Rafael Garcia Perez

Article 12 of the Rome II Regulation governs the non-contractual obligations arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract and establishes that the law applicable to these obligations shall be the law that applies to the contract. Where it is not possible to determine such law, the second paragraph of article 12 specifies the general connecting factors of Rome II Regulation. Moreover, it is possible to choose the law applicable in culpa in contrahendo issues. These solutions are nonetheless not problem-free. It seems not quite appropriate that the law applicable to a future contract may govern the specific obligation not to breach negotiations from a given point in time and that parties cannot rely on the law of the country in which any of them have their habitual residence in order to uphold the possibility of breaching negotiations without being held liable. It is neither appropriate that the law applicable to a future contract might govern the liability arising from negotiations which take place in the setting of a concluded agreement. This article explores those problems as well as the difficulties posed by the demarcation between contractual and non-contractual liability in culpa in contrahendo cases, and advocates alternative regulatory proposals.

Las órdenes europeas de detención y entrega emitidas por los tribunales españoles con relación a los implicados en el intento de derogación de la Constitución en Cataluña en el año 2017 han supuesto una prueba para el instrumento. En este trabajo se analizan las razones por las que en los distintos países que han conocido del caso (Bélgica, Alemania, Reino Unido e Italia) no han sido ejecutadas, mostrando de esta forma en qué errores han incurrido las autoridades de estos países y cómo influyen estos errores en el deterioro de la confianza mutua entre los Estados miembros de la UE.