Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-07-Speech-4-136"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060907.19.4-136"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-07-Speech-4-1372
lpv:speaker	lp:Bruno Gollnisch2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; NA (2004-07-20--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Front national (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, a rather contradictory approach can be observed today in this House. On the one hand, we have a report, by Mrs Wallis, which proposes that we join the Hague Conference in order to unify the conflict-of-laws rules, and that seems an excellent approach to me. On the other hand, we have this tendency to want to unify the substantive rule of European contract law. I believe that the first approach is the right one, while the second approach is far more questionable. As regards European contract law, it seems to me that it should simply be decided, for example, that the applicable law shall be the one chosen by the parties and, if they have not chosen an applicable law, that the applicable law shall be the one established in the place in which the contract was concluded and, finally, if the contract was concluded between parties located in different places, that the law applicable to the contract shall be the one established in the place in which the contract is enforced. The wording of this very simple rule simply needs to meet the legitimate need for legal certainty without necessarily having to unify in a rather arbitrary and authoritarian way the national law of each of the Member States."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph