內容介紹
本書由歐洲民法典研究組、歐盟現行私法研究組編著。歐洲民法典研究組由相關領域的頂尖專家組成，代表著歐洲的主要法系，主要成員包括：克里斯蒂安?馮?巴爾 (Christian von Bar)教授（德國／奧斯納布呂克，主席）、圭多?阿爾帕(Guido Alpa)教授 （羅馬／熱亞那）、麥可?基?布里奇(Michael G.Bridge)教授（倫敦）、毛里?博偉達(Maurits Barendrecht)教授（荷蘭／蒂爾堡）、休?比爾 (Hugh Beale)教授（華威）、埃里克?克萊夫(Eric Clive)教授(英國／愛丁堡)、尤金?達克羅尼亞(Eugenia Dacoronia) 教授（雅典）。本書是來自歐盟成員國的所有法域的法學家歷經25年多通力合作的結果。它將學者們數十年的獨立和合作研究以及私法、比較法和歐共體法的專家意見以規則的形式予以濃縮，承載了促進歐盟各國私法發展的殷殷希望。尤其是通過本書，人們能看到各國私法之間的相似性和相互影響，以及這些法律在多大程度上能夠被看作是全部歐洲文化遺產的區域性表現。本書為歐洲私法理念提供一個新的基礎，增進相互理解並促進對歐洲私法的集體研究。它將對歐盟各國的內國法和共同體法以及歐盟之外的法制改革項目產生深遠的影響。
本書論述了歐洲私法的“原則、定義和示範規則”。其中，“原則”是歐州私法所適用的一般規則；“定義”旨在構建統一的歐洲法律術語；而“示範規則”則提供各國法律改革可能的參照文本。
本書的英文全名為“Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law：Draft Common Frame of Reference”，直譯為《歐洲私法的原則、定義和示範規則：共同參照框架草案》。為使書名更加簡潔，根據原書主編之一馮?巴爾教授的建議，改譯為《歐洲示範民法典草案——歐洲私法的原則、定義和示範規則》。本書的翻譯得到了國家社科基金後期資助項目資助。
譯者簡介
高聖平，中國人民大學法學院副教授，美國明尼蘇達大學法學院訪問教授（2010年9月—2012年4月），世行集團國際金融公司中國法律專家，中國人民大學民商事法律科學研究中心專職研究人員，全國人大《中華人民共和國物權法》翻譯專家組成員。
已經出版的譯著有《美國統一商法典及其正式評述（第三卷）》（獨譯）（中國人民大學出版社2006年版）、《美國統一商法典及其正式評述（第二卷）》（合譯）（中國人民大學出版社2005年版），即將出版的譯著有《美國法律重述第三版：擔保法》（獨譯）（法律出版社即出）、《最新魁北克民法典》（獨譯）（法律出版社即出）、《土地法改革》（第一譯者字）（法律出版社即出）。
歐洲示範民法典草案中譯本序言（克里斯蒂安?馮?巴爾）
非常榮幸，也十分高興地受邀為《歐洲示範民法典草案》的中譯本作序。《歐洲示範民法典草案》是歐洲學者們所起草的歐洲私法共同參考框架，本中譯本的出版，促進了中歐之間在私法領域的交流，我們作為起草者對此倍感欣慰。歐盟各成員國的私法與東亞主要國家的私法之間原本就十分接近，與歐洲目前的法典化趨勢一樣，亞洲也正掀起一股新的法典化運動，以使各國原有法典適應現代社會的要求。在這一進程中，唯有保持緊密聯繫，才不致於錯過相互學習和共享資源的機會。事實上，我曾構想建立亞歐民法典研究組，共同起草包括債法在內的示範條文。我深信這些示範規則對於立法、法學研究和法學教育均深具助益。
《歐洲示範民法典草案》是由學者發起起草的文本，自著手研究之始，就沒有得到歐盟憲法機構的官方“授權”。它是源於歐洲法學研究中心的自發產物，在歐洲契約法委員會，也就是著名的以其丹麥籍主席命名的蘭道委員會（Lando-Group）的前期研究成果的基礎上，加入了有名契約、非契約責任法和物權法相關領域的示範規則。而且，《歐洲示範民法典草案》涵蓋了與歐盟現行私法相關的契約責任規則和非契約責任規則，其中大部分由歐洲民法典民法典研究組的專家起草，其餘則由另外一個研究機構——歐盟現行私法研究組的歐洲學者起草。由分別來自兩個研究組的成員共同組成的編校工作組負責彙纂最終的文本。為了了解各界對《歐洲示範民法典草案》的態度，我們先公布了草案的臨時綱要版，其後出版了兩種形式的正式文本：一種是單卷本的綱要版（即本書），僅包括原則、定義和示範規則；一種是六卷本的完整版，對示範規則詳加評述，並羅列了歐盟各成員國的相關規定及所收集的大量資料的索引。
《歐洲示範民法典草案》出版不久，即激起了廣泛的爭議，同時，也迎來了世界範圍內的共鳴。各主要語種的翻譯文本促進了它的傳播。歐盟委員會剛剛啟動了一個後續的項目，擬將《歐洲示範民法草案》翻譯成德文、法文、義大利文、波蘭文和西班牙文。相比較而言，將其翻譯成中文更富有挑戰性，也更費時間和精力。勿庸置疑，我為此壯舉而深深感動。
《歐洲示範民法典草案》的起草旨在提供可供參照的範本，也就是為歐盟和各成員國的立法者提供一個靈感的來源。更進一步的目標是使各國法院了解立法爭議以及其他國家的解決方案，並為法學教育提供一個新的工具，以使學者精確地找到本國法律制度與歐洲基準相比所處的位置。《歐洲示範民法典草案》達到上述目標已經越來越明確。
