CHOICE OF LAW FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AGENCY AGREEMENTS: BALANCING PARTY AUTONOMY AND AGENT PROTECTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V6SI3Y2026N30Ключевые слова:
choice of law, international commercial agency, Directive 86/653/EEC, party autonomy, overriding mandatory provisions, agent protection, private international law.Аннотация
The principle of party autonomy remains a fundamental pillar of international contract law, allowing commercial actors to designate the legal regime governing their relations. However, in the context of international commercial agency agreements, this freedom frequently intersects with mandatory statutory regimes designed to protect the commercial agent, who is traditionally viewed as the economically weaker party. This article explores the tension between the freedom of contract and the mandatory protective provisions established by the European Union through Directive 86/653/EEC. By examining the doctrinal foundations of overriding mandatory rules and the pertinent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this study analyzes how courts navigate the conflict between a principal’s choice of non-EU law and an agent’s right to statutory indemnification or compensation upon termination. The article aims to clarify the boundaries of party autonomy in cross-border agency contracts and evaluate the effectiveness of the Directive in maintaining a protective baseline in the globalized market.
Библиографические ссылки
1. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008.
2. Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, OJ L 382, 31.12.1986.
3. Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, Article 17.
4. Dicey, A. V., Morris, J. H. C., & Collins, L. (2012). Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
5. Verhagen, H. L. E. (2002). The Tension Between Party Autonomy and European Union Law: Some Observations on Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(1), 135-154.
6. Michaels, R. (2001). The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution. Tulane Law Review, 75, 1607-1644.
7. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), Article 9(1).
8. Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, Article 17.
9. Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, Article 19.
10. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc, [2000] ECR I-9305.
11. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc, [2000] ECR I-9305, paragraphs 24-25.
12. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-184/12, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare, [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:663.
13. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-184/12, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (Unamar) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare, [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:663, paragraph 50.
14. Plender, R., & Wilderspin, M. (2009). The European Private International Law of Obligations (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
15. Rühl, G. (2014). The Protection of Weaker Parties in the Private International Law of the European Union. Journal of Private International Law, 10(3), 335-358.
