the europeanisation of family law

INTRODUCTION THE EUROPEANISATION OF FAMILY LAW I. The increasing importance of comparative law 1. Family law internationalises. Migration, mixed marriages, adoption of foreign children, acquisition of foreign property and all other consequences of globalisation confront practitioners and scholars with cross border-cases in all their complexity. Practice and research in international family law requires knowledge of foreign law, the ability to compare different legal systems and to value their advantages and disadvantages. However, comparative law has quite a lot of other benefits 1. The study of foreign law teaches that every legal system has to solve the same problems, that solutions are often similar but that the approach can be different. Comparative law can open our eyes, can provide us with solutions that may improve our national legal systems. It teaches us to put into perspective our legal system and to have an eye for other methods of reasoning and other approaches. The comparative method allows us to learn from foreign experiences and gives us a chance to evaluate the reactions of case law and doctrine to certain regimentations and to estimate the sociological consequences of it. 2. Comparative law has become an indispensable instrument for legislation. In England, for example, the Law Commission is obliged to include the study of foreign law when proposing reforms, and not without reason. 3. The comparative method also plays an important role in case law. 2 Examples can be found in the case law of all the European Supreme Courts. A famous early example is a 1 See Blair/Weiner, Family Law in the World Community, Durban 2003, 3 ff.; Glenn, Aims of comparative law, in Smits (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Cheltenham 2006, 57 ff.; Pintens, Inleiding tot de rechtsvergelijking, Louvain 1998, 34 ff.; Zweigert/Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, Tübingen 1996, 12 ff. For a bibliography of comparative law see at the end of this general introduction. 2 See Canivet/Andenas/Fairgrieve, Comparative Law before the Courts, London 2004; Drobnig/Van Erp, The Use of Comparative Law by Courts, The Hague 1998. 2 series of judgments of the Bundesgerichtshof, the German Supreme Court, that granted moral damages for violation of personality rights although § 847 BGB did not contain a legal basis for such damages. The Court argued that Art. 1 GG which protects the human dignity, leads to a general personality right, that has to be classified under the "other rights" of § 823 I BGB 3. § 847 BGB, which was thought to cover only damages for physical injuries, was applied analogously to moral damages. This reasoning was strongly influenced by Swiss law4. The Swiss Bundesgericht makes use of comparative law to compensate for the lack of national precedents in order to find the better law as it did in a recent wrongful birth case.5 In recent times the House of Lords has increasingly used the comparative method in its judgments, 6 not only as a source of inspiration but also as a pedagogic instrument as in White v. White,7 where the English system of judicial discretion in the division of property after divorce was compared with the New Zealand system based on detailed instructions by the legislature. The Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights use comparative law as a major tool.8 In its evolutive and autonomous interpretation of community law the Court of Justice undertakes a comparative analysis of the developments in the internal law of the Member States as, for example, the Grant case9 as well as the D. and Sweden case10 illustrate. The European Court of Human Rights also uses an evolutive and autonomous interpretation of the ECHR and favours a better law approach based on a 3 4 BGH 25.5.1954, BGHZ 13, 334; BGH 2.4.1957, BGHZ 24, 72. BGH 14.2.1958 BGHZ 26, 349. See Zweigert/Kötz (fn. 1), 16 ff., 693 ff. 5 BG 20.12. 2005, BGE 2005, III, 359, ZEuP 2007, 887, note Essebier. Comp. BVerfG 12.11.1997, NJW 1998, 521; MacFarlane v. Tayside Healt Board [2000] 2 AC 59; Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] 1 AC 309; Cass. 17.11.2000 (arrêt Perruche), JCP 2000, II, n° 10438, ZEuP 2004, 794, note Rebhahn. 6 7 8 See Steyn, The Challenge of Comparative Law, ERPL 2006, 635 ff. [2001] 1 AC 596. See Lenaerts, Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law, ICLQ 2003, 873 ff.; Mahoney, The Comparative Method in Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Reference Back to National Law, in Le rôle du droit comparé dans l’avènement du droit européen, Zurich 2002, 143 ff.; Popović, Le droit comparé dans l’accomplissement des tâches de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, in Liber Amicorum Wildhaber, Kehl 2007, 371 ff.; Rozakis, The European Judge as Comparatist, Tulane L.R. 2005, 270 ff.; Wildhaber, The Role of Comparative Law in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights, in Festschrift Ress, Cologne 2005, 1101 ff. 9 Cf. infra n° 26 and Part II, Ch. 5. Cf. infra n° 26 and Part II, Ch. 5. 10 3 comparative analysis and the convergence of the legal systems of the Member States. Here the Marckx case11 and the Goodwin case12 are good examples. Often comparative analysis underlies the allowance of a margin of appreciation when there is little or no consensus among the Member States, or the denial of this margin when a consensus or a continuing trend is visible, as the evolution in the case law on transsexualism illustrates.13 4. Comparative law is an essential instrument for harmonisation and unification. Negotiating international conventions requires the ability to compare national legislation and practice, to evaluate those solutions and to propose a compromise on the basis of what is common to national systems, always keeping in mind that corrections or innovations on the basis of a better law approach may be necessary. Implementing international legislation will need interpretation. Therefore it will be necessary to have knowledge of the foreign laws and methodologies that were the basis of the international convention. 5. Finally, comparative law allows to discover a common core in the different legal systems and to develop a ius commune. This last area has become a new challenge and a new working field of comparative law.14 II. Family law and culture 6. In the last few years, family law has become a subject of comparative law as well as of harmonisation of law.15 The principles of equality and non-discrimination adopted by constitutional courts,16 the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cf. infra n° 15 and Part II, Ch. 1. Cf. infra n° 15 and Part I, Ch. 1. See Part I, Ch. 1. Kötz, Alte und neue Aufgaben der Rechtsvergleichung, JZ 2002, 259 ff. See the bibliography at the end of this general introduction. Hereto Henrich, Familienrechtsreform durch die Verfassungsgerichte, ZfRV 1990, 241 ff. 4 have played a prominent role. Important sociological changes, which have affected marriage and the family, such as the emancipation of women, the equalisation of the rights of illegitimate children, the attention paid to the child as a legal subject in general, the increase in single person households and one parent families, the increasing importance of non-martial cohabitation17 and the contractualisation and individualisation of family law,18 also allow us to recognise common principles, important differences notwithstanding.19 7. Despite those developments, the question often arises whether family law still remains so culturally specific that unification and even harmonisation would be problematic or even undesirable.20 Law is clearly a constituent of our culture. So much so that some even assert that it must be protected just as we protect our monuments and our landscapes. According to this view, unification and even harmonisation of family law have to be rejected, for they will lead to a loss of an important aspect of one’s culture.21 Pierre Legrand even considers the unification of civil law in general as a form of cultural imperialism.22 Those ideas are reflective of the movement of postmodernism in comparative law. Unlike modern comparative law, postmodern comparative law does not 17 See Frank, Rechtsvergleichende Betrachtungen zur Entwicklung des Familienrechts, FamRZ 2004, 841 ff., Meulders-Klein, La personne, la famille et la loi au sortir du XXe siècle, J.T. 1982, 137 ff. 18 Hofer/Schwab/Henrich (ed.), From Status to Contract? – Die Bedeutung des Vertrages im europäischen Familienrecht, Bielefeld 2005; Schwenzer, Vom Status zur Realbeziehung. Familienrecht im Wandel, BadenBaden 1987. 19 Martiny, Is Unification of Family Law Feasible or even Desireable? in Hartkamp et al. (ed.), Towards a European Civil Code, 3rd ed., Nijwegen 2004, 317 ff.; Pintens, Accentverschuivingen in de rechtsvergelijking, in Liber amicorum Blanpain, Bruges 1998, 778. See also Krause, Comparative family law, in Reimann/Zimmermann (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, Oxford 2006, 1199 ff. 20 Antokolskaia Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe: A Historical Perspective. A tale of two millennia, in EFL Series, n° 13, Antwerp 2006, 3 ff., 501 ff.; Pintens, Europeanisation of family law, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe, EFL Series, n° 4, Antwerp 2003, 7. 21 See Bradley, A Family Law for Europe. Soverigenity, Political Economy and Legitimation, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe, Antwerp/Oxford, 2003, 65 ff.; McGlynn, Families and the European Union, Cambridge 2006. 22 Legrand, Sens et non sens d’un code civil européen, R.I.D.C. 1996, 811. See also Legrand, Fragments on Law-as-Culture, Deventer 1999; Legrand, Paradoxically, Derrida: For a Comparative Legal Studies, Cardoza Law Review 2005, 631 ff. 5 emphasise the links between legal systems and institutions, but rather the differences between them.23 For postmodernists diversity itself becomes a value. Since it prevents legal institutions from being declared identical prematurely, i.e. without confronting the real differences, this movement definitely has its merits.24 However, when it exclusively emphasises these differences, it not only endangers comparative law itself, but also denies the fact that law, even though embedded in our culture, is primarily an instrument to regulate human relationships and is not a purpose in itself. In the words of the French lawyer Demogue: “Le droit n’est pas fait pour soi-même, mais pour le besoin de l’homme”.25 Cherishing law as a symbol of culture, whatever the circumstances, will inevitably lead to intellectual rigidity and isolate us from the benefits of comparative law and of harmonisation and unification of law as well.26 8. The question thus arises whether the pursuit of harmonisation and unification of law truly threatens our culture. What is there to say against a gradual integration, even in the field of law? Is law still tied to culture to an extent that national protection is required in the form of opposing harmonisation? National family laws have not proven to be resistant to reforms and to the reception of foreign law. In most European legal systems family law has adopted many reforms, often from neighbouring countries, to the degree that much national individuality and culture have been lost.27 In the words of de Oliviera: “National traditions change themselves from the inside, they do not prevent changes”.28 In affiliation law most legal systems have broken entirely with their tradition. For example, 23 Hereto Jayme, Osservazioni per una teoria postmoderne della comparazione giuridica, Riv.dir.civ. 1997, 813 ff. See also Colins, European Private Law and the Cultural Identity of States, ERPL 1995, 353 ff.; Zaccaria, Il diritto privato europeo nell’epoca del postmoderno, Riv.dir.civ. 1997, 367 ff. 24 See also the warnings of Schlesinger, The Past and the Future of Comparative Law, Am.J.Comp.L. 1995, 447 ff., who rightly states that finding a common core is only possible when the law comparatist is aware of the existing differences between legal systems and does not relativise them too soon. 25 26 Law is not made for itself but for the needs of humankind. Peters/Schwenke, Comparative law beyond post-modernism, I.C.L.Q. 2000, 800, especially, 827 ff.; Pintens (fn. 1), 39-40. For a synthesis between Jayme and Legrand, see Van Erp, Europees privaatrecht: Postmoderne dilemma’s en keuzen. Naar een methode van adequate rechtsvergelijking. Inaugurale rede, Deventer 1998, 8 ff. 27 28 Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 8. de Oliveira, Een europees familierecht, FJR 2000, 273. 