable tct u,hic:h, in the ctbsence of cfutit'e, \'otrlrl be counfi.r7 y.
IIere tlte cout't sltoulrl appl:, vt,hit:hever c'orut[t'\,'s leyr is ntore f ' u v o u t ' c t h l e i n r e h a t i o t t t o n t u n d u t o t ' y r t r l e s . S c c ; M O R S E ; 1 9 9 2 , p p . l 6 - l 7 r t n d o l s o t . A S o K u r t c l s r o l v E ; 1 9 8 7 , 1 t . 3 8 5 , v'here it ,suggested thut the cxlt(ut,\rit,t, churat'ter of Ai'ticte 6 implecllt' c.rt'lttcles tlte upplir:utirtrr of Articlc 7 to r:otttrac.ts oJ entplovrttent e-ycept irr rcluliorttrt tltc isstte o.f'Jrtrnrul valiclitt',
-( 6 0 ) F r t r t h e - tli,st'ussiort rl- tltis lsrol.tlem ,\ec: MoRSE;
1 9 9 2 , p ! ) . 1 7 - l 8 . ( 6 I 1 T l r c R e p o r t ; 1 t , 2 6 . ( 6 2 ; { 1 9 7 t J t . W . r . . R . 1 t 7 6 .
(63 ) The fac't tlrut thc Dutc'h enrplctS,gl.s w,ere engaging entplrtt:ec.s oJ' various rtcrlionalities in diJJ'erent purts-of the tvorld to v'ork to,qether - 'as sctid to he qn indicitor thit the r:ontrctct hatl c'losest cincl most reel c'onnec:liort tt,ith Dutch luw.
F-or qn snalysis of this csse in the ligltt of Article 6 (2), see t u I O R S E ; 1 9 8 2 , p p . 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 , 1 9 9 2 , p p . I g - 2 0 , C O L L I | I S ; I 9 7 6 , p . 5 5 .
( 6 4 ) T h e R e p o r t ; p . 3 8 .
( 6 5 ) 1 4 L R K I l { ; l99l , p. 214. AIso th'ticle 9 (6) brings a restric'tiort v'hich applies v,hether the applicuble law, is chosen hy the, pcrrties or applies us a result of an objectitte choice oJ luv'. It upplies to c:orttt'ncts the subject mcttter oJ'which is a
( 6 5 ) 1 4 L R K I l { ; l99l , p. 214. AIso th'ticle 9 (6) brings a restric'tiort v'hich applies v,hether the applicuble law, is chosen hy the, pcrrties or applies us a result of an objectitte choice oJ luv'. It upplies to c:orttt'ncts the subject mcttter oJ'which is a