Questionnaire
D R A W N U P B Y T H E P E R M A N E N T B U R E A U
Sale of Goods, would it be willing to consider becoming a Party to the 1986 Hague Convention,
- if the Fermement Bureau would provide it with gên-erai information e.g. on the relationship between the Vienna Convention and the Hague Convention, cmd/or
- if the Permanent Bureau would assist it in solving spécifie problems it may have?
Preliminary Document No 11 of August 1996
2 If your Government does not intend to become a Party to the 1980 Vienna Convention, would it be will-ing to consider becomwill-ing a Party to the 1986 Conven-tion, if the Permanent Bureau were to assist it in solving spécifie problems which it may have?
A The Hague Convention of 22 December 1986 on the Law AppUcable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
It w i l l be recalled that this Convention, drawn up in the years 1982-1985 in close co-operation with U N C I T R A L
and approved by a unanimous vote o f the 46 déléga-tions présent at the Plenary Session o f 29 October 1985,^
unifies on a Worldwide scale choice o f law ruies for the most common international commercial contract, thus complementing the United Nations Convention on Con-tracts for the International Sale of Goods, concluded at Vienna on 11 A p r i l 1980. The Convention revises and modernizes the Hague Convention of 15 June 1955 on the law applicable to international sale of goods^ {e.g. it provides a more libéral ruie for the parties' agreement on the choice o f law than the 1955 Convention and admits the possibility o f an agreement to change the applicable law (Art. 7); it contains a ruIe on sales by auction or on a commodity or other exchange, allowing for party au-tonomy (Art. 9); it provides a ruIe on the f o r m of the contract, a matter excluded by the 1955 Convention). It also draws inspiration f r o m the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, concluded in Rome on 19 June 1980.
The Convention has to date been ratified by one State only, Argentina, and signed by the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic. Failing the five ratifications required (Art. 27), it has not entered into force. The rules of the Convention have however been incorporated into the domestic codes of private interna-tional law o f some jurisdictions {e.g. China, Q u é b e c ) . The Permanent Bureau feels that the Convention, ten years after it was first signed, deserves a fresh look:
/ //' your Government has not ratified the Convention, but is a Party (or considering to become a Party) to the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International
' See Conclusions of the Spécial Comnii.^sion oj June 1995 on gênerai affairs and policy of the Conférence (Prel. D o c . No 9 of December 1995 for the attention of the Eightccnth Session). No 17. p. 23.
^ Algeria, Argentina, Auslralia. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, C h i l e , C h i n a , Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, G e r m a n Deinocratic Republic, Fédéral Republic of Germany, Guinea. Honduras, Hungary, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israël, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Mozambique, Nether-lands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden. Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, U S S R , United K i n g d o m . United States. Uruguay. Venezuela. Y é m e n . Yugoslavia and Zaïre.
D r a w n up in French only; in contrast, the 1986 Convention was drawn up in English and French; the United Nations linguistic services provided moreover translations into Arabie, Chinese, Spanish and Russian, see Proceedings of the tlxtraordinaiy Session ( 1985). pp. 760 et seq.
3 Ifthe answer to the previous questions is in the néga-tive, are there any other obstacles to ratification which might be overcome in another manner? Please specify.
B The Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on the Law Applicable to Agency
This Convention, adopted by a unanimous vote of the Member States présent at the Plenary Session o f 16 June 1977, unifies the law applicable to international relationships arising when an agent acts or purports to act, on behalf of a principal, either in his own name or in that of the principal, in dealing with a third party. It covers both the relations between principal and agent, and those with the third party. It thus usefully c o m p l é -ments other conventions, e.g. the 1980 Rome Conven-tion or the 1994 Inter-American ConvenConven-tion on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, which do not or only partially deal with the law applicable to interna-tional agency relationships.
The Convention entered into force on 1 May 1992, and has been ratified by four States: Argentina, France, the Netherlands and Portugal.
/ If your Government has ratified the Convention, can you report on any expériences with regard to its appli-cation ?
2 If your Government has not ratified the Convention, couïd you indicate under what circumstances your Gov-ernment might wish to do so? Could the Permanent Bureau or a Government having ratified the Convention be ofany assistance, e.g. by providing translations of the authentic French and English texts or with explanations on spécifie questions of interprétation?
C The Hague Convention of 1 June 1970 on the Récognition of Divorces and Légal Séparations
This Convention establishes criteria for the récognition of divorces and légal séparations, whether based on a judicial décision or on a décision made f o l l o w i n g
pro-ceedings by administrative, législative or religious au-thorities. It thus provides for security and stability and also facilitâtes the récognition of the validity of a second marriage, f o l l o w i n g divorce, in the interest also o f chil-dren born in this second marriage. The Convention, by establishing accepted bases for récognition, discourages resort to exorbitant bases for the exercise of jurisdiction.
The f o l l o w i n g States, ail Member States of the Hague C o n f é r e n c e , are Parties to the Convention: Australia,
Hague Conventions Hague Conventions If
Chypre, le Danemark, l'Egypte, la Finlande, l'Italie, le Luxembourg, la N o r v è g e , les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, le Royaume-Uni, la R é p u b l i q u e slovaque, la Suède, la Suisse et la R é p u b l i q u e tchèque.
Le Bureau Permanent estime que cette Convention, qui a d o n n é satisfaction à des Etats dont les systèmes légaux, sociaux ou religieux sont très différents, est source d'uni-formité, de sécurité et de stabilité au plan mondial. L a mobilité toujours plus grande des familles par-delà les frontières internationales rend le besoin de reconnais-sance des divorces tous les jours plus nécessaire.
