1. See Compte-rendu des séances de travail, Ch. IV, Problématique de la preuve et de l’accès au droit étranger ; the 2010 Report appears in Annex IV of the Compte-rendu (accessible at http://www.gedip-egpil.eu/reunionstravail/gedipreunions- 20-fr.htm).

2. We have benefitted from comments made by Michael Bogdan and Marc Fallon on an earlier version of this note.

3. See C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, G. Palao (eds.), Application of Foreign Law (Munich: Sellier, 2011), xxxiv + 409 pp.

4. 4 Foreign law and its perspectives for the future at the European level, Synthesis Report with Recommendations,
81 pp.

5. See Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the (2011) Council, accessible at
http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_concl2011e.pdf .

6.6 As Dickinson in The Rome II Regulation (2009, 14.57) notes, however, Art. 1(3) does not designate the lex fori as
applicable to evidence and procedure, but leaves the matter to national private international law.

7. Emphasis added.

8. See on the significance of this step in particular for international tort litigation from an “Anglo-Common Law perspective”, E. Schoeman, “Rome II and the substance-procedure dichotomy: crossing the Rubicon”, in [2010] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, vol 81, pp 81-94,

9. Cf. the detailed analysis in Dickinson, op. cit. 14.57. Of course, at this point, in the absence of case law by the ECJ, the contours of these autonomous notions remain to be determined.

10. Effective 1 July 2012.

11. H. Duintjer Tebbens, “New Impulses for the Ascertainment of Foreign Law in Civil Proceedings: A question of (inter)networking”, in K. Boele-Woelki, T. Einhorn. D. Girsberger and S. Symeonides (eds.), Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law – Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr (Eleven Schulthess, The Hague, 2010), pp. 636- 652, in particular Ch. 5, “The Treatment of Foreign Law in the European Union”.

12. ECJ, 14 December 1995, C-430/93 and C-431/93, [1995] ECR I-4705, and cf. ECJ, 14 December 1995, Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & CIE SCS v. Belgique, C-312/93[1995] ECR I-4599. See also Joined Cases C 222/05 -225/05, J. van der Weerd and Others v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, ECJ 7 June 2007, [2007] ECR I- 4233.

13. See M. Bobek, “Why There is No Principle of ‘Procedural Autonomy’ of the Member States”, in B. de Witte and H. Micklitz (eds.), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2011)

14. The 1992 Osnabrück Colloquium on the Outlook for PIL held shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, had already demonstrated the remarkable ideological resistance of PIL traditions in Eastern Europe under Soviet domination, see C. von Bar (ed.) Perspektiven des Internationalen Privatrechts nach dem Ende der Spaltung Europas (C. Heymans, Cologne, etc, 1993).

15. See with regard to consumer protection, ECJ, 27 June 2000, C-240/98 (Océano Gruppo v. Roció Murciano Quintero), on the interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC with regard to an unfair jurisdiction clause; ECJ 12 May 2005 (Société du Péloux v.Axa Belgium and others), on the effect of a jurisdiction clause conforming with Art.12 (3) of the 1968 Brussels Convention as amended, on a weaker third party who has not subscribed to such a jurisdiction clause; and ECJ, 6 October 2009, C-40/08, (Asturcom v. Christina Rodriguez Nogueira), again on the interpretation of Directive 93/13, regarding the assessment of the unfairness of an arbitration clause.

16. See 2010 Report, p. 1

17 Cf Océano Gruppo (supra fn.15) which refers broadly to « unfair terms in consumer contracts».

18 Cf. in respect of the UK position, Dickinson, op. cit., 14.57: “On balance, the current English procedural rules appear justifiable, as being consistent with both the principle of equivalence and the principle of effectiveness”.

19 Op. cit. at p. 646, referring to Art. 81(2)(f) of the TFEU, which, as he points out, has not affected the UK’s and Ireland’s faculty not to opt-in when such measures are decided.

20 Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading (recently amended by the Directive 2010/73/EC).