6 in 1976, Switzerland, at that time a rather conservative country, introduced an affiliation act that can still be considered as one of the most progressive in Europe. Do the Swiss people feel they have lost part of their culture because of this law reform? Why is it that we have not lost a part of our culture through all these reforms? Cultural embedment does not mean that we are embedded in a culture to such an extent that we give up our identity when cultural changes occur. If this were so, we would have not only a legal rigidity but also a cultural rigidity. One has to be able to go beyond one’s culture. 29 9. All the reforms have certainly not unified family law in Europe, but they have brought the various legal systems closer together and have in particular narrowed the gap between the so-called progressive North and the conservative South. For instance, Italian family law, which was under constant pressure by the Holy See during the Democrazia Christiana, can no longer be considered conservative. Today, Italy has a divorce law primarly based on the principle of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and much less on the ground of fault, since 99% of the divorces are based on separation.30 It was the third European legal system after Sweden and Germany to adopt an act on transsexualism.31 After the Revolution of 1975, Portugal has introduced an egalitarian affiliation law32 and, since 1998, several Spanish regions have a registered partnership for 29 The French philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy has expressed it very well: “Un démocrate a une culture, une langue, etc. Et fou serait celui qui ferait abandon de cet inestimable bien. Mais être réellement démocrate c’est tenir cette culture, et cette langue, pour des lieux, non de fixation, mais de traversée; c’est renoncer au mythe de la propriété des langues et des cultures pour y accueillir, au contraire, la plus grande quantité possible d’impropriété et de désordre; c’est consentir, en un mot, à un cosmopolitisme raisonné…”. La pureté dangereuse, Paris 1994, 256. See also Antokolskaia, Would the harmonisation of familiy law in Europe enlarge the gap between the law in the books and the law in action? FamPra.ch 2002, 268 ff.; Steenhoff, Op weg naar een Europees familierecht, in Antokolskaia/De Hondt/Steenhoff, Een zoektocht naar Europees familierecht, Deventer 1999, 5. 30 Panforti, Divorce and the Quality of Life in Italy, in Liber Memorialis Šarčević, Munich 2006, 317. 31 See Patti/Will, Mutamento di sesso e tutela della persona. Saggi di diritto civile e comparato, Padua 1986. 32 See dos Santos, Direito da Família, Coimbra 1985, 463 ff. 7 heterosexuals as well as for homosexuals.33 Recently Spain followed the Dutch and Belgian examples and opened marriage for same-sex couples.34 Even the gap between common law and civil law seems not unbridgeable. Family law is also codified in common law systems. Under the influence of the same social problems and the growing influence of human rights those codifications have much in common with civil law codifications. 10. Taking these developments into account it seems that the remaining cultural and regional differences can be overcome. Not the remaining differences but shared values such as the respect for human rights and the rule of law form the basis of the developments in European family law.35 In her profound and thorough study on the historical perspective of family law harmonisation Antokolskaia convincingly argued that the remaining differences have not much to do with the embedment of family law in unique national cultures and history. The differences are due to the pace of national evolution. The main cause of those differences in pace lies in the balance of political power between proponents and adversaries of the modernisation of family law. 36 But one 33 González Beilfuss, Parejos de hecho y matrimonios del mismo sexo en la unión europea, Madrid 2004, 44 ff.; Schlenker, Die Stellung gleichgeschlechtlicher Lebensgemeinschaften in Spanien und in spanischen Teilrechtsordnungen, in Basedow/Hopt/Kötz/Dopffel (ed.), Die Rechtsstellung gleichgeschlechtlicher Lebensgemeinschaften, Tübingen 2000, 145 ff. 34 Hereto Aguilar Ruiz/Hornero Méndez, Un nuevo matrimonio in España, Familia 2006, 299 ff; Gonzàlez Beilfuss, Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen und Blitzscheidung im neuen spanischen Familienrecht, FamPra.ch 2006, 278 ff.; Hernández Ibáñez, Cambio revolucionario en una institución milenaria: del matrimonio heterosexual al matrimonio homosexual, La Ley 2006/6510, Doctr., 1 ff. 35 Häberle, Europäische Rechtskultur, in Häberle (ed.), Europäische Rechtskultur, 2nd ed., Francfort 1997, 10; Pintens, Family Law in Europe. Developments and Perspectives, CILSA 2007, in press; Örücü/Mair, Common cultures and diverse laws – Common laws and diverse cultures, in Örücü/Mair (ed.), Juxtaposing Legal Systems and the Principles of European Family Law on Divorce and Maintenance, in EFL Series, n° 17, Antwerp/Oxford 2007, 3; Schilling, Eine neue Rahmenstrategie für die Mehrsprachigkeit: Rechtskulturelle Aspekte, ZEuP 2007, 755 ff. Comp. Jayme, Die kulturelle Dimension des Rechts. Ihre Bedeutung für das Internationale Privatrecht und die Rechtsvergleichung, RabelsZ 2003, 215. 36 Antokolskaia (fn. 20), 501. 8 has to admit that this balance of political power is to a certain extent due to ideological factors and that ideology is also a part of the cultural values of a society. 37 There are more important impediments to overcome than cultural differences. First, the objectives, the context and the functioning of family law are linked to the social system and especially to the labour market and to the access of women to it, to social security and to child care policy on e.g. the availability of day-care centers and kindergarten. Therefore, it is not so complicated to design a divorce law for Europe. Regulating maintenance is clearly much more complicated, because here the aforementioned factors play an important role. 38 Secondly, it is important to see how a society handles law, to see how important law is in a society. What does a society want to regulate, only fundamental questions or also details? Here there is a gap between continental systems (e.g. Germany), which want to go into details and common law and Scandinavian systems, which in certain fields keep regulation to overarching issues. The law of names is a good example of this different approach. 39 Finally, the adversaries of harmonisation should keep in mind that there is quite a difference between unification and harmonisation. Unlike unification, harmonisation does not want to erase the last cultural differences but wants to promote an evolution in the same direction. 40 37 Pintens, CILSA 2007, in press. 38 Pintens, Materielles Familienrecht in Europa – Einheit oder Vielfalt?, in Freitag et al. (ed.), Internationales Familienrecht für das 21. Jahrhundert, Munich 2006, 143. 39 See Part I, Ch. 1. 40 Comp. Meulders-Klein, Towards a European Civil Code or Family Law? Ends and Means, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 108. 9 III. Unification of family law in Europe. A status questionis 11. Traditionally, comparative law, and the unification of law in particular, have focussed on certain areas. These include mainly commercial law and the related domains of civil law, private international law, labour law and intellectual property rights. Family law has rarely been the object of extensive comparative legal studies 41 and unification has met with little success in this field. In the past family law has shown a great diversity, which can be expected from a field of law that is rather particularistic and where the mixture of Roman law, customary law, and canon law has led to diverse regulations.42 12. On a regional level unification achievements in the field of family law have been rare in Europe. Unification in the Benelux is futile. The only result is a convention of 29 September 1972 on commorientes, more important for succession law then for family law. The Nordic countries are a much more important example. 43 As early as in the 1920s, they had succeeded in harmonising certain aspects of their family law. During the following years the greater part of their family law was unified, sometimes down to the smallest detail, even though Sweden, followed by Finland, have now and then issued more progressive legislation. Today, specific legislation in each Nordic legal system has led to many differences. But there is still a Nordic model with similar leading ideas and 41 Important exceptions are Unger, Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen Entwicklung, 1850. Hereto Zweigert/Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3rd ed., Tübingen 1996, 56; Burge, Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws, generally and in their conflict with each other, and with the law of England, 1838, was also significant. It was thought of as a working instrument for the Privy Council in pursuance of foreign law. This book also had great significance for comparative family and succession law, and has been praised by Zweigert/Kötz as a basic work of comparative law ((fn. 1), 55). 42 For a survey of legislation, see Bergmann/Ferid/Henrich (ed.), Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht, Frankfurt (loose-leaf edition); Pintens (ed.), Family and Succession Law, in Blanpain (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Laws, Deventer/Boston (loose-leaf edition); Süβ/Ring (ed.), Eherecht in Europa, Angelbachtal 2006. 43 But one should not forget the codifications of the nineteenth century: e.g. the German civil Code unified the family laws of the twenty-five states of the German Empire. 10 principles in matters as affiliation, parental responsibility, matrimonial property, divorce and cohabitation.44 13. On a European level unification of family law has been mainly performed by the Council of Europe and the Commission internationale de l'Etat civil. In recent times there has also been some activity in the European Union, mainly in the field of international family law. 1. The Council of Europe 14. Family law has always been one of the major fields of activity of the Council of Europe.45 The most important achievement is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 4 November 1950.46 This Convention protects especially the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8) and the right to marry and to found a family (Art. 12). The enjoyment of all the rights and freedoms set forth in the ECHR is secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status (Art. 14). The ECHR is binding on all Member States, but its rank varies from state to state. 