The

 Development  of  EU  Property  Law  

 
Eveline  Ramaekers*  
 

Introduction:  Setting  the  Scene  

European   Union   property   law   is   a   fascinating   new   area   of   law,   which   is   quickly   developing,  
though   perhaps   not   in   the   direction   expected.   It   is   increasingly   attracting   attention   from  
academics1  and  practitioners2  and  from  the  European  institutions  themselves.  The  latter  seems  
paradoxical:   if   we   are   talking   about   European   Union   property   law,   then   surely   the   European  
institutions,  as  the  creators  of  this  field  of  law,  would  already  be  aware  of  it?  As  peculiar  as  it  
may   sound,   most   of   the   time   this   has   not   actually   been   the   case.   A   lot   of   EU   property   law   seems  
to  have  been  created  almost  accidentally,  without  a  clear  policy  underlying  it.  It  often  forms  a  
small   part,   a   side   dish   if   you   will,   to   the   main   course.   There   are   a   number   of   specific   areas   of   EU  
law  –  or  main  courses  –  that  do  not  deal  with  property  law  as  such  but  in  which  we  nevertheless  
find   elements   of   property   law.   These   are   primarily   regulations   and   directives   dealing   with  
credit   agreements   and   financial   instruments   or   services,   accountancy   standards   and   taxes,  
insolvency   proceedings,   environmental   issues,   restrictions   against   certain   countries   or  
organizations   and   anti-­‐terrorism   measures,   agricultural   or   farming   matters,   and   consumer  
protection.3  And   yet,   although   there   is   more   EU   property   law   to   be   found   than   might   initially   be  

                                                                                                                         
*  Dr  Eveline  Ramaekers  LLM  MA,  Fellow  by  Special  Election  in  Law,  Wadham  College,  Oxford.  

1  See   e.g.   J.H.M.   van   Erp   &   B.   Akkermans   (eds.),   Cases,  Materials  and  Text  on  Property  Law  (Oxford:   Hart  

Publishing,  
1  See   e.g.   J.H.M.  
2012),  
van  Chapter  
Erp   &   B.  
Ten:  
Akkermans  
Uniform  (eds.),  
or   Harmonised  
Cases,  Materials  and  Text  on  Property  Law  (Oxford:  
Property   Law;   V.   Sagaert,   'De   verworvenheden  
Hart  
Publishing,   2012),   Chapter   Ten:   Uniform   or   Harmonised   Property   Law;   V.   Sagaert,   'De   verworvenheden  
van   het   Europese   goederenrecht',   in   A.S.   Hartkamp,   C.H.   Sieburgh,   &   L.A.D.   Keus   (eds.),   De  invloed  van  het  
Europese  recht  op  het  Nederlandse  privaatrecht   (Onderneming   en   Recht,   42-­‐I;   Deventer:   Kluwer,   2007),  
301-­‐33;   H.   Simón   Moreno,   'Towards   a   European   System   of   Property   Law',   ERPL   (European   Review   of  
Private  Law)  5  (2011):  579-­‐612.  
2  One  important  example  would  be  the  close  involvement  of  practitioners  in  the  CROBECO  project,  about  

which  more  below  at  section  4.C.  

3  E.   Ramaekers,   European  Union  Property  Law:  From  Fragments  to  a  System   (Ius   Commune   Europaeum;  

Antwerpen/Oxford/Portland:  Intersentia,  2013),  at  196.  

