The article is devoted to the conflict of laws regulation of torts under Rome II (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 “On the law applicable to non-contractual obligations”) and under the Russian legislation. The analysis of the Rome II provisions and the relevant norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (including significant changes made to the Code by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation, dated 30 September 2013) identifies current trends in the development of conflict of laws regulation of torts and the impact of the Rome II Regulation on the Russian legislation. The author notes that in the Russian legislation, as well as in Rome II, the operation of the basic conflict of laws rule is combined with the operation of special conflict of laws rules; the possibility to use the autonomy of the will of the parties in conflict of laws of torts is extended; the use of the principle of closer connection with the tort is allowed, though in a more restricted form than in Rome II. The author regards the whole complex of the conflict of laws rules on torts in the modern Russian legislation as the result of development towards softening of the basic conflict of laws rule aimed at the creation of a more flexible framework for conflict of laws regulation of torts. Here the provisions of the Rome II served as a sample in many ways.
torts, non-contractual obligations, injurious action, compensation for damage, applicable law, conflict of laws regulation, private international law, Rome II Regulation, Russian legislation.
1. Audland W. Rome II. A Brief Guided Tour for Personal Injury Lawyers. 12 King’s Bench Walk Annual Personal Injury and Employment Conference. 24/11/2014. URL: http://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/ROME_II.pdf.
2. Denham I. Case Review. Winrow v. Hemphill (2014) EWHC. Applicable Law and Rome II: The Interpretation of “Habitual Residence”, and whether a Claim is “Manifestly More Closely Connected” to Another Country. URL: http://www.9sjs.com/news/case-review-winrow-vhemphill/.
3. Schönning J. The Rome II Regulation — A short analysis of Article 4. URL: http://schonning.wordpress.com/tag/rome-ii-regulation/.
4. Symeonides Symeon C. Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity. American Journal of Comparative Law. 2008. Vol. 56.
5. Thomas K. G. Das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht nach Inkrafttreten der Rom II-Verordnung, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationals Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 2009. H. 1.
6. Asoskov A. V. Osnovy kollizionnogo prava. M., 2012.
7. Brand R. A. Mezhdu suverenitetom i avtonomiey voli v ramkakh mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava: shag nazad v Evropeyskom sude. Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava. 2006. № 2.
8. Zykin I. S. Razvitie mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava v svete prinyatiya chasti tret´ey Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2002. № 12.
9. Kokh Kh., Magnus U., Vinkler fon Morenfel´s P. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo i sravnitel´noe pravovedenie. M., 2001.
10. Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo v Rossii i Evrosoyuze. Kniga pervaya / pod red. M. M. Boguslavskogo, A. G. Lisitsyna-Svetlanova, A. Trunka. M., 2013.