47 In monistic legal systems, as in the Netherlands, the ECHR prevails over national law including the constitution. In dualistic systems such as Poland the ECHR has a higher rank than an internal law but the constitution prevails over the ECHR. In Germany the ECHR has the 44 Agell, Is there One System of Family Law in the Nordic Countries?, Eur.J.L.R. 2001 313. Comp. Bradley, Family Law and Political Culture. Scandinavian Laws in Comparative Perspective, London 1196; Bradley (fn. 9), 82 ff. 45 Hereto Killerby, The Council of Europe’s Contribution to Family Law (Past, Present and Future), in Lowe/Douglas (ed.), Family Across Frontiers, The Hague 1996, 13 ff.; Killerby, Family Law in Europe. Standards set by the member States of the Council of Europe, in Liber Amicorum Meulders-Klein, Brussels 1998, 351 ff.; Schrama, De Raad van Europa en het familierecht. Een overzicht van de bijdragen van de Raad van Europa aan het familierecht, FJR 1998, 54 ff.; Verschraegen, Council of Europe, in Pintens (fn. 42). 46 47 ETS 5 (1950). See Van Dijk et al. (ed.), Theory and Practice of the Europeon Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Antwerp 2006, 26 ff. 11 rank of a federal law. However, in the last mentioned systems it is widely accepted that the constitution has to be interpreted in the light of the ECHR. 48 Therefore a conflict between the ECHR and the constitution of a Member State is very seldom. The application of the ECHR is not only guaranteed by the Member States through the Committee of Ministers that can exclude a Member State but also by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), whose judgments are legally binding on the Member States. Even in legal systems where the binding force is controversial, they constitute important milestones. 49 15. The European Court of Human Rights has served as a catalyst for harmonisation through its decisions and judgments, which have given a rough sketch of European family law.50 The right to respect for private and family life as laid down in Art. 8 of the ECHR has been of great importance in this regard. The Marckx case has had a controlling influence on affiliation law, especially on the establishment of affiliation ex parte materna and the abolition of hereditary discriminations. 51 Several decisions protect the relationship between father and child, even when paternity has not been established. In the Keegan case, the Court ruled that a mother could not give her child up for adoption 48 E.g. for Germany: Heldrich, Persönlichkeitsschutz und Pressefreiheit nach der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, NJW 2004, 2635-2636. 49 E.g. for England: Although the theory of precedent applies and a lower court should follow a prior decision of a higher court even if this decision infringes a judgment of the Strasbourg Court, it is accepted that the effective implementation of the Convention depends on the constructive collaboration between the Strasbourg Court and the national courts. The Strasbourg Court authoritatively expounds the interpretation of the rights embodied in the Convention. This is a must if the Convention is to be uniformly understood by all member states (Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Kay and others v. Lambeth London Borough Council; Leeds City Council v. Price and others [2006] 2 WLR 570). 50 See Heringa/Zwaak, in Van Dijk (fn. 47); Hohnerlein, Eur. Legal Forum 2000, 252 ff.; Kuchinke (fn. 3), 592 ff.; Verschraegen (fn. 42), 23 ff. 51 ECtHR 13 June 1979 (Marckx/Belgium), Series A, No. 31. Hereto Jayme, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und deutsches Nichtehelichenrecht, NJW 1979, 2425 ff.; Meeusen, Judicial Disapproval of Discrimination Against Illegitimate Children, Am.J.Comp.L. 1995, 119 ff.; Pintens, Menschenrechtskonvention und Privatrecht – Auswirkungen in Belgien, RabelsZ 1999, 702 ff.; Rigaux, La loi condamnée, Journal des Tribunaux 1979, 5113 ff.; Sturm, Das Straßburger Marckx-Urteil zum Recht des nichtehelichen Kindes und seine Folgen, FamRZ 1982, 1150 ff.; Voss, Belgien: Kindschaft praeter und contra legem, IPRax 1986, 120 ff. 12 without informing the biological father and involving him in the proceedings. 52 In the case of placement of children in foster homes, several decisions have restricted interference by public authorities and emphasised that any measures implementing a public care decision should always be consistent with the ultimate aim of possibly reuniting the family. Such measures are to be terminated as soon as circumstances permit.53 Despite all these developments, the European Court of Human Rights is likely to have less influence on the convergence of the legal systems in the future due to the fact that the major forms of discrimination in the fields of family law have been eliminated. Thus, it is debatable whether the Court will maintain its pioneering role. In view of the increasing number of Member States and their different opinions regarding human rights, the Court, in general, will probably limit itself to maintaining generally accepted standards.54 Moreover, in recent years there has not always been consistency between the judgments of the Court. In quite a lot of cases the Court is not maintaining its pioneering role (illustrated in the Marckx case) and allows the Member States a large margin of appreciation as in the Fretté case.55 Here the Court stated that the Convention was not violated by the refusal to allow an adoption on the grounds of the adopter’s homosexuality. The appreciation of the interest of the child is left to the Member State. In other cases the Court is severe and leaves no margin, as in the Goodwin case, where the Court held that the refusal of the British Government to alter the register of births in case of a post-operative transsexual was a violation of the right to respect for private life (Art. 8 ECHR).56 This case law illustrates that the Court is refraining from its pioneering role 52 ECtHR 25 May 1994 (Keegan/Ireland), Series A, No. 290. Hereto Rudolf, Zur Rechtstellung des Vaters eines nichtehelichen Kindes nach der EMRK, EuGRZ 1995, 110 ff.; O’Donnel, The unmarried father and the right to family life: Keegan v. Ireland, MJ 1995, 72 ff. 53 54 E.g. ECtHR 24 March 1988 (Olsson/Sweden – No. 1), Series A, No. 130, § 81. Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 18. 55 ECtHR 26 February 2002 (Fretté/France), EHRC 2002, 259 note Janssen/Gerards, FamPra.ch 2002, 780, FamRZ 2003, 149, J.L.M.B. 2002, 752, note Martens. Hereto Vanwinckelen, Die Entscheidung Fretté und das europäische Familienrecht: Der EUGHMR fällt aus seiner (Vorreiter-)Rolle, FamPra.ch 2003, 574. 56 ECtHR 11 July 2002 (Goodwinn/United Kingdom), Reports 2002-VI, 1, EHRC 2002, 708, note 13 and is using the margin of appreciation when there is no common approach to the problem in the Member States and the matter is delicate and controversial. The court leaves no margin of appreciation when there is a common approach or a strong tendency towards such an approach. 57 16. Another example of a Convention protecting basic rights is the European Social Charter (revised) of 3 May 1996,58 dealing with social and economic rights. Other conventions have a more specific scope of protection or ensure the recognition and enforcement of decisions in specific areas,59 such as the European Convention on the adoption of children,60 the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children of 20 May 1980,61 the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights 62 and the Convention on Contact concerning Children of 15 May 2003.63 All these conventions are of importance and contribute to the Europeanization of family law although their impact on a real unification of European family law is restricted. 17. Major new initiatives should not be expected. Rather than promoting unification of law by international conventions, 64 the Council of Europe is seeking to stimulate Jansens/Van Der Velde. 57 Pintens, CILSA 2007, in press. ETS 163 (1996). See Verschraegen (fn. 42), 17 ff. ETS 58 (1967). ETS 105 (1980). ETS 160 (1996). 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ETS 192 (2003). Although the Council is currently revising the Convention on Adoption of 24 April 1967 and has installed a working party to prepare a convention on incapable adults. Hereto Kohler/Pintens, Ehe und Familie im europäischen Recht – Entwicklungen und Tendenzen, FamRZ 2007, in print. 14 harmonisation through recommendations of the Consultative Assembly and resolutions of the European Ministers of Justice 65 as well as through academic meetings.66 2. The Commission Internationale de l'Etat civil 18. Founded in 1950, the Commission de l'Etat civil (International Commission of Civil Status) is currently composed of sixteen European- Member States.67 Its objectives are inter alia the compilation of documentation on legislation and case law in matters relating to the status of persons, to the family and to nationality and the drafting of conventions aimed at harmonising the provisions in force in the Member States on these matters.68 19. The main activities of the Commission have a technical character and aim to facilitate the flow of records and decisions on civil status, with instruments such as Convention No. 1 on the Issue of Certain Extracts from Civil Status Records for Use Abroad of 27 September 1956 and Convention No. 16 on the Issue of Multilingual Extracts from Civil Status Records of 8 September 1976. With Other conventions the CIEC tried to contribute to the harmonisation of the law of persons and family law. Most of these conventions deal with international family law. A major subject is the law of names. 69 Recently the CIEC concluded a Convention on the recognition of registered partnerships. 70 65 Hereto Jung, Die Empfehlungen des Ministerkomitees des Europarates – zugleich ein Beitrag zur europäischen Rechtsquellenlehre, in Festschrift Ress, Cologne 2005, 519 ff. 66 See Killerby, The Council of Europe’s Contribution to Family law (Past, Present and Future), in Lowe/Douglas (eds.), Family Across Frontiers, The Hague 1996, 13 ff., Killerby, Family Law in Europe. Standards set by the member States of the Council of Europe, in Liber Amicorum Meulders-Klein, Brussels 1998, 351 ff.; Schrama, De Raad van Europa en het familierecht, FJR 1998, 54 ff.; Verschraegen (fn. 42) 11 ff. 67 See Bisschoff, Harmonisation en droit privé: l'exemple du travail de la Commission Internationale de l'Etat Civil, in Mélanges von Overbeck, Fribourg 1990, 117 ff.; Massip/Hondius/Nast, International Commission on Civil Status, in Pintens (fn. 42). 68 69 Available on www.ciec1.org. See Lagarde, L'oeuvre de la Commission Internationale de l'Etat Civil en matière de nom des personnes, in Festschrift Jayme, Munich 2004, 1291 ff. See Ch. Part 1., Ch. 1. 70 See Kohler/Pintens, FamRz 2007, in print. See also Part II, Ch. 5. 