Séance du 5 octobre 1972
La séance est ouverte à 15 h. 05, sous la présidence de M . van Hecke (Belgique).
Le Rapporteur est M . Reese (Etats-Unis).
Le Président, après avoir fait remarquer aux Délégués qu'ils ont sous les yeux cinq Documents de travail nouveaux (Nos 13 à 18), donne la parole au Repré-sentant du Comité européen des assurances qui désire faire une déclaration.
Mr Armstrong (CE.A.) said that he largely agreed with the interventions of Messrs Schultsz and Philip the previous day when they had said that they could not accept that Insurance practicalities should be decid-ing éléments in the discussions of the Commission. The Association which he represented was most grateful to be involved in the délibérations of the Commission, but it had to confine itself to explaining the concrète facts relating to the organisation of Insurance business, in an endeavour to assist the Commission as légal experts to foresee more clearly and in terms of practical realities the économie conséquences of their discussions. In-surance was an international and pragmatic business, and for insurers the basic need so far as conflict of laws rules were concerned was that they should be un-equivocal and readily ascertainable. Provided that the rules met this need, the insurers' ordinary commercial processes would do the rest.
Le Président demande aux Délégués de poursuivre la discussion du problème de l'exclusion des rapports contractuels.
Mr Lorenz (Germany), referring to the 1968 Con-vention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents, pointed out that article 1 of that Convention delimited the scope of the Convention by confining it to non-contractual liability. The discussion which had led up to the enactment of that article had centred round the crucial case of the victim who was a passenger in the car involved in an accident. He summarised the resuit of the exclusion of contractual liability from the 1968 Convention as
foUows1 In a légal System which characterised the fact -situation as being purely contractual, the Convention had no application, since no tort action was possible on the facts of the case;
2 In a légal system where the fact-situation gave rise to claims in both contract and in tort, the Convention applied to the tort action only, and the contractual action was not necessarily governed by the same law;
3 Some légal Systems drew no clear line of distinction between actions sounding in contract and actions
sound-ing in tort. It was because the situation was so compli-cated that contractual liability had been excluded from the 1968 Convention. The Commission was now con-fronted with a comparable situation in the context of products liability.
Referring to article 1 of the draft Convention, he said that the exception contained therein, since it had the effect of excluding the contractual liability of the manu-facturer or other supplier in a case where the victim was in a direct relationship with him, would have the following results: 1 in a légal situation where an action by a buyer against the seller was characterised as exclusively contractual, since the question of a con-current tort action did not arise, neither the Conven-tion (even if it were to be made applicable to such a fact - situation) nor that system's own tort conflict rules would come into play. I t followed that under thèse circumstances it would be of little or no use for the tort conflict rules established by the draft Conven-tion to be declared to be applicable to the contractual relationship between the last buyer and his seller; 2 in a case of légal Systems where there was concurrence of actions in contract and tort, a the law applicable to the contractual action would be governed by the proper law of the contract, ànd b the law applicable to the tort action might be determined either by the draft Convention (if the exception contained in article 1 of the présent draft were deleted) or (if the excep-tion in article 1 of the présent draft were retained) by the existing tort conflict of laws rules of the forum.
Both in cases 1 and 2 there was the danger that différ-ent laws would be applied to the contract action and to the tort action, and this would be so whether the excep-tion in article 1 pf the présent draft were deleted or retained.
Mr Lorenz explained that it was for the above reasons that he had made the proposai mentioned in the Report.
The proposai was aimed at preserving at least some kind of unity, but it rnade sensé only on the basis of the rétention of the exception to article 1 contained in the présent draft, an exception the rétention of which he favoured. The idea underlying his proposai was that if there were a spécial légal relationship be-tween the parties, the law governing this relationship enjoyed a certain priority because it was the légal System in which the parties had placed their confidence that it would meet their legitimate expectations.
The problem was a basic one in the conflict of laws:
it arose in connection with the légal relationship be-tween husband and wife, as in the case of interspousal immunity or in connection with the transportation of goods. The application of two différent laws to one légal relationship or fact-situation brought about diffi-cult problems, as, for example, the question of the effect of a clause limiting liability. The problem could be avoided in such a case if only one law were to govern both the tort and contract action. That was why he had made the proposai which was to be found in Working Ï3ocument No 22. Anticipating objections that might possibly be made to his proposai, he said that if it were to bè said that his proposât over-simplified matters un-duly, his reply would be that it brought the benefit of certainty; if it were to be said that his idea of a dépend-ent choice of law led to the resuit that the parties might be enabled thereby indirectly to choose the law applicable to a tort action, in his view, which was also the prevailing view in the German Council for Private International Law, this was no disadvantage, and he trusted that the courts would be able to exercise suffi-cient control over the choice of law clauses in contracts so as to prevent the stronger party from forcing upon a weaker party a légal System for the application of
which there was no legitimate interest; if it were to be said that his proposai was unworkable where the con-tract turned out to be invalid because it contained a vitiating élément, he would be inclined to reply that the putative proper law of the contract should apply, i.e., the law that would be applicable to the contract if it were valid.