21 See, for example, Regulation 809/2004, of 29 April 2004, implementing Directive 2003/71/EC.

22 See, E FERRAN, “Cross-border Offers of Securities in the EU: The Standard Life Flotation”, (2007) 4 ECFR 461, 474.

23 See, for a detailed comparative-law study, KJ HOPT & HC VOIGHT, Prospekt-und Kapitalmarkinformationshaftung (2005), passim; recently and with further references, WG RINGE & A HELLGARDT, “The International Dimension of Issuer Liability – Liability and Choice of Law from a Transatlantic Perspective” (2011) OxfJLS 1, 12-22.

24 See, P TSCHÄPE & R KRAMER & O GLÜCK, “Die ROM II-Verordnung – Endlich ein einheitliches Kollisionsrecht für die gesetzliche Prospekthaftung?“, (2008) RIW 657, 659; J VON HEIN, “Die Internationale Prospekthaftung im Lichte der Rom II-Verordnung“, in H BAUM et al. (ed.), Perspektiven des Wirtchftsrecht. Deutsches, europäisches und internationales Handels-, Gesellschafts – und Kapitalmarkrecht – Beiträge fur K.J. Hopt aus Anlass seiner Emeritierung, (2008) 371, 373, with further references.

25 See, FERRAN, loc.cit., 464.

26 Regulation (EC) No. 593/2005 of 17 June 2008, on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).

27 Regulation (ED) No. 846/2007, of 11 July 2007, on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

28 Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, of 22 December 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

29 The Court has expressed this idea in negative terms: “that the phrase 'matters relating to contract‘, as used in Article 5(1) of the Convention, is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards the other” (ECJ, Case C 26/91, Handte vs TMCS, para. 15 and Case C-51/97, Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff's, para. 17).

30 See, F GARCIMARTÍN, “The Rome I Regulation: Exceptions to the Rule In Consumer Contracts and Financial Instruments”, (2009) 5, JPIL 85, 91-95.

31 See, in detail and with further references, C BENICKE, “Prospektplicht und Prospekthaftung bei grenzüberschreitenden Emissionen”, in HP Mansel et al. (ed.) Festschrift für E Jayme, (2004) 25, 31; S. GRUNMANN, “Deutsches Anlegerschutzrecht in internationalen Sachverhalten – Von internationalen Schuld-und Gesellschaftsrecht zum internationalen Martkrecht”, (1990) RabelsZ 283, 310; H KRONKE, “Capital Markets and Conflicts of Laws“, R. des C., 286 (2000) 245, 308; MK OULDS, „Prospekthaftung bei grenzüberschreitenden Kapitalmarkttransationen“ (2008) WM 1573, 1577; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 12; VON HEIN, loc.cit., 375-376; C WEBER „Internationale Prospekthaftung nach der Rom II- Verordnung“, (2008) WM 1581, 1582.

32 TMC ARONS, “All Roads Lead to Rome: Beware of the Consequences! The Law Applicable to Prospectus Liability Claims under the Rome II Regulation” (2008), NIPR 481, 483.

33 There is unanimity among legal scholars on this point, see ARONS, loc.cit., 482; VON HEIN, loc.cit., 379-385; A. JUNKER, “Der Reformbedarf im Internationalen Deliksrecht der Rom II-Verordnung drei Jahre nach ihrer Verabscheidung”, (2010) RIW 257, 261; P MANKOWSKI, “Finanzmarktverträge”, in CH Reithmann & D Martiny, (ed.), Internationales Vertragsrecht, (7th ed. 2010) 1037, 1081-1082; RINGE & HELLBART, loc.cit., 20; TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 661.

34 See, VON HEIN, loc.cit., 381-383; RINGE & HELLBART, loc.cit., 20.

35 See also, RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 21; TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 663. For similar reasons, Article 14 of the Rome II Regulation play a very limited role, see JUNKER, loc.cit., 262, with further references.

36 RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 22; WEBER, loc.cit., 1585; TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 662.

37 See, ARONS, loc.cit., 484; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 22.

38 See ARONS, loc.cit., 484; FERRAN, loc.cit., 483-484; VON HEIN, loc.cit., 389; JUNKER, loc.cit., 263; OULDS, loc.cit., 1577; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 22; TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK loc.cit., 661-662; WEBER, loc.cit., 1585.