15 3. The European Union a. Legislative activities 20. Basically, the European Union has no competence regarding the unification of family law.71 The Treaty of Amsterdam has not altered this fact. The Council may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, as set out in Art. 13 EC. The transfer of judicial co-operation in civil matters by the Treaty of Amsterdam from the so-called third pillar (co-operation in judicial and legal matters) to the first pillar (community law) 72 does not push the unification of substantive family law much further. Even though Art. 65 EC does not contain a comprehensive enumeration, one could deduce from the measures enumerated in this article as well as from the caption of Title IV of the EC Treaty that its application is restricted to international family law only. 73 Based on the example of the Brussels II Regulation,74 which has already been repealed by the Brussels IIa Regulation, 75 covering competence, recognition and enforcement of 71 See Fallon, Droit familial et droit des Communautés européennes, Revue trimestrielle du droit familial 1998, 361 ff.; Hamilton/Perry (ed.), Family Law in Europe, 2nd ed., London 2002; McGlynn, A Family Law for the European Union?, in Shaw (ed.), Social Law and Policy in an Evolving European Union, Oxford 2000, 223 ff.; McGlynn, The Europeanisation of family law, C.F.L.Q. 2001, 36; Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 22. Comp. Boele-Woelki, De competentie van de Europese Unie in familiezaken, FJR 2004, 289. 72 Hereto Besse, Die justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam und das EuGVÜ, ZEuP 1999, 106 ff.; Jayme/Kohler, Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 1997 - Vergemeinschaftung durch "Säulenwechsel”?, IPRax 1997, 385 ff. 73 At the very most a broad interpretation of Art. 65 EC can lead to a competence for substantive family law in cross border cases (Dethloff, Europäische Vereinheitlichung des Familienrechts, AcP 2004, 565. Comp. Basedow, Das BGB im künftigen europäischen Privatrecht: Der hybride Kodex. Systemsuche zwischen nationaler Kodifikation und Rechtsangleichung, AcP 2000, 477). 74 OJ L 160, 30 June 2000, 19. This regulation came into force on 1 March 2001, thus replacing the so-called Brussels II Convention of 28 May 1998 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters (OJ C 221, 7 June 1998). 75 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, OJ L 338, 23 December 2003. The regulation entered into force on 1 August 2004 and applies from 1 March 2005 on (Art. 72 Brussels IIa). 16 judgments in matrimonial matters and parental responsibilities cases, 76 one can expect further regulations. Not only regulations on competence, recognition and enforcement but, pursuant to the Hague Program of 4 November 2004,77 also on the applicable law in divorce cases, maintenance, marital property law and succession law are planned. 78 Two stages can be recognized in these developments. The first stage with Brussels II and IIa consists of an expansion of Brussels I to marital and child affairs and remains limited to the unification of the rules on competence, recognition and enforcement. The second stage is manifestly more ambitious and goes far beyond international procedural law to an international divorce, matrimonial property and succession law. It aims to interfere in the core of private international law and seeks to provide a European conflict law. If one is of the opinion that a unified international procedural law is not sufficient and that a unified conflict law is necessary, e.g. in order to combat forum shopping, then there will possibly come a third stage. Here one recognizes that a unified conflict law does not suffice in order to prevent forum shopping and the call for a harmonised and even unified substantive family law will become louder. 79 76 Hereto Boele-Woelki, Brüssel II: Die Verordnung über die Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung von Entscheidungen in Ehesachen, ZfRV 2001, 121 ff.; Boele-woelki/González Beilfuss (ed.), Brussels IIbis: Its Impact and Application in the Member States, in EFL Series, n° 14, Antwerp 2007; Everall/Nicholls, Brussels I and II – The Impact on Family Law, Fam Law 2002, 674 ff.; Helms, Die Anerkennung ausländischer Entscheidungen im Europäischen Eheverfahrensrecht, FamRZ 2001, 257 ff.; Helms, Internationales Verfahrensrecht für Familiensachen in der Europäischen Union, FamRZ 2002, 1593 ff.; Jänterä-Jareborg, Marriage Dissolution in an integrated Europe: The 1998 European Union Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (Brussels II Convention), in Šarčević/Volken, Yearbook of Private International Law 1999, 1 ff.; Kohler, Internationales Verfahrensrecht für Ehesachen in der europäischen Union: Die Verordnung Brüssel II, NJW 2001, 10 ff.; Kohler, Status als Ware: Bemerkungen zur europäischen Verordnung über das internationale Verfahrensrecht für Ehesachen, in Mansel (ed.), Vergemeinschaftung des Europäischen Kollisionsrecht, Cologne 2001, 41 ff. Solomon, “Brüssel IIa” – Die neuen europäischen Regeln zum internationalen Verfahrensrecht in Fragen der elterlichen Verantwortung, FamRZ 2004, 1409 ff.; Staudinger/Spellenberg, EheGVO, Berlin 2005. 77 OJ C53 of 3 March 2005. Hereto Pintens, FamRZ 2005, 1559 ff.; Wagner, Die Aussagen zur justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen im Haager Programm, IPrax 2005, 66 f. 78 Clarkson, Brussels III – Matrimonial Property European Style, Fam Law 2002, 683 ff.; Meeuse et al., International Family Law for the European Union, Antwerp 2007; Moro, Observations sur la communautarisation du droit de la famille, Riv.dir.int.priv.proc. 2007, 675 ff.; Pintens/Kohler, FamRZ 2007, in print; Trezza, Il progetto “Roma III”: Verso uno strumento comunitario in material di divorzio, Famila 2001, 221ff. 79 See also Martiny, in Hartkamp (fn. 19), 310, who very significantly stresses the point that recognition of foreign decisions without exequatur proceedings ignoring the differences between the legal systems will lead to a growing pressure for a unification or at least an approximation of substantive law. 17 21. The provisions laid down in Art. 94 and 95 EC on the approximation of laws are not applicable. The approximation of the laws of Member States is only a legitimate task for the European Community when it is required for the functioning of the common market. Even when using a broad interpretation of the goals of the European Community, there are only a few rules of family and especially succession law that directly affect the functioning of the common market, despite the fact that succession law has some economic relevance.80 Justifying an approximation of law using Art. 293 EC on the negotiations between Member States with a view to the equalisation of their nationals does not provide a solution either. Even though the enumeration in this article is not a comprehensive one, Art. 293 EC remains restricted to the equalisation of nationals and the rule that such treaties should be imperative for the development of the common market also applies here. Attention should be drawn to Art. 308 EC , by which, if action by the Community should prove to be necessary, in the course of the operation of the common market and neither the objectives of the Community nor the EC Treaty have provided the necessary powers, the Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures. Basedow has stated that, according to the extent of the necessary harmonisation of the legal systems of the Member States, this article is a legal basis for a European matrimonial regime or formal requirements for a European will.81 However, Art. 308 EC expressly states that action by the Community should prove necessary to achieve the objectives of the common market. A European matrimonial regime or a European will are desirable and would represent a great step in the direction of a Europeanization of family and succession law, but it is questionable whether they are really necessary for the completion of the common market. 80 E.g. one could link up with company law and corporate law. Hereto Leipold, Europa und das Erbrecht, in Festschrift Söllner, Munich 2000, 650; Tillmann, Zur Entwicklung eines europäischen Zivilrechts, in Festschrift Oppenhoff, Munich 1985, 503. 81 Basedow , AcP 2000, 478. 18 Art. 18 II EC on the citizenship of the Union was first cited by Spellenberg as a possible basis for unification.82 Under it, the Council may adopt provisions to facilitate the exercise of the rights of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. These provisions should protect the freedom of movement. The goal of Art. 18 II EC seems to lie in the elimination of unjustified impediments but not in the creation of a European private international law. Therefore Art. 65 EC is preferable. A unification of substantive family law clearly exceeds the goal of Art. 18 EC, although the Court of Justice seems to proceed in this direction (cf. infra n° 25). 22. With the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 7 December 2000,83 which is of a mainly programmatic nature84 and reaffirms the rights as contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in constitutional traditions, with some additions, the Union has acknowledged the importance of the family.85 Whereas previous action of the Union primarily focused on family policy as a part of social policy, fundamental rights related to family law are inserted in the Charter, e.g. the right to respect for private and family life (Art. II-67), the right to marry and to found a family (art. II-69), the rights of the child (Art. II-84) and the rights of the elderly (Art. II-85). Article II-81 prohibits discrimination, expressly including discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.86 The citizens of the European Union are no longer being seen as consumers, but as persons with their own 82 Spellenberg , Der Anwendungsbereich der EheGVO (“Brüssel II”) in Statussachen, in: Festschrift Schumann, Tübingen 2001, 428. 83 OJ C 364, 18 December 2000, 1. Hereto in general Di Fabio, Eine europäische Charta. Auf dem Weg zur Unionsverfassung, JZ 2000, 737 ff.; Carlier/De Schutter (ed.), La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne. Son apport à la protection des droits de l’homme en Europe. Hommage à Silvio Marcus Helmons, Brussels 2002; Ruscello, La famiglia tra diritto interno e normativa comunitaria, Familia, 2001, 697 ff.; Schröder, Wirkungen der Grundrechtscharta in der europäischen Rechtsordnung, JZ 2002, 849 ff. 84 But obligatory for the institutions and bodies of the Union and to the member states only when they are implementing Union law (Art. 51). 85 Hereto Andrini, La famiglia nello constituzione europea, Familia 2004, 551 ff.; Herzog, Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz für Ehe und Familie, Jahrbuch Bitburger Gespräche 2001, 7 ff. Pintens, Familie und Familienrecht in der europäischen Verfassung, in: Festschrift Schwab, Bielefeld 2005, 1216 ff. 86 Hereto Sumner, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Sexual Orientation, IFL 2002, 156, esp. 161-162. 