Mr Philip (Denmark) said that, although he had much sympathy with the proposai of Mr Lorenz he felt that it would complicate matters if it were incorporated in the Convention, and for that reason he reserved his opinion upon it. Referring to the proposai to exclude contractual liability from the scope of the Convention, he said that the characterisation of contractual liability varied from country to country. I n some countries a claim by a consumer against a manufacturer was regarded as con-tractual even if there was no direct relationship between the parties, and in other countries such a claim was re-garded as extra-contractual. I f the Convention were to be limited to extra-contractual liability, the resuit would be that the choice of law rules laid down by the Con-vention would only apply in those countries where products liability was regarded as being extra-contrac-tual. This would lead to complète lack of uniformity.
Accordingly he did not favour limiting the Convention to non-contractual matters. At the previous day's sitting the Commission had voted for the inclusion in the Convention only of cases in which in addition to dam-age to the product itself there was also physical injury to persons or damage to other property. I f the scope of the Convention were to include cases where the victim acquired the product from the manufacturer or other supplier whom he was seeking to make liable, there would be an odd divergence between the choice of law rules applicable to cases where, in addition to damage to the product itself, there was also physical injury to persons or damage to other property, and those applicable to cases where there was a defect in the product, but no physical injury or damage to other property or persons. The inclusion of the direct relation-ship between the victim and the manufacturer or other supplier within the Convention would also bring in difficult questions of distinctions as to which problems related to the law of sales and which to the law of products liability; and he therefore favoured the exclu-sion from the Convention of cases involving such a relationship, i f only for simplicity's sake.
M. Kucera (Tchécoslovaquie) remarque que, lorsqu'on élabore des règles de conflit, i l convient de respecter certaines distinctions du droit civil matériel, comme par exemple la distinction entre contrat et délit. Si les argu-ments du Délégué allemand ne manquent pas de perti-nence, car l'application de lois différentes au même groupe de faits peut soulever des questions difficiles, il n'en reste pas moins qu'aucune solution n'est parfaite.
Or, dans l'élaboration de cette Convention, i l importe de ne pas perdre de vue la nécessité de promouvoir le commerce international. En matière de contrat de vente, le choix de la loi applicable se révèle fort important, alors qu'une telle autonomie des parties apparaît plus difficile à admettre dans le domaine délictuel. Aussi bien le Délégué tchécoslovaque considère-t-il la proposition franco-luxembourgeoise (Document de travail No 19) comme acceptable.
M. Huss (Luxembourg) relève que lorsqu'un accident met en cause les deux responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle, une option ou un cumul n'est pas admis dans tous les Etats. Or, dans ces conditions, la solution la plus réaliste et la plus simple consiste à limiter la
Convention à la seule responsabilité extra-contractuelle.
En effet, dans les pays qui connaissent une option entre les responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle, aucune dif-ficulté ne surgira. La partie lésée pourra toujours profiter de ce cumul. Par ailleurs, dans les pays ne connaissant pas une telle option, le demandeur sera obligé de faire valoir ses droits en se fondant sur la responsabilité con-tractuelle. Mais c'est là une situation à laquelle la Convention ne peut rien changer.
Mr Ikehara (Japan) said that his country was rather favourable to the exclusion of direct relationships from the ambit of the Convention. Such relationships were better governed by the law governing contracts, which was on the whole a more appropriate law.
Mr De Nova (Italy) said that he agreed with the pro-posai contained in Working Document No 19. It was important to arrive at a Convention which achieved harmony on a basis acceptable to as many countries as possible. The inclusion of contractual relationships in the Convention would involve a possible danger of conflict with other Conventions, a danger which, while not déci-sive, was not negligible. He found Mr Lorenz's proposai a challenging one, but there was nothing in the nature of things that should make the law of the contract prevail in a case of concurrent liability rather than, for example, the law of the tort. The possibility of divergent choice of law rules where there were separate choice of law rules for contract and for tort was nothing new; it had always existed, and the Convention would do nothing to create or further such divergence.
M. Cavin (Suisse) admet avec le Délégué français que la Convention en discussion ne doit et ne peut régir que la seule responsabilité délictuelle, car le domaine contrac-tuel est soumis en droit international privé à une tout autre circonstance de rattachement, à savoir le principe d'autonomie. Aussi bien conviendrait-il de conserver la formule d'exclusion. Le seul problème qui reste à résou-dre a trait au concours d'actions. Dans les pays qui connaissent un tel concours, si le juge écarte la réclama-tion fondée sur le contrat, i l examinera si celle-ci peut être fondée sur un délit. Or, une telle action ex delicto est-elle soumise ou non à la Convention? Selon la pro-position faite par le Délégué allemand, dans le Document de travail No 22, la question serait résolue par l'attraction de l'action délictuelle qui serait soumise à la même loi que le contrat. Le Délégué suisse éprouve une hésitation à autoriser ainsi les parties à disposer de la loi applicable en cas de délit. Une autre solution consiste, ainsi que le propose la délégation française dans le Document de travail No 19, à appliquer à chaque hypothèse, contrac-tuelle ou déliccontrac-tuelle, la règle de rattachement qui lui est propre. Quoi qu'il en soit du mérite respectif de ces deux solutions, le choix devrait se faire entre ces deux pôles.
