The text of the new Civil Code of Hungary in English

Pls find below the text of Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code of Hungary. Could be of use for all foreign scholars:

Civil_Code

Advertisements

For my students – Heather Garretson & Bradley Charles: “Because I Said So” Is a Reason — But Not a Reasoning Technique

I read an exremely interesting paper about legal reasoning, it was a really nice little overview of reasoning techniques, you find the article in The Law Teacher here, on page 20. It says, the  nine reasoning techniques are the following (I cut them out of the article):

Apply the Rule’s Plain Language
• Apply the rule’s language by repeating a word or phrase, using a synonym or antonym, and characterizing facts.

Imply
• Apply law by comparing factual causes and effects to the rule.
• Apply law by comparing implications of a rule’s interpretation to the rule.

Infer
• Infer from facts to satisfy the rule.
• Infer to interpret codified law.

Clarify
• Clarify law, facts, and issues to reason.

Hypothesize
• Hypothesize a fictional situation where the issue and conclusion are clear. Reason by comparing the fictional situation to the case at hand.

Characterize Law
• Characterize law to explain whether a rule is easy or difficult to satisfy.

Analogize
• Analogize by comparing and contrasting precedent and statutes.

Quantify
• Quantify chance of success.
• Quantify facts to prove the rule with adjectives, adverbs, and numbers.

Evaluate Opposing Arguments
• Evaluate factual and legal weaknesses in opposing arguments.

Two new articles published – Yearbook of Private International Law & Külgazdaság

Recently, I published two new articles.

The first one, published in the Yearbook of Private International Law summarizes the different conflicting private international law provisions of the EU. It classifies the rules by making several subgroups in order to understand the attributes of different regulations/directives. In fact, it is similar to my former works, but instead of only finding the provisions, it tries to make groups and make some statements based on the findings.

yearbpic

For the table of contents, please click here.

You can find the article on ssrn here.

The second onepublished in the Hungarian journal Külgazdaság, was written in Hungarian together with Katalin Raffai from Pázmány Péter Catholic University (I am really happy to have a common article with her).  This is its abstract:

“Several new laws which deal with the international aspects of family law issues have been adopted in the European Union in the recent years. According to the statements of the European institutions, these rules are important in order to strengthen the background of the free movement of EU citizens. Numerous problems had to be solved, like the question of the law applicable in case of a divorce proceeding or the procedure of maintenance payments. The article summarizes the provisions of the most important legal sources, with special regard to the private international law aspects of such cases. Furthermore, it also deals with the basic differences between the related domestic substantive family law regimes.”

In Hungarian:

“Az Európai Unióban az elmúlt években több olyan jogszabály is elfogadásra került, amely családjogi kérdésekkel foglalkozik. E normák megalkotására a belső piac logikája miatt, az uniós polgárok szabad mozgásának biztosítása végett volt szükség. A szabad mozgás folyományaképpen rendezni kellett számos kérdést, így például, hogy a házasság felbontására milyen jogot alkalmazzanak, vagy a tartásdíjakat milyen keretek között kelljen fizetni. E szabályok nemzetközi magánjogi (más néven: nemzetközi kollíziós) normák, azaz azt határoznák meg, milyen eljárási rendben kell végrehajtani és végrehajtatni a tagállami anyagi jogi családjogi szabályokat, illetve részletesen leírják, mely állam jogát alapul véve kell eljárni. Az írás kimondottan az alkalmazandó jog megállapításával foglalkozik, ám röviden kitér az anyagi jogi háttérszabályokra is.”

You can find the article on my  SSRN profile here.

New paper published in Comparative Law Review

E-Consumer Protection In the Us – The Same Jungle As In Europe

With the use of the Internet, a new form of contract has appeared: the electronic contract, which is concluded online. In most cases, two parties are present: a consumer, who is in a relatively exposed position and a business entity. This article focuses on the protections given to consumers in the US in these cases – i.e. electronic consumer law in the US – at both federal and state level (with special regard to New York state). Principal questions are the following: do consumers in the US receive the same protections as consumers in Europe when purchasing goods online? When we buy goods from the US here in Europe through the Internet and have them shipped over, do we receive the same protections as in Europe? And what options exist for protecting ourselves? What are the rules and remedies that help us? Last, but not least: what can we learn from the US system, if anything? Summarising substantive US provisions that may be relevant for Europe is also beneficial with an eye to putting continuously evolving European directive law into a broader perspective.

The paper can be downloaded here.

New article in Global Jurist: The Quest to Find a Law Applicable to Contracts in the European Union – A Summary of Fragmented Provisions

In the European Union Regulation No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the so called Rome I regulation) governs which law to apply to contracts containing international elements. With the continuing internalization of business activities, such rules have elementary importance. However, beside the unified rules of the regulation, numerous EU rules exist, which also have relevance. This is because of a provision in Rome I, which states that the regulation shall not prejudice the application or adoption of rules of the institutions of the EU which lay down rules concerning particular areas of contractual law. As an effect, several rules exist which override the provisions of Rome I. Thus, the present system of rules is fragmented, which may cause serious malfunctions in the legal practice. Most of these provisions can be found in consumer law directives, but other fields like employment law may also be of relevance. The article tries to collect these „hidden” provisions and analyse their effect on the Hungarian legal regime.

The article can be found here.

New Article in California International Law Journal

Tamas Dezso Czigler & Izolda Takacs: The  Law Applicable To Contracts In The European Union – A Competition Between Rome I Regulation, Other Sources of EU Law and Directive Law As Implemented. CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 20, No. 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2012, 21-53.

Calbar

In the early days then, there had been only fragmented and miscellaneous conflict-of-laws provisions in the acquis communautaire, focusing on specific areas. Most provisions were to be found in directives dealing with substantive law, i.e. the conflict-of-laws rules were merely extensions to the regulations in certain areas. Adopting such rules was common in the fields of consumer protection (i.e. consumer contract law) and insurance law. Numerous authors had criticized this earlier technique, which resulted in the disintegration of Community conflict-of-laws rules. There were indeed several disadvantages of the early approach. Firstly, the PIL body of law adopted for particular areas became opaque and convoluted. Secondly, in several cases the European legislator only provided a kind of “supra-collisional” rule, or to be more precise, a rule defending some provisions of Community law. That is to say, the Community PIL rules were only to be applied if doing otherwise, some substantive rules of EU/Community law would have been violated. This approach made the system unpredictable. Thirdly, the solutions for implementing these rules into MSs’ national statutes seem rather diverse and sometimes inconsistent with each other. Fourthly, EU/Community rules also disrupted existing and functioning national systems. This was the case for insurance law: EU/Community law reinvented effective national insurance law and in some places, rewrote the rules using ill-chosen constructs. Due to the above, the PIL aquis on insurance contracts became almost chaotic. Adopting regulations with a wider scope or the assembling of such regulations as was done in the Rome I Regulation can be considered to be a great leap forward, even if the methods of codification in the Regulation warrant some criticism. Last but not least, some “hidden” PIL rules were codified in directives: this made their application even more difficult, since the direct effect of directives not implemented by MSs is ambiguous.

The article can be downloaded here: CalBar_ILJ_Vol-20.1_v05