19 rights. This does not imply that the Union now possesses a legal competence in family law, but that existing rules can be interpreted in a broader sense.87 23. The presidency conclusions of the Laeken European Council of 14-15 December 2001 which formed the basis of the European Constitution, declare that efforts to resolve the problems arising from differences between legal systems should continue,88 and the harmonisation of family law is expressly mentioned as an example.89 24. The European Constitution, and the Reform Treaty which has to replace the Constitution, will not be very significant in the field of substantive family law. As in the Charter, the fundamental rights will merely be declaratory. They will only be binding for EU institutions and for the Member States in their implementation of the law of the Union (Art. II-51-52). In court the citizens can only call upon the fundamental rights for the interpretation and the review of the legality of EU law, a restriction inserted in order to answer to English but also to Dutch objections against le gouvernement des juges (Art. II-52 No. 5). However, this will not prevent both the Court of Justice and the national courts from orienting themselves more broadly towards the Charter.90 The inclusion of the Charter into the European Constitution has been set aside by the Brussels European Council of 21-22 June 2007. The Reform Treaty will only make a cross reference to the Charter but this does not alter his legal status.91 87 McGlynn, Families and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: progressive change or entrenching the status quo?, E.L.Rev. 2001, 586; Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 26; Stalford, Concepts of family under EU law - Lessons from the ECHR, IJLPF 2002, 411 ff. 88 Comp. the Tampere European Council of 15-16 October 1999, which already stressed that “in a genuine European Area of Justice individuals and businesses should not be prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by the incompatibility or complexity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States” (Nr. 28 of the presidency conclusions). 89 Nr. 45 of the presidency conclusions. Hereto Pintens, Grundgedanken und Perspektiven einer Europäisierung des Familien- und Erbrechts, FamRZ 2003, 503. 90 91 Pintens, (fn. 85), 1223. (Presidency conclusions, Annex I, Doc. 11177/07 Rev. 1 of 20.7.2007). The United Kingdom made a reservation: the Charter will not be binding for the courts. Ireland and Poland declared that they want to reconsider their position. 20 But the Constitution is not without importance for international family law. 92 Article 65 EC has tied the measures within the scope of the judicial cooperation in civil matters to the condition that they can only be taken insofar as they are beneficial to the proper functioning of the internal market. In the practice of Council and Commission, this condition did not carry too much weight. While regulations on international marital and divorce law are without question very useful in the European Union, whether they are really beneficial to the proper functioning of the internal market is disputable. In the new article III-269 of the Constitution, which replaces Article 65 EC, this condition has been deleted. Therefore, it is conceivable that private international law – and along with it international family law – will appear even more centrally in the activities of the Council and Commission and that a true unified conflict law will be developed. The article even opens up the possibility of unifying substantive law, but only in cross border-cases.93 b. Court of Justice 25. In several cases, the European Court of Justice has served as a catalyst to harmonisation of law by attributing certain aspects of family law to the freedom of movement.94 In the Konstantinidis case of 3 March 1993, the Court ruled that national legislation obliging a Greek national to use, in his profession, a written form of his name resulting from its transliteration is incompatible with the right of establishment guaranteed by Art. 52 EC (now Art. 43) if that written form distorts the pronunciation and if such distortion creates a risk of confusion as to the person’s identity among his potential clientele.95 Another example is provided by the Dafeki case where it was held 92 Pintens, (fn. 85), 1222. 93 94 Pintens, FamRZ 2005, 1559. Comp. Jayme/Kohler, Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2003, IPRax 2003, 486. See Fallon, Droit familial et droit des Communautés européennes, Revue trimestrielle du droit familial 1998, 375 ff.; Pintens, Von Konstantinidis bis Grant. Europa und das Familienrecht, ZEuP 1998, 843 ff.; Pintens, Familienrecht und Personenstand – Perspektiven einer Europäisierung, StAZ 2004, 353 ff.; Zeyringer, Der Einfluß europäischen Rechts auf das österreichische Personenstandsrecht, Östa 1999, 10 ff. 95 ECJ 3 March 1993 (Konstantinidis/Stadt Altensteig), ECR 1993, I-1991, CMLR 1994, 395, note Lawson, ERPL 1995, 483, note Gaurier, Schockweiler, Loiseau, Rev.trim.D.H. 1994, note Flauss, ZEuP 1995, 89, note Pintens. See also Basedow, Konstantinidis v. Bangemann – oder die Familie im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht, ZEuP 1994, 197 ff.; De Groot, Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen 21 that the freedom of movement for workers requires that the authorities and courts of a Member State must accept certificates concerning personal status issued by the competent authorities of another Member State unless their accuracy is seriously undermined by concrete evidence relating to the individual case in question.96 In the P. case, the Court criticised the discharge of a transsexual employee, who underwent a gender reassignment, as a contravention to the European Directive No. 76/207 of 9 February 1976 97 on the equal treatment of men and women in terms of their working conditions. The Court ruled in favour of an expansive interpretation of this directive, whereby sexual discrimination is not limited to that between men and women, but rather includes all discrimination on grounds of sex. In the Garcia Avello case of 2 October 2003 the Court ruled that Articles 12 EC on the prohibition of discrimination and 17 EC on the citizenship of the Union have to be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit Member States from dismissing applications regarding name-changes in cases where children are living in one Member State with double citizenship (of the Member State of residence and another Member State), if it is the aim of the application to allow the children to be named as provided for by law and tradition of the latter Member State.98 26. These judgments are very important, as they contribute to the reduction of discrimination and administrative impediments. They illustrate that the freedoms of the Treaty and the citizenship of the Union play and will play an important role. However, waagt zich op het gebied van het namenrecht, WPNR 1994, 855 ff. 96 ECJ 2 December 1997 (Dafeki/Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg), ECR 1997, I-6761, R.C.D.I.P. 1998, 239, note Droz. 97 98 ECJ 4 April 1996 (P./S. and Cornwall County Council), ECR 1996, I-2143. ECJ 2 October 2003, FamRZ 2004, 173, note Henrich, J.L.M.B. 2004, 380, Rev. Int. DIP 2004, 184, note Lagarde, StAZ 2004, 40. Hereto De Groot, Op weg naar een Europees IPR op het gebied van het personenrecht, WPNR 2004, 360 ff.; De Groot, Op weg naar een Europees IPR op het gebied van het personenen familierecht, NjPR 2004, 273 ff.; Helms, Europarechtliche Vorgaben zur Bestimmung des Namensstatuts von Doppelstaatlern, GPR 2005, 36 ff.; Henrich, Das internationale Namensrecht auf dem Prüfstand des EuGH, in Festschrift Heldrich, Munich 2005, 667; Pintens, Family law - A challenge for Europe? In Area de dret civil. Universitat de Girona (ed.), Nous reptes del Dret de família, Girona 2005, 21 ff.; Quiñones Escamez, Ciudadanía europea, doble nacionalidad y cambio de los appellidos de los hijos: Autonomía de la voluntad y conflicato positivo entre las nacionalidades de dos estados miembros, Revista Jurídica de Catalunya 2004, 203 ff.; Quiñones Escamez, Derecho comunitario, derechos fundamentales y denegación del cambio de sexo y apellidos: ¿un oreden público europeo armonizador?, Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 2004, 507 ff. 22 the Court cannot be expected to contribute greatly to a real breakthrough in the field of harmonisation of law. This is exemplified by the Grant case,99 where the Court decided that a railway company is not obliged to provide the same travel concessions to homosexual partners as to heterosexual partners of its staff members. The Court stated that, given the present state of the law within the EU Member States, stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages or stable relationships outside marriage between two persons of opposite sex. Further, the Court asserted that the principle of equality prohibits discrimination based on the sex of a person but not on a person’s sexual orientation. The Court left it to the Council, which, in the light of the Treaty of Amsterdam, is allowed by Art. 13 EC to take appropriate action to eliminate such discrimination. In the case of D. and the Kingdom of Sweden v. Council of the European Union, the Court has for the first time dealt with a registered partnership.100 The Council rejected an application by a staff member who lived in a registered partnership with a partner of the same sex, who wished to obtain the household allowance provided for married couples in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. The Court stated that statutory arrangements for registered partnership are very diverse and are regarded in the Member States as being distinct from marriage, so that the Community judiciary cannot interpret Staff Regulations in such a way that registered partnerships are treated the same way as marriage. The Court placed its hope in Art. 13 EC and left the initiative to the Community legislator.101 4. Conclusion: Harmonisation through legal science and education 99 ECJ 17 December 1998 (Grant/South-West Trains Ltd.), ECR 1998, I-636, EuZW 1998, 212, note Szczekalla. 100 ECJ 31 May 2001 (D. and the Kingdom of Sweden/Council of Ministers), ECR 2002, I-4319, Eur.L.R. 2002, 80, note Caracciolo di Torella/Reid, FamRZ 2001, 1053. Hereto Bogdan, Registered Partnerships and EC Law, in Boele-Woelki/Fuchs (ed.), Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples in Europe, EFL Series, N° 1, Antwerp 2003, 178 ff.; Jakob, Die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft im Europarecht, FamRZ 2002, 505 ff. with further references. 101 Comp. McGlynn, The Europeanisation of family law, C.F.L.Q. 2001, 48. 23 27. The Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights have played an important role in the development of European family law. But family law has also progressively gained importance in European Community law. The elimination of obstacles to the freedom of movement within the European internal market, which has become more important because of the increasing number of changes of domicile, inevitably leads to interactions between family law and the Community’s fields of activity. The Court of Justice uses the freedoms of the Treaty and the citizenship of the Union to enter into the field of family law. 28. Should this development be welcomed? The European Union’s engagement in family law cannot simply be rejected. 