《歐洲示範民法典草案》受到我們的同行（甚至是一些日報）的廣泛關注，可能主要歸功於這樣一個事實：它已經成為歐洲法律政策的一部分。它正接受歐洲議會、歐盟理事會和歐盟委員會的詳細審查。儘管業已起步的政治進程的結果還不夠明朗，但一些最基本的路線卻日益清晰。歐盟委員會已經組成了一個專家組，專門負責從《歐洲示範民法典草案》中提取出一個草案，並研究將其中示範規則植入歐盟立法程式的可行性。這一草案所涉及的範圍比《歐洲示範民法典草案》更受限制，規劃中的方案僅包括契約法總則（《歐洲示範民法典草案》第一卷至第三卷）以及買賣契約、服務契約（《歐洲示範民法典草案》第四卷第一編和第三編）。主事委員認為，在“第一輪”就支持起草新的歐盟私法在政治上暫不合時宜，因此，《歐洲示範民法典草案》仍將持續地起著為立法者、司法者和法學家提供靈感源泉的主要作用。此外，《歐洲示範民法典草案》受到廣泛關注的另外一個原因可能是還沒有哪一個官方文本能夠象《歐洲示範民法典草案》這樣整合了如此豐富的比較法資料。
在政治上修正《歐洲示範民法典草案》（在我看來，與原始文本之間的差異僅僅只是次要的問題）的目標應當是通過一個法規（Regulation），但就此尚無定論。公開磋商程式已經啟動，專家組尚未正式簽署認可的文本，實際上文本已經“出爐”，將送至相關人員以作進一步地考量。磋商也已在歐洲議會法律事務委員會的代表之間以及歐盟委員會的專家顧問之間進行。在2011年的下半年，歐盟理事會波蘭輪值主席會議將為擬啟動的立法程式奠定基礎，但最終通過的日期尚無法精準地預期，因此，十分歡迎來自世界各地，尤其是中國，的專家意見。
值得注意的是，不管是《歐洲示範民法典草案》，還是議定中的法規，都不是法律統一化的經典文獻。法律之間的接近具有間接相關性。這是因為正在起草中的歐洲契約法最終極有可能是採取選擇性檔案(Optional Instrument)的形式，也就是說，它僅是另外一個可供選擇的法律制度，不會觸動各成員國的國內法律制度。暫時看來，它只有在契約當事人選擇的時候，才得以適用。因此，其適用的前提條件是當事人選擇將其作為準據法，我希望，在純粹國內貿易背景下，例如，在網上交易中，也有當事人選擇適用它。但是，如果沒有最初就這一新的歐洲文本的深入磋商，在未來就沒有哪一個歐盟國家的立法機構會啟動這一程式。這或多或少是植根於《歐洲示範民法典草案》的統一化觀念。就其有限的調整範圍而言，以《歐洲示範法民法典草案》為基礎的選擇性檔案只是開了一個頭；相比較而言，在其他領域，《歐洲示範民法典草案》暫時仍然是靈感的源泉。
克里斯蒂安?馮?巴爾
2011年3月於德國奧斯納布呂克
Foreword
I am honoured and delighted to have been asked to write the foreword to the Chinese translation of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), the academic draft of a common frame of reference for European Private Law. We, the drafters of the DCFR, feel rewarded that an intensive exchange of ideas on the core areas of private law between Europe and China is being facilitated and encouraged in this fashion. Once again, the close proximity between the private law of the Member States of the European Union and the private law of the leading nations of Eastern Asia is apparent. Coinciding with current developments in Europe, new codifications are emerging in Asia whilst older ones are in need of modernisation. It is important for both sides in this process to maintain close ties so as not to pass up the opportunity to learn from and share knowledge with one another. Indeed, I could even envisage the establishment of an Asia-Europe working group whose terms of reference would involve the drafting of common rules to govern the law of obligations. I am certain that such rules would also carry some weight in the legislative process, in jurisprudence and in legal teaching.