  1  
 

Electronic copy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003
expected,   the   European   legislature   has   stated   on   a   number   of   occasions   that   it   does   not   deal  
with  matters  of  property  law,4  even  when  it  is  regulating  very  closely  connected  other  areas  of  
private  law.  The  two  most  striking  examples  of  this  are  the  Proposal  for  a  Common  European  
Sales  Law  (CESL)5  and  the  new  Consumer  Rights  Directive.6  For  each  of  these  measures  it  was  
decided  that  they  should  only  regulate  the  contractual  aspects  but  not  the  proprietary  aspects.7  
  Apart  from  EU  legislation  containing  elements  of  property  law  (positive  harmonisation),  
national   property   laws   are   also   affected   by   the   EU’s   free   movement   rules   (negative  
harmonisation).   As   will   be   explained   below   in   section   1.B,   national   rules   of   property   law   may  
cause   –   and   regularly   do   cause   –   obstacles   to   free   movement   within   the   internal   market,  
particularly  the  free  movement  of  goods  and  capital.  Whenever  this  is  the  case  questions  arise  
as  to  whether  these  national  rules  of  property  law  can  continue  to  exist  in  their  present  form,  
given  that  they  hinder  free  movement.  This  impact  of  free  movement  law  on  national  property  
law  is  likely  to  be  more  far-­‐reaching  than  the  impact  of  legislation,  but  because  it  is  less  visible  it  
risks  being  underestimated.  
  Hence,  despite  the  European  legislature’s  insistence  that  it  will  not  regulate  matters  of  
property   law,   EU   property   law   is   developing   –   in   EU   case   law   and   legislation   but   also   in  
academia  and  through  private  initiatives.  In  this  paper  I  will  set  out  why  it  is  important  that  this  
field   of   law   is   studied,   what   it   currently   looks   like   and   what   it   could   look   like   in   the   future.   I   will  
conclude   with   an   overview   of   the   most   recent   developments   in   case   law,   legislation   and  
practice.  It  will  become  clear  that  EU  property  law  as  a  field  of  law  is  still  in  its  very  early  stages.  
Its  development  up  until  this  point  has  been  very  fragmented  and,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  most  
recent   developments   that   will   be   described   in   the   final   section   (section   4),   continues   to   be  

                                                                                                                         
4  One  clear  exception  was  the  Succession  Regulation  (650/2012/EU)  –  about  which  more  below  –  in  the  

early  stages  of  the  legislative  process.  The  Explanatory  Memorandum  to  the  Proposed  Regulation  stated  
in   section   3.1   that   succession   is   considered   to   be   property   law   and   not   family   law.   This   was   confirmed   by  
Salla   Saastamoinen,   then   Head   of   the   Civil  Justice   Unit,   DG   Justice,   Freedom   and   Security   of   the   European  
Commission,  at  a  conference  on  the  proposed  Succession  Regulation  at  the  Academy  of  European  Law  in  
Trier  on  18  and  19  February  2010.  See  E.  Ramaekers,  'Cross-­‐border  Successions  -­‐  The  New  Commission  
Proposal:  Contents  and  Way  Forward.  A  Report  on  the  2010  Academy  of  European  Law  Conference',  EJCL  
(Electronic  Journal  of  Comparative  Law)  15  (2012),  at  [1].  
5  COM(2011)   635   final.   It   must   be   noted   that   the   Proposal   for   a   Common   European   Sales   Law   has,   for   the  

moment,  been  withdrawn  in  order  to  be  modified:  http://www.epln.law.ed.ac.uk/2015/01/07/proposal-­‐

for-­‐a-­‐common-­‐european-­‐sales-­‐law-­‐withdrawn/.  
6  Dir  2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  [2011]  OJ  L  304/64.  

7  Preamble   to   the   proposed   Regulation   on   a   Common   European   Sales   Law,   Recital   27;   Preamble   to  
Directive  2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  Recital  51.    
  2  
 

Electronic copy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003
piecemeal.   Some   developments   occur   in   the   form   of   legislation   and   some   through   case   law   of  
the   CJEU,   but   others   take   place   through   private   initiatives.   Nevertheless,   each   of   the  
developments   that   I   will   describe   in  section   4   is   connected   to   already   existing   EU   property   law:  
the   case   law   on   Article   345   TFEU   (section   4.A)   shows   that   this   provision   continues   to   be  
interpreted   such   that   it   forms   no   obstacle   to   EU   law’s   involvement   in   property   law   matters;   the  
case   law   on   classification   of   objects   (section   4.B)   complements   existing   legislation   concerning  
what   can   be   objects   of   property   rights;   and   the   Cross   Border   E-­‐Conveyancing   (CROBECO)  
project  and  the  Regulations  enacted  and  proposed  in  the  context  of  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  
matters   (sections   4.C   and   4.D)   all   operate   to   remove   some   of   the   obstacles   to   free   movement  
which  will  be  discussed  in  section  1.B.  

