ログイン
言語:

WEKO3
  • トップ
  • ランキング
To
lat lon distance
To

Field does not validate



インデックスリンク

インデックスツリー

メールアドレスを入力してください。

WEKO

One fine body…

WEKO

One fine body…

アイテム

  1. 比較法雑誌
  2. 第48巻 第3号(通巻第171号)2014

Public vs.　Civil Law:The German Controversy about the Interaction between Capital Market Regulation and Contract Law

https://chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7961
https://chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/7961
b7a90d14-5bcf-4e72-b513-0503f50c09ea
名前 / ファイル ライセンス アクション
0010-4116_48_3_41~79.pdf.pdf 本文を見る (584.6 kB)
Item type 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1)
公開日 2017-06-22
タイトル
タイトル Public vs.　Civil Law:The German Controversy about the Interaction between Capital Market Regulation and Contract Law
言語 en
言語
言語 eng
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 EU Capital Market Regulation
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Transformation into German Law
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Conduct of Business Rules
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Contract Law
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Capital Market Law
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Functional Civil Law
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Difusion Theory (Austrahlungswirkung)
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Investment Services
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (EC)
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Dichotomy between Public and Private Law
資源タイプ
資源タイプ識別子 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
資源タイプ departmental bulletin paper
著者 BAUM, Harald

× BAUM, Harald

en BAUM, Harald
Search repository
著者別名
識別子Scheme WEKO
識別子 32265
姓名 バウム, ハラルド
抄録
内容記述タイプ Abstract
内容記述 When it comes to regulating capital markets in the European Union, the most important legislative instrument is the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, the so-called MiFID. The Directive primarily promotes market integration by granting market access and market integrity by regulating market supervision. As part of this it also emphasizes investor protection as a regulatory goal in its own right. To achieve this goal MiFID sets out “conduct of business rules” in its Articles 19 to 24 that postulate a number of transparency, information, and fiduciary obligations for investment firms when doing business with customers. From the traditional German point of view, this regulatory regime qualifies as a regulation that falls into the domain of public law - as opposed to that of private law. The EU, however, does not know such a clear distinction. The central question that arises here is whether the conduct of business rules do actually create civil law effects. The MiFID is - somewhat surprisingly - quiet on these matters. The European Court of Justice ruled in 2013 that the Member States are free to decide whether or not they want to implement civil law sanctions against a violation of conduct of business rules.
Germany implemented the conduct of business rules into national law in the year 2007 by amending Articles 31 to 37 of the Securities Trading Act. Insofar as these provisions deal with the contractual relationship between an investment firm and its customers, they can be qualified as “functional civil law.” This newly created investor protection sharply contrasts with the arcane case law developed by the German courts over the past decades on the basis of general private law. The later ensures a much more dogmatically refined, nuanced, and systematically coherent regime of investor protection than the one that the rather crude EU regulations can provide because these are shaped by diverse legal traditions and political compromise. A hotly debated question is how the interaction of supervisory law and civil law can be managed as both are only partly overlapping and partly leading to different, sometimes even contradictory obligations for investment firms. This unsolved fundamental issue permeates all capital market regulation at present.
The German Federal Court of Justice postulates a strict primacy of the general civil law in relation to the conduct of business rules of the Securities Trading Act. According to this view, the conduct of business rules as part of public law can - at most - play only an indirect role in the context of interpreting already existing contractual and pre-contractual obligations. They can, however, not create any kind of obligation beyond those already established under private law. A second opinion, diametrically opposed to the first one, emphasizes an unrestricted primacy of the “functional” civil law of the Securities Trading Act over the general civil law. In this view, due to the principle of full or at least maximum harmonization in the field of investment services by MiFID, the German courts may no longer enforce those parts of their case law that are based on contractual or pre-contractual duties that are stricter than the conduct of business rules. A third view builds a compromise between the two contradictory views: it does not claim a primacy of public law in the form of “functional” civil law, but much more modestly assumes a “diffusion”-“Ausstrahlung”- of the pertinent public law rules into the general civil law and its application. This is probably the leading opinion in German academia today.
書誌情報 比較法雑誌

巻 48, 号 3, p. 41-79, 発行日 2014-12-30
出版者
出版者 日本比較法研究所
ISSN
収録物識別子タイプ ISSN
収録物識別子 0010-4116
権利
権利情報 この資料の著作権は、資料の著作者または学校法人中央大学に帰属します。著作権法が定める私的利用・引用を超える使用を希望される場合には、掲載誌発行部局へお問い合わせください。
フォーマット
内容記述タイプ Other
内容記述 application/pdf
著者版フラグ
出版タイプ VoR
出版タイプResource http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
戻る
0
views
See details
Views

Versions

Ver.1 2023-05-15 18:27:39.574184
Show All versions

Share

Mendeley Twitter Facebook Print Addthis

Cite as

エクスポート

OAI-PMH
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 2.0
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 1.0
  • OAI-PMH DublinCore
  • OAI-PMH DDI
Other Formats
  • JSON
  • BIBTEX

Confirm

Powered by WEKO3

Powered by WEKO3