The DCFR is an academic text. As of the time of writing it has not yet secured a political “mandate” from a European constitutional body. The DCFR is the product of an initiative emanating from the centre of the European legal science. It is partly based on the previous achievements of the European Commission of Contract Law, known popularly as the Lando-Group after its Danish chairman, and builds on this work to incorporate rules for nominate contracts, the law on extra-contractual liability and specific areas of property law. Moreover, the DCFR contains contractual and delictual rules relevant to European Union private law, the socalled acquis communautaire. The bulk of the DCFR’s text originated within the rubric of the work prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code, and the remainder was drafted by another group of European legal scholars, the Acquis Group. The Compilation and Redaction Team which was composed of members from both groups was responsible for formulating the final version of the DCFR. Following the publication of an interim outline edition, the publication of which was designed to engender debate, the DCFR was published in two forms: in an outline edition, containing the general principles infusing the DCFR, an array of definitions and the black letter rules, and a full edition, composed of six comprehensive volumes, each containing commentary expounding the model rules, notes detailing the law in the respective Member States of the European Union and comprehensive registers identifying and testifying to the vast array of material gathered.
Shortly after its publication, the DCFR provoked intensive debate; in the meantime, it has achieved a worldwide resonance. Important translations promote and encourage its transmission. The European Commission has just given the go-ahead to a project to translate the DCFR into German, French, Italian, Polish and Spanish. Comparatively speaking, its translation into Chinese is clearly even more challenging and time consuming and needless to say, I am deeply impressed by this feat.
The academic teams who drafted the DCFR wished to create a frame of reference, that is, furnish a source of inspiration for the European and national legislatures. Further objectives were to acquaint the national courts with legal arguments and solutions emanating from foreign jurisdictions and to provide legal teaching with a new tool that would enable scholars to precisely chart and gauge the position of the national legal system in comparison with the European benchmark. It is becoming apparent that DCFR has received endorsement on each of these levels.
The attention that the DCFR has received from our peers (and even the daily newspapers) may be attributed in no small part to the fact that it has become part of European legal policy. It is now being subjected to detailed examination by the Parliament, Council and Commission. Although the outcome of the political process which is now well underway is not yet clear in all respects, a number of fundamental signposts are gradually becoming discernable. This is based on the fact that the Commission has set up an expert group which is charged with the task of distilling draft principles from the text of the DCFR, and to study the feasibility of introducing such rules within the European legislative process. The scope of this draft will however be much more restrictive than our DCFR. It is envisaged that it will deal only with the general rules of contract law (DCFR Books I-III), and with sales and service contracts (DCFR Books IVA und IVC). The responsible Commissioner is of the view that it would not be politically opportune in the “first round” to continue to champion the creation of a new European private law. Therefore, the DCFR will retain its quintessential objective as a source of inspiration for the legislature, judiciary and legal scholars. Incidentally, it is also due to the fact that no political text would take it upon itself to integrate the comparative legal materials contained in the DCFR.
The objective of the political revision of the DCFR (in my current view, deviations from the original text will only affect peripheral issues) should lie in the adoption of a Regulation but this is not yet settled. The public consultation process has already begun; the texts which the expert group has internally signed off on, will be sent, practically “hot off the press”, to the stakeholders for further refinement. Consultations are also taking place with representatives from the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs and with the special advisors to the Commission. In the second half of 2011, the Polish Presidency of the EU Council will lay the groundwork for the legislative process to begin, no actual date ushering in the culmination of this process can be predicted with any certainty. Expert advice from all four corners of the world especially from China, is consequently extremely welcome.
It is important to realise that neither the DCFR nor the mooted Regulation are classical instruments of legal harmonisation. Approximation of laws is of indirect relevance. This is because the European contract law that is in the pipeline will, more likely than not, take the shape of an Optional Instrument that is, an additional legal system which leaves the national legal systems untouched. For the time being, it would only apply if the contractual parties opted for it. Therefore, a prerequisite for its application is choice of law by the parties which, I hope, will also be possible in a purely domestic context (e.g. in the case of a sale over the internet). Yet, it may be assumed that in the future no national Committee responsible for codification in Europe will begin the process of drafting without first intensively consulting this new European text. This is the harmonisation perspective that is inherent in the DCFR, no more and no less. As far as its narrow scope of application is concerned, the Optional Instrument, based on the DCFR, will be at the vanguard; by contrast, in all other fields, the DCFR for the time being will remain as a source of inspiration.
Osnabrück,March，2011
Christian von Bar
