Autonomy of Will in Cross-Border Torts

The paper examines Russian and European legislation, doctrine and judicial practice devoted to the autonomy of will in cross-border torts. In Russian legislation, autonomy of will appeared due to the innovations caused by the Federal Law of September 30, 2013 No. 260‑FZ «On Amendments to Part Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation». This law, in turn, was based on the provisions of Regulation No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. During the Soviet period, conflict of laws regulation of cross-border torts was limited to the application of domestic law. An analysis of more than a decade of use of autonomy of will in cross-border torts in Russia and abroad has shown a relatively low demand for the norm, which is due to legal, psychological, and classification reasons. At the same time, an appeal to the autonomy of will in cross-border torts involving private individuals may be justified if the parties want to choose, from their point of view, the optimal, modern, and easier to apply legal regulation.

1. Abrosimova E. A. Vnedogovornye obyazatelstva v MChP i kosvennaya avtonomiya voli // Pravo i ekonomika. - 2016. - № 6.

2. Bankovskiy A. V. Deliktnye obyazatelstva v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Sovremennoe pravo. - 2001. - № 7. - S. 40-45.

3. Vnedogovornye obyazatelstva v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave: monografiya / otv. red. I. O. Khlestova. - M.: Institut zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitelstve RF: Norma: Infra M, 2017.

4. Getman-Pavlova I. V. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: uchebnik. - M.: Yurayt, 2013. - 959 s.

5. Grigorev V. V. Kommentariy k razdelu VI «Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo» chasti tretey Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii (gl. 66 «Obshchie polozheniya», 67 «Pravo, podlezhashchee primeneniyu pri opredelenii pravovogo polozheniya lits» i 68 «Pravo, podlezhashchee primeneniyu k imushchestvennym i lichnym neimushchestvennym otnosheniyam»). - M.: Delovoy dvor, 2014.

6. Dmitrieva G. K. Stanovlenie rossiyskoy kontseptsii pravovoy reglamentatsii transgranichnykh vnedogovornykh obyazatelstv // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA). - 2016. - № 12. - S. 6-19.

7. Zvekov V. P. Obyazatelstva vsledstvie prichineniya vreda v kollizionnom prave: monografiya. - M.: Volters Kluver, 2007.

8. Inshakova A. O., Tymchuk Yu. A. Voprosy primenimogo prava v sfere deliktnykh otnosheniy s inostrannym elementom // Vestnik VolGU. Seriya 5, Yurisprudentsiya. - 2016. - T. 15. - № 4 (33). - S. 105-114.

9. Kommentariy k razdelu VI «Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo» chasti tretey Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii (postateynyy) / otv. red. I. S. Zykin, A. V. Asoskov, A. N. Zhiltsov. - M.: Statut, 2021. - 665 s.

10. Krupko S. I. Deliktnye obyazatelstva v sfere intellektualnoy sobstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave: monografiya. - M.: Statut, 2018 // SPS «KonsultantPlyus».

11. Kutashevskaya Ya. S. Istoricheskoe razvitie printsipa avtonomii voli pri opredelenii prava, primenimogo k vnedogovornym obyazatelstvam // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11, Pravo. - 2022. - № 1. - S. 46-65.

12. Marysheva N. I. Sovremennye tendentsii kollizionnogo regulirovaniya deliktnykh obyazatelstv: Reglament ES 2007 g. «O prave, podlezhashchem primeneniyu k vnedogovornym obyazatelstvam» (Rim II) i rossiyskoe zakonodatelstvo // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. - 2016. - № 6. - S. 63-73.

13. Nam K. V. Ogranicheniya vybora primenimogo prava v sootvetstvii s Reglamentom ES № 864/2007 ot 11 iyulya 2007 g. «O prave, primenimom k vnedogovornym obyazatelstvennym otnosheniyam» // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya. - 2017. - № 2.

14. Novikova T. V. Printsip avtonomii voli vo vnedogovornykh otnosheniyakh mezhdunarodnogo kharaktera // Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federalnogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Yuridicheskie nauki. - 2020. - T. 6 (72). - № 3. - S. 289-296.

15. Pergamenshchik L. A. Krizisnaya psikhologiya: ucheb. posobie. - Minsk: Vysheyshaya shkola, 2004. - 288 s.

16. Trezubov E. S. Problemy effektivnosti sudebnogo primireniya v rossiyskom tsivilisticheskom protsesse // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. - 2023. - T. 27. - № 4. - S. 59-71.

17. Turatbekova Ch. A. Primenenie kollizionnykh norm v Kyrgyzskoy Respublike: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. - Bishkek, 2021. - 44 s.

18. Boer T. M. de. Party Autonomy and its Limitations in the Rome II Regulation // Yearbook of Private International Law. - 2007. - Vol. 9. - P. 19-29.

19. Graziano T. K. Freedom to choose the applicable law in tort - Articles 14 and 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation // The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Tort Litigation Regime / W. Binchy, J. Ahern (eds). - Leiden, 2009. - P. 113-132.

20. Leible S., Lehmann M. Die neue EG-Verordnung über das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht («Rom II») // Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft. - 2007. - Heft 10. - S. 721–735.

21. Lein E., Migliorini S., Bonzé C., O’Keeffe S. Study on the Rome II Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, 2021 // URL: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/11043f63-200c-11ec-bd8e-01aa75ed71a1 (data obrashcheniya: 15.02.2024).

22. Robinette C. J. Party Autonomy in Tort Theory and Reform // Journal of Tort Law. - 2015 // URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2569844 (data obrashcheniya: 15.02.2024).

23. Rühl G. Choice of Law and Choice of Forum in the European Union: Recent Developments // Civil Justice Systems in Europe: Implications for Choice of Forum and Choice of Contract Law / ed. by C. Hodges, S. Vogenauer. - Oxford, 2010 . - URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1604615 (data obrashcheniya: 15.02.2024).

24. Symeonides S. C. Choice of Law: The Oxford Commentaries on American Law. - New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. - 798 p.

25. Symeonides S. C. Party Autonomy in Rome I and II from a Comparative Perspective // Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law - Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr / K. Boele-Woelki, T. Einhorn, D. Girsberger, S. Symeonides (eds.). - Eleven International Publishing, 2010. - P. 513-550.

26. Symeonides S. C. Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity // American Journal of Comparative Law. - 2008. - Vol. 56. - P. 1-46.

27. Zhang M. Party Autonomy in Non-Contractual Obligations: Rome II and Its Impacts on Choice of Law // Seton Hall Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 39. - P. 861-918.