102 The probable unavailability of an ideal rule of competence is the smaller problem, as rules can be made. Instead one has first to ask whether the European Community is an organisation with the ideal prerequisites and premises to promote harmonisation and unification of family law. The Council and the Commission’s legislative activities as well as the judgements of the ECJ show that only fragmentary work is done and that the goals and concepts are not always well elaborated. Family, marriage and partnership are more and more in the centre of discussions, measures and decisions but the concepts are defined just as little as the affected rights and the interest which deserve protection. Economic views, free movement and realisation of an internal market… these are perhaps not the best starting points. To put it in Kohler’s words: “Status als Ware” 103 or family law as product of an economic market. There is a risk that family law will be downgraded to an auxiliary science of economic law, serving only to realise the economic goals of the Community. Unification of law, which has been established in back rooms without sufficient participation of the European Parliament and perhaps even 102 Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 27 ff. For a strong opposition: McGlynn (fn. 22). 103 Kohler, Status als Ware: Bemerkungen zur europäischen Verordnung über das internationale Verfahrensrecht für Ehesachen, in Mansel (ed.), Vergemeinschaftung des Europäischen Kollisionsrechts, Cologne 2001, 41 ff. 24 of the national parliaments, lacks democratic legitimation.104 Unification of law, which has been established without sufficient scientific cooperation, leads to a reduction of quality. Moreover, a great deal still has to be realised by the judiciary. A real uniform area of law can only function if the education and training of judges reaches a similar level in each Member State. 105 29. The conclusion can be reached that an institutional unification of substantive family law by treaties or regulations is currently not advisable. At first a long phase of more spontaneous harmonisation is necessary. It is very important to underline that harmonisation of law will only be successful once there is emphasis on what is common to the European legal systems and when the differences are placed in perspective rather than denied, thus creating a European consciousness. 106 This can only be reached through the evolution of legal science and education. Europeanisation of law is for all an educational process and a matter of legal training. 107 IV. Harmonisation and the search for a ius commune: The CEFL 30. During the last twenty years an important contribution to spontaneous harmonisation has been made by legal writers working on their own or in groups and promoting the development of principles, especially in contract law, based on the common core of the legal systems: the search for a ius commune. For a few years family lawyers have been 104 Pintens, in Boele-Woelki , Perspectives, (fn. 20), 28. Pintens, CILSA 2007, in press. Pintens, CILSA 2007, in press. 105 106 107 Comp. Zimmerman, Comparative law and the europeanisation of private law, in Reimann/Zimmermann (fn.19), 439 ff., esp. 548 ff. and 571 f. 25 following those examples and are searching for a ius commune familiae. An important example of such a study is the contribution by Prof. Dethloff on a European marriage.108 On a larger scale an audacious initiative saw the light. In September 2001 the Commission on European Family Law was founded.109 Its establishment was based on the idea that family law, with regard to the European citizen’s greater mobility, must not fall in a search for a ius commune and that the available armamentarium of private international law110 as well as the legislative and judicial activities of the Council of Europe and of the European Union are not sufficient to ensure further harmonisation. The members of the Commission hold the conviction that a certain level of harmonisation of family law is needed in order to realise a true free movement of persons and that this harmonisation will reinforce the European identity as well as providing an efficient uniform area of law. This idea is not entirely new, but has been practised in the Nordic countries for decades (cf. supra n° 12). This idea is also found in developments in the United States of America, where the fragmentation of family law competence among the different states is considered to be too complex and to be a handicap, which needs to be overcome through uniform model laws and principles.111 Legal doctrine in the United 108 109 Dethloff, AcP 2004, 564 ff. See the communication note in ZEuP 2002, 194. More information on www.law.uu.nl/priv/cefl . Hereto Boele-Woelki, Divorce in Europe: Unification of Private International Law and Harmonisation of Substantive Law, in Liber amicorum Joppe, Deventer 2002, 21 ff.; Boele-Woelki, Comparative research-based drafting of principles of european family law, in: Faure et al. Towards a European Ius Commune in Legal Education Research, Antwerp/Groningen 2002, 178 ff.; Pintens, Over cultuur, Europa en recht, in Liber amicorum Herbots, Antwerpen 2002, 317 ff.; Martiny, Erste Schritte zu einem einheitlichen Familienrecht in Europa, in: Deutscher Familiengerichtstag (ed.), Fünfzehnter Deutscher Familiengerichtstag, Bielefeld 2004, 56 ff.; Pintens, Die Commission on European Family Law – Hintergrund, Gründung, Arbeitsmethoden und erste Ergebnisse, ZEuP 2004, 548 ff. 110 Unification of private international law cannot prevent the fact that a change of domicile or residence sometimes provokes a loss or a change of legal positions. Hereto Dethloff, Arguments for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe, in Boele-Woelki (ed.), Perspectives (fn. 20), 39 ff.; Pintens, in Freitag et al. (fn. 38), 138 f. 111 See Maxwell, Unification and harmonisation of family law principles: the United States experience, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 249 ff. For an important example: American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations, Newark 2002. See also Fretell Wilson, Reconceiving the family. Critique on the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, West Nyack 2007. 26 States therefore increasingly advocates a harmonisation of family law by means of federalisation.112 Academics in the Mercosur Member States also discuss the matter.113 31. Following the example of similar commissions, the Commission on European Family Law consists of two groups: the Organising Committee and the Expert Group. The task of the Organising Committee 114 is to set up and co-ordinate the Expert Group, which consists of distinguished experts in the field of family and comparative law from most European Union Member States and from non-member states such as Norway and Switzerland. The main task for these experts is to present national reports in preparation for harmonisation projects and to discuss the draft principles prepared by the Organising Committee. 32. The Organising Committee has long discussed the working method and the fields of family law that are suitable for harmonisation. For this task, the famous Regensburger Symposia provided invaluable help.115 As a working method, the Commission has opted for the drafting of a set of principles following the example of the Lando-Commission, 116 112 See Adler, Federalism and Family, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 1999, 197 ff.; Law, Families and Federalism, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 2000, 175 ff.; Martiny, The Harmonisation of Family Law in the European Community. Pro and Contra, in: Faure et al., Towards a European Ius Commune in Legal Education and Research, Antwerp 2002, 196 f. with further references. 113 Feldstein de Cárdenas, Armonización legislatura en materia de derecho de famiglia en el Mercosur: i Una necesidad o una quimera?, in: Calva Caravaca/Castellanos Ruiz (ed.), El derecho de familia ante el siglo XXI: aspectos internationales, Madrid 2004, p. 381 ff. 114 Prof. Katharina Boele-Woelki (Utrecht), prof. Frédérique Ferrand (Lyon), prof. Christina González-Beilfuss (Barcelona), prof. Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala), prof. Nigel Lowe (Cardiff), prof. Dieter Martiny (Frankfurt an der Oder) and prof. Walter Pintens (Louvain). 115 See Schwab/Henrich (ed.), Entwicklungen des europäischen Kindschaftsrechts, Bielefeld 1994, 2 nd edition, Bielefeld 1996; Henrich/Schwab (ed.), Der Schutz der Familienwohnung in Europäischen Rechtsordnungen, Bielefeld 1995; Schwab/Henrich (ed.), Familiäre Solidarität. Die Begründung und die Grenzen der Unterhaltspflicht im europäischen Vergleich, Bielefeld 1997; Henrich/Schwab (ed.), Eheliche Gemeinschaft, Partnerschaft und Vermögen im europäischen Vergleich, Bielefeld 1999; Henrich/Schwab (ed.), Familienerbrecht und Testierfreiheit im europäischen Vergleich, Bielefeld 2001; Hofer/Schwab/Henrich (ed.) Scheidung und nachehelicher Unterhalt im Europäischen Vergleich, Bielefeld 2003; Hofer/Schwab/Henrich (ed.), From Status to Contract? – Die Bedeutung des Vertrages im europäischen Familienrecht, Bielefeld 2005; Spickhof/Schwab/Henrich/Gottwald (ed.), Streit um die Abstammung. Ein europäischer Vergleich, Bielefeld 2007. 116 Lando/Beale (ed.), Principles of European contract law, I-II, The Hague 1999; 27 the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts117 and the European Group on Tort Law. 118 The Commission has no intention to draft detailed law codes as the time is not yet ripe. The Commission seeks to formulate principles, which form the ius commune of the legal systems and could be useful as a source of inspiration for national legislators. This method will not always suffice, as in many fields the common core will not reflect valuable new developments or the differences will be so immense that it becomes impossible to derive common principles from the various national legal systems. In those cases where the common core has no future or where the solutions provided by each of the national jurisdictions are so different that a common core cannot be found, the Commission will have to propose its own solutions on the basis of a better law approach.119 Here the key question is which interest needs to be protected the most. The procedure for reaching a set of principles begins with a questionnaire prepared by the Organising Committee. 120 The experts then answer through national reports. Draft principles are drawn up by the Organising Committee. They are discussed in several readings with the Expert Group and if necessary revised after discussion in this Group. 33. The choice of a first field of research was not easy. It is often held that harmonisation has the best chance of success in those branches of law that are closely connected to Lando/Clive/Prüm/Zimmermann (ed.), Principles of European Contract Law, III, The Hague 2003. 117 Bonell, An international Restatement of Contract Law. The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, New York 1994. 118 119 Hereto Spier/Haazen, The European Group on Tort Law, ZEuP 1999, 469 ff. See Boele-Woelki, The working method of the Commission on European Family Law, in Boele-Woelki, Common Core and Better Law in European Family Law, in EFL Series, n° 10, Antwerp 2005, 15 ff. Comp.: Antokolskaia, The better law approach and the harmonisation of family law, Eur. Journal of Law Reform 2005, 159; Michaels, The functional method of comparative law, in Reimann/Zimmermann (fn. 19), 373 ff.; Schwenzer, Methodological aspects of harmonisation of family, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 143 ff. 120 See the first questionnaire on divorce law and maintenance between former spouses http://www2.law.uu.nl/priv/cefl/Reports/Field1/Questionnaire01.doc and the second one on parental authority: http://www2.law.uu.nl/priv/cefl/Questionnaire02.doc; Boele-Woelki/Braat/Sumner (ed.), European Family Law in Action, I, Grounds for divorce, II, Maintenance between former spouses, in EFL Series, n° 2-3, Antwerp 2003; Boele-Woelki/Braat/Curry-Sumner (ed.), European Family Law in Action, III, Parental Responsibilities, in EFL Series, n° 9, Antwerp 2005. 