Mr Rognlien (Norway) said that he agreed with Mr Philip that, if the exception to article 1 in the draft Convention were to be described in terms of the con-tractual relationship between the victim and the manu-facturer or other supplier, this would lead to disharmony between différent countries, in that it would create a fundamental lack of balance in the scope of the Conven-tion as between differing countries which might adhère to it. Accordingly, he preferred to leave the exception to article 1 as it was in the then existing draft Conven-tion. He recommended that the voting on the pioint should be on the basis of concrète proposais put forward as alternatives to the existing text, rather than on the basis of first taking a vote on the deletion of the existing
Procès-verbal No 4 Procès-verbal No 4 153
text. He was against the proposais contained in Workjng Documents Nos 19 and 22. The proposai contained in Working Document No 15 attempted to make a com-promise, aimed at giving the Convention its proper scope in the field of products liability cases, and specifically excluding cases of a contractual nature only where there was both a direct relationship and a claim in contract.
He would not press the proposai if there was no support for it.
The Chairnian asked whether Mr Rognlien wished to add the word 'only' before 'has a claim in contract' in the proposai contained in Working Document No 15.
Mr Rognlien (Norway) said that he appreciated that there was an ambiguity, but he thought that the ambi-guity should be resolved as a matter of drafting if the proposai in the Working Document were adopted.
Mr Aranne (Israël) said that he agreed with the pro-posai contained in Working Document No 15 if it were limited to cases where the only action, which the victim had, was the contractual one. He said that he would not object to the proposai contained in Working Docu-ment No 20 in principle. He was anxious to require the plaintiff in a products liability case to prove no more than one System of law in an action brought against ail défendants, whether or not they were in a direct rela-tionship with the plaintiff.
Mr Anton (United Kingdom) said that he would prefer to exclude contractual liability from the Convention largely because if it were to be included différent choice of law rules would probably be needed. The Convention as it stood was written on the basis that it dealt with tort liability. It was a very wide Convention, covering products of every kind. The parties to a contract relating to a product might well have entered into it with regard to a particular system and might well wish ail heads of liability, whether contractual or tortious, to be covered by that system. The choice of law clause in a contract might be very important financially. If, therefore, cases involving contractual relationships were to be included in the Convention (which he opposed), he proposed a provision which was to be found in Working Document No 20. The provision was less far-reaching than that of Mr Lorenz. It envisaged a situation in which the Con-vention included contractual liability, and, in such an eventuality, his proposai would be of vital importance.
He saw no harm in giving parties freedom of choice of the law to govern tortious liabiUty.
Mr Schultsz (the Netherlands) said that the instructions given tb the Commission were to deal with 'actes illicites' and not contracts. Further, if the Commission were to impinge on to the field of contract, there would be a risk of clashes with a number of other Conventions; such as, for instance, the 1955 Convention on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods. The in-clusion of the contractual relationship within the ambil of the Convention would produce not only problems concerned with possible conflicts with other Conventions, but also problems concerned with the freedom of parties to contract out of their delictual liability. The compro-mise solution, which he favoured, was to exclude con-tractual liability from the Convention and leave it to the courts to décide which law, that governing tort or that governing contract, should apply in cases where there was an overlap. He was therefore strongly opposed to the inclusion of contractual relationships in the Conven-tion. I f the Commission could reach agreement on the question of inclusion of third party actions on a
con-tract, such actions should be included in the Convention:
if not, he was prepared to support the proposai contained in Working Document No 19.
M. Loussouarn (France) observe que la présente dis-cussion soulève différentes questions.
Tout d'abord, faut-il inclure la responsabilité contrac-tuelle dans la Convention? Le présent débat a déjà révélé que la plupart des Délégués sont opposés à cette solution.
On ne saurait perdre de vue en effet qu'il est absolument illusoire d'espérer arriver à une loi commune régissant à la fois la responsabilité contractuelle et délictuelle.
Si par impossible une telle loi commune pouvait être découverte, alors le Délégué français se déclarerait favorable à l'inclusion de la responsabilité contractuelle dans la Convention.
Cela étant, un dilemme se pose. Faut-il conserver la limitation prévue par la Commission spéciale à la fin de l'alinéa premier de l'article premier? Cela impliquerait que toutes les fois qu'il y a contrat entre les parties, la Convention ne pourrait s'appliquer, même dans les pays qui admettent le cumul de responsabilités contractuelle et délictuelle. Ou bien au contraire faut-il décider que toutes les fois que le demandeur se fonde sur la respon-sabilité extra-contractuelle, la Convention s'appliquera et qu'elle sera exclue chaque fois què l'affaire relèvera du domaine contractuel?
Le Délégué français se prononce en faveur de cette
Le Délégué français se prononce en faveur de cette