The optional would become de facto compulsory

The "soft law" may have soft as the name. The Stockholm programme presented by the European Commission on 10 June, which must be voted by the European Council in December, is likely to bring the evidence. This program determines the priority of the Union in the field of justice and Home Affairs. Its key proposals include the idea of a collection of model contracts in commercial matters, translated into all languages of the Union. It proposes to establish a "system of optional, specifically European law, reserved for commercial companies". This would be the "legal 28esystème", to co-exist with the 27 national systems of the Union.

It is clear the usefulness of the approach; This is to create a familiar legal environment for executives across the whole of Europe. The model contract or the reference to "28esystème" would provide a neutral legal support to European trade relations. It is hoped a greater legal certainty, a lower cost and simplification of intra-Community trade. SMEs are, by hypothesis, the companies most likely to resort to these pré-rédigés instruments. They have fewer resources to devote to the legal aspects of their activity. Unfortunately, which is akin to a "soft codification" holds in fact for they risk some.

This type of coding is a famous precedent: it's the "Uniform Commercial Code" (UCC), adopted in 1952 in the United States. The legislation, proposed as a simple model, is, directly inspired the legislation of the Federated States except Louisiana. This technique of unification of the law of affairs at the national level has, in practice, emptied of its substance the legislative independence of the States in the commercial sphere. The European Commission lacks the power to enact a code of trade for Europe. But his "28esystème" would lead to the same result by the economy of the resulting national parliamentary debates political conundrum.

A challenge to major

There is a challenge to major. Can one imagine that the French legislature might oppose the fait accompli that would be millions of commercial contracts for billions of euros of transactions, whether these contracts are in line with the optional standards proposed by the European Commission As American Federated States, each European State would be powerless to maintain a separate contractual standard. The optional would become de facto compulsory.

Such uniformity would be desirable in an ideal world where all the interests involved would be fairly taken into account. But the economic reality is the balance of power. Technicians know that it is futile to dream of a magic formula by which the various legal systems in Europe merged. A system of law will necessarily emerge as dominant through the future "28esystème". A convergence of European legal systems is of course desirable, for reasons of cost, efficiency or legal security. But it must rely on a balanced representation of legal cultures in the presence. However it is here, be assured. Some States, such as the United Kingdom, are very active in the promotion of their standards. Conversely, other countries, as all too often the France, are not sufficiently involved. This imbalance had already presided over the drafting of the international accounting standards (IFRS).

Those who are not sufficiently involved in the upcoming battle about the content of these European standards are likely to see their economic and political situation undermined by the requirement to question. Businesses could lose a competitive advantage, their professionals a considerable market share.

Can even dare to heterodox thinking: is there really the interest of companies, including the most reactive, to be subject to a uniform rule Would they not more flexibility in some form of competition of rights which would encourage legal innovation, the famous "forum shopping" It is therefore fundamental that the economic world is interested in this draft the Stockholm programme and the terms on the first.