CYIL 2012

PARALLEL NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS ȃ CZECH LAW AND THE PROPOSED… states that the fitting of individual EU laws into the entire existing body of EU law “is supported by the effet utile doctrine enunciated by the European Court of Justice, which stresses the particular importance of the teleological method of interpretation. The overall purpose of the interpretation of provisions of EU origin is to make overall Community law as effective as possible.” 94 This poses real problems for the uniform interpretation of the CISG and CESL. The EU consumer law acquis , much of it reflected in the consumer protection provisions of CESL, may produce a different perspective on a provision than would the commercial sales law perspective of the CISG. Professor Magnus argues that similar provisions in CESL should be interpreted in the same way as they have been interpreted and applied under the CISG. From a practical perspective of a businessperson using both legal regimes, uniform interpretation and application would remove the complexity caused by divergent interpretations. In addition, similar interpretations may make both instruments more attractive for the business community in that they would not have to learn two versions of the same rules. Uniformity of interpretation is a must for the future success of CESL and the CISG. If businesses familiar with the CISG see that CESL provisions work the same results as is found in CISG jurisprudence, then they are more likely to opt into CESL. On the same note, if businesses elect to opt into CESL in order to avoid the nuances of twenty-seven national laws they may be more likely not to opt out of the CISG in non-EU transactions due to the similarity of CESL and CISG provisions. Magnus provides the legal and philosophical grounding for this preferred approach. First, he notes that Article 4(1) of CESL states that CESL should be interpreted “in accordance with its objectives and the principles underlying it.” This is the same self-contained interpretive methodology found in the CISG. That is, an argument can be made that CESL expressly espouses the international approach over the EU-centered approach. In order to ensure a uniformity of interpretation, Magnus suggests the use of an interconventional interpretive methodology in which similar terms in conventions or other laws relating to the same subject matter are given similar meanings. From a practical matter, this would mean in interpreting CISG-like provisions in CESL, CISG jurisprudence (interpretations) should be followed. This final part suggests that the Czech Republic should consider CESL and the CISG in future revisions of its commercial law. An all in approach would have the Czech Republic adopt the final version of CESL as its one and only national law. Independently of CESL, the Czech Republic should encourage the use of the CISG in international sales transactions in order to benefit from a harmonizing, modern sales law. Another approach would be to use the CISG, and potentially CESL, in revising Czech sales law in the future. The CISG was an important source in the 94 Magnus, “Interpretation and Gap-filling”, citing, ECJ [1964] ECR 1251 (Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL ); ECJ [1991] ECR I-5357 (C-6 and 9/90, Francovich ). 5. Future Revisions of Czech Law: CESL as Unitary Sales Law and Active Use of the CISG

233