28 property law, such as marital property law.121 However, the technical complexity of this field should not be underestimated. In addition, it not only has a close connection to the law of obligations, in which harmonisation has already become apparent, but also to property law, which is not always considered to offer great possibilities for harmonisation. Comparative studies on statutory matrimonial regimes have shown the difficulty of working out one European statutory matrimonial regime. At most, it will be possible to offer models for different statutory matrimonial regimes, from which the national legislature can choose one.122 In this regard, several propositions have been made, each of them being without a doubt very useful.123 The Commission has yet another purpose. It searches for a common core and seeks to create one set of principles of European family law that are believed to play a key role in the development of national legal systems, but the Commission does not attempt to suggest alternative propositions to supplement national family laws.124 Finally, the Commission decided to commence activity in the field of divorce law (grounds for divorce and maintenance between former spouses). Parental responsibility has been selected as the second issue. A comparative survey of divorce law does not show evidence of real convergences of law. However, important tendencies cannot be ignored: the evolution from the principle of culpability to the principle of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the limitation of maintenance (i.e. whether it is for a certain time or on a circumstantial basis).125 As for parental 121 See already Zajtay, Rechtsvergleichung im ehelichen Güterrecht, Annalis Universitatis Saraviensis 1955, 154 ff. 122 Henrich, Zur Zukunft des Güterrechts in Europa, FamRZ 2002, 1522; Pintens, in Boele-Woelki, Perspectives (fn. 20), 9 ff. 123 See Agell, Towards uniforming spouses property rights especially in international marriages, in Council of Europe, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on family law, Strasbourg 1996, 63 ff. and The division of property upon divorce from a european perspective, in Liber Amicorum Meulders-Klein, Brussels 1998, 1 ff.; Verbeke, Perspectives for an International Marital Contract, MJ 2001, 189 ff. See also the recent study by Braat, Jurisprudence et interdépendence patrimoniales des époux dans le régime matrimonial legal des droits français, néerlandais et suisse, Bern 2004. 124 125 Comp. the propositions of De Groot, ZEuP 2001, 617 ff. See Agell, Grounds and Procedures Reviewed, in Weitzman and Maclean, Economic Consequences of Divorce, Oxford 1992, 53 ff.; Dutoit et al., Le divorce en droit comparé, Geneva 2002; Meulders-Klein, La problématique du divorce dans les législations d’Europe occidentale, R.I.D.C. 1989, 7 ff.; Pintens, FamRZ 2003, 336-337. 29 responsibility, joint custody, independent from the status of the child and the parents, has found acceptance as a basic model. 34. In 2004 the Commission presented the first set of twenty principles regarding divorce and maintenance between former spouses. 126 Thirty nine principles on parental responsibilities have been published in 2007.127 In the meantime the Commission set its reservations aside and choose matrimonial property law as its third working field. This change of attitude is due to recent developments: the publication by the European Commission of the Green Paper on Conflicts of Laws in Matters Concerning Matrimonial Property Regimes128 in preparation of a regulation, important House of Lords decisions indicating an evolution from a separation of property to a deferred community system129 and the increasing interest of comparatists in matrimonial property law.130 35. The establishment of a commission for the harmonisation of family law will seem to be premature for many. Certain scholars will regard its plans as utopian, some will find its propositions too radical and others will find them too modest. However, ideas and points of view quickly develop. What is still a dream today becomes reality tomorrow. The Lando-Commission suffered mockery at its beginning, but now, twenty years later, 126 Boele-Woelki/Ferrand/Gonzales-Beilfuss/Jantära-Jareborg/Lowe/Martiny/Pintens, Principles of European Family Law Regarding Divorce and Maintenance Between Former Spouses, in EFL Series, n° 7, Antwerp 2004. Hereto Boele-Woelki/Martiny, Prinzipien zum Europäischen Familienrecht betreffend Ehescheidung und nachehelicher Unterhalt, ZEuP 2006, 6 ff.; Ferrand, Les Principes de droit du divorce établis par la Commission de droit européen de la famille, Rev. Lamy 2005, 29 ff. 127 Boele-Woelki/Ferrand/Gonzales-Beilfuss/Jantära-Jareborg/Lowe/Martiny/Pintens, Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, in EFL Series, n° 16, Antwerp 2007. Hereto BoeleWoelki/Martiny, The Commission on European Family Law (CEFL) and its Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, ERA-Forum 2007/1, ** ff.; Kohler/Pintens, FamRZ 2007, in print. 128 129 COM (2006) 400 final. White v. White [2001] 1 AC 596; Miller v. Miller/ McFarlane v. McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24. See Part II, Ch. 4. 130 Boele-Woelki et al. (fn. 127), 3 ff. See also the publications in Part II, Ch. 4. 30 its work is generally praised. The European Commission, for instance, now uses its work as a model. 131 Harmonisation of family law is a process, which will take several decades. One cannot expect that the legislators in Europe will immediately introduce the CEFLPrinciples in their legislation. Those principles will play a role when national parliaments debate reform but even then those reforms will not copy the principles. They will be much more of a source of information and inspiration, a frame of reference. It was encouraging to see that when the Scottish and the Belgian parliaments discussed divorce reform the work of the CEFL did not go unnoticed. But the principles are primarily an academic achievement. In the field of comparative law family law long played the role of Cinderella. 132 The activities of the CEFL do not turn Cinderella into a princess. 133 Harmonisation of family law is still controversial. A lot of work has to be done. But the CEFL will reinforce the importance of comparison in family law and the principles will stimulate research preparing harmonisation. 134 V. Harmonisation through case law 36. When explaining the benefits of comparative law, the link between case law and comparative law was mentioned (cf. supra). Case law plays an important role in the 131 See the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on european contract law of 11 July 2001, COM (2001) 398, ZEuP 2001, 963 ff.; also with annexes on internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index_en.htm. See von Bar, Die Mitteilung der Europäischen Kommission zum Europäischen Vertragsrecht, ZEuP 2001, 799 ff. See also the recent Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Common Frame of Reference of 11 October 2004, COM (2004) 651. Hereto Schmidt-Kessel, Auf dem Weg zum Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen: Anmerkungen zur Mitteilung der Kommission vom 11. Oktober 2004, GPR 2005, 2 ff. 132 Antokolskaia (fn. 20), 4. Comp. Antokolskaia (fn. 20), 5. 133 134 See already Antokolskaia, Nederlands echtscheidingsrecht en the CEFL Principles on Divorce, Amsterdam 2006; Götting/Hallik/Uusen-Nacke, Legal regulation of divorce in Estonia. Comparison with the Principles of European Family Law as regards divorce and maintenance of a divorced spouse, Juridica 2006, 244 ff.; Örücü/Mair (ed.), Juxtaposing Legal Systems and the Principles of European Family Law on Divorce and Maintenance, in EFL Series, n° 17, Antwerp/Oxford 2007. 31 harmonisation of family law. The principles of equality and non-discrimination have led to comparative analysis in the case law of national and supra-national courts and especially in the case law of the ECtHR, where best law-approach-solutions are chosen on the basis of extensive comparative research. In studying case law, one gets familiar with the law in action and often discovers that the judiciary is far ahead of the legislator in terms of knowledge of solutions that benefit from foreign and comparative law. Therefore case law is an important actor for a spontaneous approximation of the legal systems. It is also a necessary step on the path of modelling European family law principles. Therefore, case law forms a substantive part of this book. 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Comparative law in general - Ajani, Sistemi juridici comparati, Torino 2005. - Agostini, Droit comparé, Paris 1988. - Ancel, Utilité et méthodes du droit compare, Neuchâtel 1971. - Bogdan, Comparative Law, Deventer 1994. - Constantinesco, Rechtsvergleichung, 3 vol., Cologne 1971-72-83. - Danner/Bernal (eds.), Introduction to foreign legal systems, New York 1994. - David/Brierley, Major legal systems in the world today. An introduction to the comparative study of law, 3rd ed., London 1990. - David/Grasmann, Einführung in die großen Rechtssysteme der Gegenwart, 2nd ed., Munich,1988. - David/Jauffret-Spinosi, Les grands systèmes de droit contemporain, 11th ed., Paris 2002. - de Cruz, A modern Approach to Comparative Law, Deventer 1993. - de Cruz, Comparative law in a changing world, 3th ed., London 2004. - Fromont, Grands systèmes de droit étrangers, 3rd ed., Paris 2001. - Gambaro/Sacco, Sistemi giuridici comparati, 2nd ed., Torino 2002. - Glendon/Gordon/Carozza, Comparative Legal Traditions. Text, Materials and Cases, 3rd ed., St. Paul 1999. - Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 2nd ed., Oxford 2004. - Groβfeld, Kernfragen der Rechtsvergleichung, Tübingen 1996. - Harding/Örücü (ed.), Comparative Law in the 21st Century, The Hague 2002. - Legrand, Le droit comparé, Paris 1999. - Örücü, The Enigma of Comparative Law. Variations on a Theme for the Twenty-First Century, Leiden 2004. - Pintens, Inleiding tot de rechtsvergelijking, Louvain 1998. - Posch, Grundzüge fremder Privatrechtssysteme. Ein Studienbuch, Vienna 1995. 33 - Rheinstein, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, Munich 1987. - Reimann/Zimmermann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, Oxford 2006. - Rodière, Introduction au droit comparé, Paris 1979. - Sacco, Introduzione al diritto comparato, 5th ed., Torino 1992. - Schlesinger/Baade//Herzog/Wise, Comparative Law. Cases, Texts, Materials, 6th ed., New York 1998. - Smits (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Cheltenham 2006. - Vanderlinden, Comparer les droits, Diegem 1995. - Zweigert/Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3rd ed., Tübingen 1996. English translation by T. Weir, An Introduction to Comparativbe Law, 3rd ed., Oxford 1998. 