39 See, K BISCHOFF, “Internationale Börsenprospekthaftung”, (2002) AG 489, 493-494; GRUNDMANN, loc.cit., 305-308; KRONKE, loc.cit., 311; MANKOWSKI, loc.cit., 1082.

40 See, MANKOWSKI, loc.cit., 1082

41 See, with further references, WEBER, loc.cit., 1586-1587; JUNKER, loc.cit., 263.

42 See, BENICKE, loc.cit., 33; P KIEL, Internationales Kapitalanlegerschutzrecht, 1994, 295-296; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 30; WEBER, loc.cit., 1587.

43 See, with further references, BENICKE, loc.cit., 36; VON HEIN, loc.cit., 394-395; OULDS, loc.cit., 1574; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 32-33; TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 663-667.

44 See, VON HEIN, loc.cit., 394-395; RINGE & HELLGARDT, loc.cit., 33.

45 See, TSCHÄPE & KRAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 666.

46 See, with further references, ARONS, loc.cit., 484; MANKOWSKI, loc.cit., 1081; WEBER, loc.cit., 1583.

47 See also, Advocate General´s Opinion Cruz Villalón, in Cases C-509 eDate Advertising and 161/10 Martinez, para. 68-81.

48 See, F GARCIMARTÍN, (2008), “Harmonization, State of origin or State of destination: an Outline of the EU Legislator´s Dilemma from an Economic Standpoint”, en M Audit & H Muir Watt & E. Pataut (eds.), Conflicts de Lois et Régulation Ëconomique, (2008) 253, passim. But see Von HEIN, loc.cit., 394, BENICKE, loc.cit., 36; TSCHÄPE & KLAMER & GLÜCK, loc.cit., 667.

49 Actually, in a regime of perfect competition, the content of the legal framework, including the prospectus liability rules, would be reflected in the price. Therefore, a different legal treatment would be economically justified.

50 Note that this is also a typical situation where a transfer of the competence for the approval of the prospectus would take place (from Spain to Portugal, see art. 13.5 of the Directive) and the regulatory rules would coincide with the private-law rules.

51 See ARONS, loc.cit., 484; WEBER, loc.cit., 1587.

52 For an elaboration of this concept from a conflict-of-laws perspective, see F GARCIMARTIN, “Cross-border Listed Companies”, (2007) R. des C. 9, 91-93, with further references.

53 Note, however, that even if the intermediary is located in Country A and the securities are also listed in Country A, the intermediary may give the buying order in a regulated market of Country B. In this case, the law applicable would be the law of the latter. It is true that this solution may seem arbitrary since with regard to retail investors, they do not normally know is which market the buying order was actually placed. But one can always invoke the “escape clause” to avoid not reasonable results.

54 See, ARONS, loc.cit., 484.

55 Les réponses citées dans le texte ont été soit trouvées sur internet soit communiquées individuellement à l’auteur. Entre-temps, un nombre important de réponses (environ 90) ont été publiées sur le site de la Commission à l’adresse http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/110510_en.htm

56 Recueil des cours, vol. 104 (1961-III), p. 443 (c’est nous qui soulignons) ; dix ans plus tard, ce phénomène était qualifié de « verkapptes zweites Kollisionsnormensystem im Forumstaat », voir Picone/Wengler, Internationales Privatrecht, 1974, p. 435.

57 Voir la réponse de P. Lagarde, p. 4.

58 En principe, ces attaches doivent consister soit dans la résidence (habituelle) soit dans la nationalité de l’intéressé. Au vu d’une telle exigence, une condition distincte exigeant l’absence de fraude ne paraît pas nécessaire.

59 Ou un acte établi antérieurement dans un autre État membre.

60 La possibilité que le plus grand nombre d’États membres adhèrent à ces conventions doit également être considéré ; cette possibilité est abordée dans plusieurs réponses au livre vert.

61 En revanche, une option en faveur de la loi de l’État du for (ou de l’autorité d’état civil) ne serait pas appropriée.

62 La situation est le cas échéant différente dans le cadre de l’Union européenne, où le principe de non-discrimination en raison de la nationalité revêt, entre Etats membres, une valeur politique particulière ; v. la communication de J. Basedow à la réunion de Copenhague, publiée à la Rev. crit. 2010, p. 427.