Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 70 No 3 (2024), 91–111
Jednostranná nebo konkludentní? Problematické aspekty volby práva (nejen) v zajišťovacích instrumentech ve světle aktuální judikatury
[Unilateral or Tacit? Problematic Aspects of Choice of Law (Not Only) in Security Instruments in the Light of Recent Case Law]
Petr Bříza
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.139
published online: 10. 09. 2024
abstract
This article deals with cases of unilateral and tacit choice of law, as less common examples of choice of law. These are entirely separate categories. Unilateral choice reflects the fact that it is the result of the will of only one person, and typically appears in unilateral legal acts (such as a financial guarantee in Czech law). Tacit choice, on the other hand, indicates that the intent to choose the law was expressed in a non-explicit way. Choice of law can be at the same time both unilateral and tacit, although this will not occur very often in practice. In the case of unilateral legal acts in the field of contract and tort law, there is a debate whether their conflict of laws regime falls under the EU’s unified conflict of laws rules (Rome I or Rome II Regulation) or under national law. There is no clear decision on the issue by the CJEU. The Czech Supreme Court has recently been given the opportunity to comment on this and some other issues of unilateral and implied choice of law. However, the Court rather missed this opportunity. It avoided the question of whether the national law or the Rome I Regulation applies to unilateral legal acts similar to a declaration of guarantee by (unfortunately incorrectly) applying the Rome Convention. The Court also applied the rules for a bilateral choice of law to an apparently unilateral choice of law in a rather complex manner. Moreover, its conclusion that the choice subjecting the declaration in question to “Danish statutes” is only an implied choice and not an express one is at least questionable. The article critically assesses this decision and shows in what respects a different (and more correct) course of action should be followed.
keywords: choice of law; Rome Convention; Rome I Regulation; tacit choice of law; unilateral choice of law; bank guarantee; security
references (22)
1. BĚLOHLÁVEK, A. Římská úmluva a Nařízení Řím I: komentář v širších souvislostech evropského a mezinárodního práva soukromého. C. H. Beck, 2009.
2. BONOMI, A. Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. In: HCCH [online]. [cit. 2024-05-09]. Dostupné na: https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=4898&dtid=3.
3. BŘÍZA, P. Czech perspective on validity of international arbitration clauses contained in an exchange of emails under the New York Convention. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica. 2020, Vol. LXVI, No. 4, s. 143-55. CrossRef
4. BŘÍZA, P. Volba práva a volba soudu v mezinárodním obchodě. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012.
5. BŘÍZA, P. - BŘICHÁČEK, T. - FIŠEROVÁ, Z. - HORÁK, P. - PTÁČEK, L. - SVOBODA, J. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2014.
6. ENONCHONG, N. The law applicable to demand guarantees and counter-guarantees. Lloyd's Maritime & Commercial Law Quarterly. 2015, s. 194-215.
7. FERRARI, F. Concise Commentary on the Rome I Regulation. 2. vyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. CrossRef
8. GIULIANO, M. - LAGARDE, P. Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Official Journal. C 282, 31 October 1980, s. 1.
9. KUČERA, Z. - TICHÝ, L. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním: komentář. Praha: Panorama, 1989.
10. MAGNUS - MANKOWSKI, P. Rome I Regulation: Commentary. Köln: Otto Schmidt, 2016. CrossRef
11. MELZER, F. - TÉGL, P. a kol. Občanský zákoník §2716-2893: velký komentář. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021, s. 1324-1329.
12. NYGH, P. Autonomy in International Contracts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. CrossRef
13. PAUKNEROVÁ, M. Jednostranné právní úkony a rozhodné právo. Právní fórum. 2010, roč. 7, č. 10, s. 479 a násl.
14. PAUKNEROVÁ, M. Law Applicable to Unilateral Juridical Acts and Uniform Conflict-of-law Rules. In: European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance [online]. 1. 1. 2013 [cit. 2023-02-09]. CrossRef
15. PAUKNEROVÁ, M. - ROZEHNALOVÁ, N. - ZAVADILOVÁ, M. a kol. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2013.
16. PETROV, J. - VÝTISK, M. - BERAN, V. a kol. Občanský zákoník: komentář. 2. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2019.
17. Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. In: HCCH [online]. [cit. 2024-04-09]. Dostupné na: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=135#text.
18. ROZEHNALOVÁ, N. a kol. Nařízení Řím I a Nařízení Řím II: komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2021.
19. ROZEHNALOVÁ, N. Závazky ze smluv a jejich právní režim (se zvláštním zřetelem na evropskou kolizní úpravu). Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2010, s. 76-77.
20. SVOBODA, K. Opravné prostředky: civilní proces z pohledu účastníka. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2020.
21. SVOBODA, K. - SMOLÍK, P. - LEVÝ, J. - DOLEŽÍLEK, J. a kol. Občanský soudní řád: komentář. 3. vyd. (2. aktualizace). Praha: C. H. Beck, 2023.
22. UNCITRAL Endorses the Hague Principles. In: HCCH [online]. 8. 7. 2015 [cit. 2024-05-09]. Dostupné na https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=135#text.
Jednostranná nebo konkludentní? Problematické aspekty volby práva (nejen) v zajišťovacích instrumentech ve světle aktuální judikatury is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