1. The  Importance  of  Studying  EU  Property  Law  

A. The  interaction  between  property  law  and  EU  contract  law  

The   European   Union   has   already   created   quite   an   extensive   body   of   contract   law,8  meaning   that  
much   of   national   contract   law   now   has   a   European   origin,   and   that   private   parties   can  
sometimes   choose   between   national   and   European   contract   law.   However,   as   was   just   stated,  
the  European  legislature  has  always  tried  to  maintain  a  strict  separation  between  contract  law  
and   property   law   and   to   steer   clear   of   property   law.   This   is   partly   because   property   law   is  
closely  connected  to  issues  over  which  Member  States  wish  to  maintain  control,  such  as  taxes  
and   national   land   registries,   but   it   also   seems   to   be   due   to   the   very   nature   of   property   law.  
Contracts  generally  being  only  enforceable  between  the  parties  that  agreed  to  it,  the  law  leaves  
parties   a   lot   of   freedom   to   agree   what   they   want.   But   proprietary   relationships   affect   third  
parties   who   were   not   involved   in   the   initial   agreement   and   there   is   therefore   a   need   and  
demand  for  certainty,  predictability  and  transparency  in  property  law.  Consequently,  there  is  an  
assumption   that   parties   to   proprietary   relationships   should   only   be   expected   to   be   aware   of   the  
property   law   rules   of   their   own   jurisdiction   and   should   only   have   to   worry   about   being  
confronted   with   property   rights   duly   established   under   their   own   national   law. 9  This  
assumption   is   strongly   expressed   through   the   lex   rei   sitae   rule,   which   essentially  

                                                                                                                         
8  To  name  a  few:  Dir  2008/48/EC  on  Credit  Agreements  for  Consumers;  Dir  93/13/EEC  on  Unfair  Terms  

in   Consumer   Contracts;   Dir   85/577/EEC   on   Contracts   Negotiated   away   form   Business   Premises  
(‘doorstep  selling  directive’).  
9  B.  Akkermans  &  E.  Ramaekers,  'Lex   Rei   Sitae  in  perspective:  national  developments  of  a  common  rule?',  

in   B.   Akkermans   &   E.   Ramaekers   (eds.),   Property   Law   Perspectives   (Ius   Commune   Europaeum;  
Antwerpen/Oxford/Portland:  Intersentia,  2012),  at  125-­‐128.  
  3  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

compartmentalises   property   law   along   national   lines   and   attempts   to   ‘keep   out’   foreign  
property  rights.10  The  involvement  of  EU  law  in  property  law  is  considered,  at  least  by  some,  to  
be  at  odds  with  these  expectations  of  how  national  property  law  is  supposed  to  function.  
However,   it   is   an   illusion   to   think   that   property   law   and   contract   law   can   be   strictly  
separated.11  There   are   many   areas   in   which   they   are   closely   connected   and   sometimes   even  
coincide,   as   with   those   jurisdictions   that   follow   a   consensual   system   of   transfer,   in   which  
ownership  can  be  transferred  immediately  upon  conclusion  of  a  contract.12  The  aforementioned  
CESL  and  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive  themselves  clearly  failed  in  keeping  contract  law  and  
property  law  strictly  separated:  the  CESL  implicitly  chose  for  a  system  of  transfer  of  ownership  
that   distinguishes   between   delivery   of   the   object   and   the   actual   transfer   of   the   right   of  
ownership,13  even   though   explicitly   it   said   not   to   be   regulating   transfer   of   ownership   at   all.14  
This   is   problematic   for   those   national   legal   systems   who   follow   a   consensual   system   of   transfer  
and   do   not   make   this   distinction   between   delivery   and   transfer.   The   Consumer   Rights   Directive  
has  chosen  for  the  passing  of  risk  to  occur  upon  delivery  of  the  goods  and  not  upon  the  time  of  
conclusion  of  the  contract,15  which  again  seems  to  be  in  line  with  a  tradition  system  of  transfer  
rather   than   a   consensual   one,   and   yet   the   Directive   also   states   that   it   is   leaving   the  
determination   of   the   conditions   for   the   transfer   of   the   ownership   of   the   goods   subject   to  
national  law.16  
Furthermore,  there  are  now  28  Member  States  in  the  European  Union  and  they  do  not  
all   draw   the   distinction   between   contract   and   property   law   in   the   same   way,   so   European  
legislation  that  supposedly  only  deals  with  contract  law  may  well  be  regarded  as  property  law  
in   some   Member   States.   Therefore,   if   the   EU   continues   to   create   contract   law   without   providing  
at  least  some  rules  of  property  law  to  accompany  it,  there  will  inevitably  be  gaps  in  the  law.  This  
is  one  reason  why  it  is  important  to  investigate  how  the  EU  could  develop  property  law.  
 