/ Si votre Etat est Partie à cette Convention, peut-il faire état de toute expérience dans son application?
2 Si votre Gouvernement n'a pas encore ratifié ou adhéré à la Convention, peut-il indiquer à quelles condi-tions il serait prêt à le faire? Le Bureau Permanent ou le Gouvernement d'un Etat partie à la Convention peuvent-ils être de quelque assistance?
D Convention de La Haye du 14 mars 1978 sur la loi applicable aux régimes matrimoniaux
Les systèmes nationaux de conflit de lois en matière de r é g i m e matrimonial sont e x t r ê m e m e n t variés et com-plexes. Or, un nombre toujours plus grand d ' é p o u x ont des contacts avec plus d'un Etat et ils ont besoin, de m ê m e que les tiers traitant avec eux, de sécurité et de prévisibilité au sujet du régime légal de leurs relations patrimoniales réparties sur plusieurs pays. En particulier, le choix raisonnable fait par les époux d'un système légal unique régissant la totalité de leur r é g i m e matri-monial devrait u n i f o r m é m e n t être respecté partout.
La Convention réalise cet objectif sans unifier complète-ment les systèmes de conflit de lois internes existants et basés sur de nombreux facteurs de rattachement diffé-rents - ce qui n'aurait pas été réaliste et qui ne le serait pas non plus aujourd'hui.
En raison du fait que la Convention n'unifie pas c o m p l è -tement les règles de conflit en la matière, mais se pré-sente plutôt comme un instrument coordinateur*, et vu la nature complexe de ce domaine du droit, le texte de la Convention peut, à première vue, apparaître moins ac-cessible que celui d'autres conventions, ce qui a été cri-tiqué dans la doctrine. Ce qui pourtant semble le plus important est la question pratique de savoir si la Conven-tion, dans les Etats qui l'ont ratifiée - à ce jour la France, le Luxembourg et les Pays-Bas - a permis de résoudre les problèmes pratiques que rencontrent les époux c o n f r o n t é s aux complications du conflit de lois. Dans une récente étude importante sur l'application de la Convention dans la pratique notariale en France, M m e Revillard conclut que la Convention «est appliquée en France d'une manière beaucoup plus positive que ses détracteurs ne le prévoyaient. Les solutions de la Conven-tion mises à l ' é p r e u v e des faits démontrent son effica-cité».-^
Si votre Gouvernement n 'a pas encore ratifié ou adhéré à la Convention, peut-il indiquer à quelles conditions il serait prêt à le faire? Le Bureau Permanent ou le Gou-vernement d'un Etat partie à la Convention peuvent-ils être de quelque assistance?
*' Voir A.V.M. Struycken, «Régimes matrimoniaux - banc d'essai de la codifica-tion internacodifica-tionale du droit internacodifica-tional privé»; E Plurihus Umim. Liber Ami-corum Georges A.L. Droz, p. 445-460.
^ Voir M. Revillard. «Premier bilan de Tapplication de la Convention de La Haye du 14 mars 1978 sur la loi applicable aux régimes matrimoniaux»; ibidem, p. 369-389.
182 Conventions de La Haye
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, United K i n g -dom.
The Permanent Bureau feels that the Convention, which has proved to be acceptable f o r States with many dififer-ing légal, social and religions Systems, could provide uniformity, security and stability on a potentially World-wide scale. The increasing mobility o f familles across international borders makes the need for récognition of divorces more acute every day.
/ If your State is a Party to the Convention, can you report on any expériences in its application?
2 If your Government has not yet ratifiée! or acceded to the Convention, could you indicate under what circum-stances your Government mighl wish to do sa? Could the Permanent Bureau or a Government of a State having hecome a Party to the Convention he of any assistance?
D The Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Régimes The pattern of domestic choice of law régimes f o r the property relationships between spouses is extremely var-ied and complex. Yet, an increasing number of spouses are having connections with more than one jurisdiction and they, as well as third parties dealing with them, need security and foreseeability as to the légal r é g i m e for their property relations spread over varions countries. I n par-ticular, their reasonable choice of one légal System gov-erning the entirety of their matrimonial property régime should be uniformly respected everywhere.
The Convention archives thèse objectives without com-pletely unifying the existing domestic choice of law régimes, based on very différent Connecting factors -that would not bave been realistic, and would not be realistic today.
Because o f its being a co-ordinating"* rather than a com-pletely unifying choice of law instrument, and because of the inhérent complex nature of the subject-matter, the text o f the Convention may, at first sight, appear less accessible than other conventions, which had led to criti-cism in légal doctrine. More important, however, it would seem, is the practical question whether the Convention, in those States which have ratified it - to date France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - has contributed to solving the practical problems of spouses caught in the intricacies o f conflicts of laws. In a récent important study on the application of the Convention in the notarial practice in France, Mrs Revillard concludes that the Convention 'is being applied in France in a much more positive manner than its critics had foreseen. The Con-vention's solutions put to the test of the facts show its efificacy.'^
If your Government has not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention, could you indicate under what circumstances your Government miglit wish to do sa? Coidd the Per-manent Bureau or a Government of a State having he-come a Party to the Convention be of any assistance?
^ Sec A.V.M. Struyckcn, 'Régimes matrimoniaux - banc d'essai de la codifica-tion internacodifica-tionale du droit internacodifica-tional privé', in E Phmhus Unum. Liher Ami-corum Georges A.L Dwz, pp. 445-460.
See M. Revillard, 'Premier bilan de l'application de la Convention de La Haye du 14 mars 1978 sur la loi applicable aux régimes matrimoniaux'; ilyidem, pp. 369-389.
Hague Conventions 183