Band 13, Heft 1

In February 2014 the European legislator adopted a directive on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property, which had to be implemented by the member states by March 2016. This paper starts with some fundamentals on the policy objectives underlying this so-called „Mortgage Credit Directive” (MCD) and further provides an overview of the specific regulatory framework that has been developed for credit intermediaries. This serves as the starting point for an assessment of the level of consumer protection that has been established while regulating the activities of credit intermediaries. Particular risks for credit intermediaries’ clients stem from incentives caused by the way in which they are traditionally remunerated by consumers and/or creditors. Whereas information disclosure obligations included in the MCD are an insufficient means to mitigate some potentially harmful consequences of intermediary compensation, the authors argue for the introduction of targeted remuneration regulation.

Directive n. 2011/83/EU, commonly known as the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), increases the purchaser’s protection against any event which might occur to the goods sold during the period between the parties’ agreement on sale and the consumer’s actual reception of them (Articles 18 and 20 CRD). This Article analyses whether it would be advisable to reform such national legal systems, like the one based on Italian Civil Code which not only follows the principle res perit domino , or casum sentit dominus as it relates to the passing of risk, but also combines it with the consent’s real effects regarding the transfer of ownership due to the contract of sale. Such a reform, by extending the criterion of delivery as a general risk rule of sale, would satisfy the need for full harmonization, not only inside the single national system considered (in Italy, as of 13 June 2014, d lgs n 21/2014, implementing Directive n 2011/83/EU, innovates Articles 63 and 61 it cod cons which are the Italian Consumer Code’s rules regarding risk), but also from a European Contract Law perspective.

This article examines to what extent the civil courts are bound by MiFID I/MiFID II under EU law. The following questions are considered in this context: (1) May civil courts be less strict than MiFID I/MiFID II? (2) May civil courts be stricter than MiFID I/MiFID II? (3) May contracting parties be less strict than MiFID I/MiFID II? (4) May contracting parties be stricter than MiFID I/MiFID II? (5) What effect does MiFID I/MiFID II have on the requirement of proximity or relativity in the Member States where this is a requirement for liability in tort? (6) What effect does MiFID I/MiFID II have on the proof of causal link? (7) What is the influence of MiFID I/MiFID II on a contractual limitation or exclusion of liability? (8) Should civil courts apply MiFID I/MiFID II of their own motion?

This section provides an overview of cases in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of April 2015 and the beginning of January 2017.