2. Comparative family law - Agell, Is there one system of family law in the Nordic countries?, E.J.L.R. 2001, 313 ff. - Akoto, The Commission on European Family Law, IFL 2005, 23 ff. - Andrini, La famiglia nello constituzione europea, Familia 2004, 551 ff. - Antokolskaia, Enkele gedachten over de harmonisatie van het familierecht in Europa, FJR 2002, 4 ff. - Antokolskaia, Would the harmonisation of family law in Europe enlarge the gap between the law in books and the law in action. A discussion of four historical examples of radical family law reform, FamPra.ch 2002, 261 ff. - Antokolskaia, The harmonisation of family law: Old and new dilemmas, E.R.P.L. 2003, 28 ff. - Antokolskaia, Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe: A Historical Perspective. A tale of two millennia, in EFL Series, n° 13, Antwerp 2006. - Antokolskaia, The better law approach and the harmonisation of family law, Eur.J. Law Reform 2005, 159 ff. - Antokolskaia, Family values and the harmonisation of family law, in Macclean (ed.), Family law and family values, Oxford 2005. - Antokolskaia/De Hondt/Steenhoff, Een zoektocht naar Europees familierecht, Deventer 1999. - Àrea de Dret Civil. Universitat de Girona (ed.), Nous reptes del Dret de família, Girona 2005. - Bergmann/Ferid/Henrich (ed.), Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht, Frankfurt (loose-leaf edition). - Blair/Weiner, Family law in the World Community, Durham 2003. 34 - Blair/Weiner, International Family Law. Conventions, Statutes and Regulatory Materials, Durham 2003. - Boele-Woelki, The Road Towards a European Family Law, EJCL 1997, 1 ff. (http:// www.ejcl.org). - Boele-Woelki, De weg naar een Europees familierecht, F.J.R. 1997, 2 ff. - Boele-Woelki, Comparative research-based drafting of principles of european family law, in: Faure et al. (eds.), Towards a European Ius Commune in Legal Education and Research, Antwerp 2002, 171 ff. - Boele-Woelki, B(l)oeiend vergelijkend familierecht: de Commission on European Family Law, in: BoeleWoelki, Brants and Steenhoff (eds.), Het plezier van de rechtsvergelijking. Opstellen over unificatie en harmonisatie van het recht in Europa aangeboden aan prof. mr. E.H. Hondius, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking, n° 63, Deventer 2003, 141 ff. - Boele-Woelki, Comparative research-based drafting of principles of European family law, ERA-Forum 2003/1, 142 ff. - Boele-Woelki, Perspectives for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe, EFL Series, n° 4, Antwerp 2003. - Boele-Woelki/Braat/Sumner (ed.), European Family Law in Action, I, Grounds for divorce, II, Maintenance between former spouses, in EFL Series, n° 2-3, Antwerp 2003. - Boele-Woelki, Naar een Europees Restatement voor Familierecht, FJR 2004, 249 ff. - Boele-Woelki/Braat/Curry-Sumner (ed.), European Family Law in Action, III, Parental Responsibilities, in EFL Series, n° 9, Antwerp 2005. - Boele-Woelki / Ferrand / González Beilfuss / Jänterä-Jareborg / Lowe / Martiny / Pintens, Principles of European Family Law Regarding Divorce and Maintenance between Former Spouses, EFL Series, n° 7, Antwerp 2004. - Boele-Woelki/Ferrand/Gonzales-Beilfuss/Jantära-Jareborg/Lowe/Martiny/Pintens, Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, in EFL Series, n° 16, Antwerp 2007. - Boele-Woelki/Martiny, Prinzipien zum Europäischen Familienrecht betreffend Ehescheidung und nachehelicher Unterhalt, ZEuP 2006, 6 ff. - Boele-Woelki/Martiny, The Commission on European Family Law (CEFL) and its Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, ERA-Forum 2007/1, ** ff. - Bradley, Family Law and Political Culture. Scandinavian Laws in Comparative Perspective, London 1996. - Bradley, Convergence in Family Law: Mirrors: Transplants and Political Economy, MJ 1999, 127 ff. - Bradley, Comparative Law, Family Law and Common Law, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2003, 127 ff. - Coester-Waltjen, Überlegungen zu einem europäischen Familienrecht, in: Müller-Magdeburg (ed.), Unsere Aufgaben im 21. Jahrhundert Festschrift für Peschel-Gutzeit, Baden-Baden, 2002, 35 ff. - De Groot, Op weg naar een Europees personen- en familierecht, A.A. 1995, 29 ff. 35 - De Groot, Auf dem Wege zu einem europäischen (internationalen) Familienrecht, ZEuP 2001, 617 ff. - de Oliveira, Een Europees familierecht?, FJR 2000, 272 ff. - de Oliviera, A European family law, Familia 2002, 1093 ff. - Dethloff, Europäische Vereinheitlichung des Familienrechts, AcP 2004, 544 ff. - Dethloff, Die Europäisierung des Familienrechts, in Schwenzer/Büchler (ed.), Dritte Schweizer Familienrecht§Tage, Bern 2006, 55 ff. - Fahrenhorst, Familienrecht und Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Paderborn 1994. - Fallon, Droit familial et droit des Communautés européennes, Rev. trim. dr. fam. 1998, 361 ff. - Ferrand, Les Principes de droit du divorce établis par la Commission de droit européen de la famille, Rev. Lamy 2005, 29 ff. - Frank, Rechtsvergleichende Betrachtungen zur Entwicklung des Familienrechts, FamRZ 2004, 841 ff. - Furgler, L’évolution actuelle et les perspectives d’harmonisation du droit de la famille au sein de l’Europe, Dir. Fam. 1977, 931 ff. - Ganghofer, Le droit de la famille en Europe: son évolution depuis l'antiquité jusqu'à nos jours, Strasbourg 1992. - Granet, Convergences et divergences des droits européens de la famille, Dr. Fam. 2000 (Hors-série), 6 ff. - Hamilton/Perry (eds.), Family Law in Europe, 2nd edition, London 2002. - Handelmann, Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Familienrecht, FF 2006, 98 ff. - Herzog, Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz für Ehe und Familie, Jahrbuch Bitburger Gespräche 2001, 7 ff. - Hohnerlein, Konturen eines einheitlichen Europäischen Familien- und Kindschaftsrechts, Eu.L.F. 2000/2001, 252 ff. - Hondius, Naar een Europees personen- en familierecht, in Feestbundel De Ruiter, Zwolle 1995, 173 ff. - Jäntera-Järeborg, Internationell familjerätt, Svensk Juristtidning 2000, 281 ff. - Jäntera-Järeborg, Mot en europeisk (internationell) familjerätt. Om EU- samarbetets utvidgning till familjerätten, Juridisk Tidskrift 2001-02, 48 ff. - Jayme, Die Entwicklung des europäischen Familienrechts, FamRZ 1981, 221 ff. - Killerby, The Council of Europe's Contribution to Family Law (Past, Present and Future), in: Lowe/Douglas (ed.), Family Across Frontiers, The Hague 1996, 13 ff. - Killerby, Family law in Europe. Standards set by the Member States of the Council of Europe, in: Liber 36 Amicorum Meulders-Klein, Brussels, 1998, 351 ff. - Kohler, Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Justizraum für das Familien- und Erbrecht, FamRZ 2002, 709 ff. - Kohler/Pintens, Ehe und Familie im europäischen Recht – Entwicklungen und Tendenzen, FamRZ 2007, in print. - Kuchinke, Über die Notwendigkeit, ein gemeineuropäisches Familien- und Erbrecht zu schaffen, in: Festschrift Söllner, Munich 2000, 589 ff. - Limbach, Auf dem Wege zu einem europäischen Familienrecht?, in: Deutscher Familiengerichtstag (ed.), Vierzehnter Deutscher Familiengerichtstag, Bielefeld 2003, 27 ff. - Lipari, Riflessioni su famiglia e sistema communitario, Familia 2006, 1 ff. - Lowe, The Growing Influence of the European Union in International Family Law, Current Legal Problems 2003, 439 ff. - Lund-Andersen, Hamonisering af europæsik familieret, in: Holdgaard/López-Rodríguez (eds.), Globalisering og Familieret, 2004, 110 ff. - Martiny, Europäisches Familienrecht - Utopie oder Notwendigkeit?, RabelsZ 1995, 419 ff.; - Martiny, Die Möglichkeit der Vereinheitlichug des Familienrechts innerhalb der Europäischen Union, in: Martiny / Witzleb (ed.), Auf dem Wege zu einem Europäischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Berlin 1999, 177 ff. - Martiny, The Harmonisation of Family Law in the European Community. Pro and Contra, in: Faure et al., Towards a European Ius Commune in Legal Education and Research, Antwerp 2002, 191 ff. - Martiny, Erste Schritte zu einem einheitlichen Familienrecht in Europa, in: Deutscher Familiengerichtstag (ed.), Fünfzehnter Deutscher Familiengerichtstag, Bielefeld 2004, 56 ff. - Martiny, Is Unification of Family Law Feasible or Even Desirable? in: Hartkamp et al. (eds.), Towards a European Civil Code, 3rd edition, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen 2004, 307. - McGlynn, A Family Law for the European Union?, in: Shaw (ed.), Social Law and Policy in an Evolving European Union, Oxford 2000, 223 ff. - McGlynn, The Europeanisation of family law, C.F.L.Q. 2001, 35 ff. - McGlynn, Families and the European Union charter of Fundamental Rights: Progressive change of entrenching the status quo?, E.L.Rev.2001, 582 ff. - Müller-Freienfels, The Unification of Family Law, Am.J.Comp.Law 1968-69, 5 ff. - Örücü/Mair (ed.), Juxtaposing Legal Systems and the Principles of European Family Law on Divorce and Maintenance, in EFL Series, n° 17, Antwerp 2007. - Pintens (ed.), Family and Succession Law, in Blanpain (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Laws, Deventer/Boston (loose-leaf edition); 37 - Pintens, Rechtsvereinheitlichung und Rechtsangleichung im Familienrecht. Eine Rolle für die Europäische Union?, ZEuP 1998, 670 ff.; - Pintens, Von Konstantinidis bis Grant. Europa und das Familienrecht ZEuP 1998, 843 ff. - Pintens, Over de europeanisatie van het familierecht, FJR 1999, 238 ff. - Pintens, Die Europäisierung des Familienrechts, in: Rainieri Rechtswissenschaft, Baden-Baden 2002, 119 ff. (ed.), Die Europäisierung der - Pintens, Over cultuur, Europa en recht, in: Liber Amicorum Jacques Herbots, Deurne 2002, 311 ff. - Pintens, Grundgedanken und Perspektiven einer Europäisierung des Familien- und Erbrechts, FamRZ 2003, 331 ff. - Pintens, Familienrecht und Personenstand - Perspektiven einer Europäisierung, Das Standesamt 2004, 353 ff. - Pintens, Die Rolle der Wissenschaft bei der Europäisierung des Familienrechts, in Festschrift Jayme, Berlin 2004, 1339 ff. - Pintens, Die Commission on European Family Law – Hintergrund, Gründung, Arbeitsmethoden und erste Ergebnisse, ZEuP 2004, 548 ff. - Pintens, Familie und Familienrecht in der europäischen Verfassung, in Festschrift Schwab, Bielefeld 2005, 1216 ff. - Pintens, Materielles Familienrecht in Europa – Einheit oder Vielfalt?, in Freitag et al. (ed.), Internationales Familienrecht für das 21. Jahrhundert, Munich 2006, 137 ff. - Pintens/Du Mongh, Family and Succession Law in the Euopean Union, in Pintens (ed.), Family and Succession Law, Deventer 1997. - Pintens, Family Law in Europe. Developments and Perspectives, CILSA 2007, in print. - Pintens/Vanwinckelen, Casebook European Family Law, Louvain 2001. - Rieg, L’harmonisation européenne du droit de la famille: mythe ou réalité, in Mélanges von Overbeck, Fribourg 1990, 473 ff. - Rosaria Marella, The non-subversive function of European private law: the case of harmonisation of family law, Eur.L.J. 2006, 78 ff. - Roth, Impulse für ein Europäisches Familienrecht, ZfRVgl 2004, 92 ff. - Ruscello, La famiglia tra diritto interno e normativa comunitaria, Familia 2001, 697 ff. - Schrama, De Raad van Europa en het familierecht. Een overzicht van de bijdragen van de Raad van Europa aan het familierecht, FJR 1998, 54 ff. - Schwenzer, A Model Family Code. From a Global Perspective, in EFL Series, n° 12, Antwerp 2006. 38 - Stalford, Regulating family life in post-Amsterdam Europe, European Law Review 2003, 39 ff. - Stalford, Concepts of family under EU law - Lessons from the ECHR, IJLPF 2002, 411 ff. - Stalford, Regulating family life in post-Amsterdam Europe, European Law Review 2003, 39 ff. - Süβ/Ring (ed.), Eherecht in Europa, Angelbachtal 2006. - Tenreiro/Ekström, Recent developments of European Family Law, ERA-Forum 2003, 126 ff. - Werwigk-Hartneck/Mauch, Auf dem Weg zu einem Europäischen Familiengesetzbuch, FamRZ 2004, 574 ff.