                                                                                                                         
10  Ibid,  at  149-­‐151.  

11  Cf  C.  von  Bar  &  U.  Drobnig,  'Study  on  Property  Law  and  Non-­‐contractual  Liability  Law  as  they  relate  to  

Contract  Law',  Doc  No  SANCO  B5-­‐1000/02/000574  (European  Commission,  2002).  

12  L.P.W.   van   Vliet,   Transfer  of  movables  in  German,  French,  English  and  Dutch  law  (Nijmegen:   Ars   Aequi  

Libri,  2000),  at  23.  

13  Art  91:  ‘The  seller  of  goods  […]  must:  (a)  deliver  the  goods  […];  (b)  transfer  the  ownership  of  the  goods’.  

14  Preamble  to  the  proposed  Regulation,  Recital  27.  

15  Art  20.  

16  Preamble  to  the  Directive,  Recital  51.  

  4  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

 B. The  interaction  between  property  law  and  EU  free  movement  law  
The   second   reason   concerns   the   EU’s   internal   market,   which   purports   to   ensure   free   movement  
of  goods,  persons,  capital  and  services.  Property  law  sometimes  causes  hindrances  to  these  four  
freedoms.  An  example  will  illustrate  where  the  difficulties  lie.  Under  English  property  law  it  is  
possible   to   create   a   so-­‐called   floating   charge.17  This   right   gives   the   holder   of   it   the   power   to  
seize  and  sell  the  property  of  someone  who  is  indebted  to  them  and  who  is  defaulting  on  their  
payments.  Most  other  Member  States  are  unfamiliar  with  this  right.  If  an  English  company  sells  
goods   burdened   with   such   a   floating   charge   to   a   German   company,   the   moment   the   ship  
carrying  the  goods  sails  into  Hamburg  German  property  law  applies  to  the  relationship  between  
the   two   companies   in   accordance   with   the   lex   rei   sitae.   If   the   German   company   becomes  
insolvent,  the  English  company  will  want  to  exercise  its  floating  charge  to  repay  the  debt  owed  
to   them   by   the   German   company.   A   German   court   having   to   decide   whether   or   not   this   is  
possible   will   apply   German   law,   which   is   the   applicable   law   according   to   the   lex  rei  sitae  rule.  
Because   the   German   numerus   clausus   does   not   contain   a   property   right   that   resembles   the  
floating   charge,   it   is   possible   that   the   English   company   will   lose   its   floating   charge   and   will  
therefore  be  in  no  better  position  than  the  other  unsecured  creditors  of  the  German  company.18  
This   is   a   problem   from   an   internal   market   point   of   view.   The   fact   that   the   English  
company   has   lost   its   right   for   no   other   reason   than   that   its   goods   crossed   the   border   into  
another  Member  State  does  not  sit  well  with  the  idea  that  goods  should  be  able  to  move  freely  
within   the   EU.   The   English   company   may   decide   not   to   do   business   with   German   companies  
anymore,   or   it   will   have   to   account   for   the   risk   that   it   could   lose   its   property   rights   on   goods  
being   shipped   to   Germany,   or   try   to   achieve   the   security   otherwise   provided   by   the   floating  
charge  in  some  other,  possibly  more  expensive,  way.  That  could  influence  the  price  of  the  goods,  
leading   to   a   competitive   disadvantage   for   the   English   company   on   the   German   market.   These  
are   all   obstacles   to   the   free   movement   of   goods   caused   by   differences   in   national   property   laws  
in   combination   with   the   lex  rei  sitae  rule   which   makes   it   impossible   for   parties   to   choose   the  

                                                                                                                         
17  B.   McFarlane,   The  Structure  of  Property  Law   (Oxford   and   Portland,   Oregon:   Hart   Publishing,   2008),   at  

599-­‐600.  
18  Dutch  lawyers  will  be  familiar  with  a  similar  fact  pattern  in  the  case  of   Sisal:  Hoge  Raad  23  April  1999,  

NJ  2000,  30.  In  this  case,  a  Tanzanian  floating  charge  was  converted  into  a  Dutch  non-­‐possessory  pledge  
(stil   pandrecht).   German   law,   however,   does   not   know   such   a   non-­‐possessory   security   right,   although  
treating   the   floating   charge   as   a   fiduciary   transfer   for   security   purposes   might   be   possible:   J.H.M.   van   Erp  
&  B.  Akkermans  2012  at  512.  
  5  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

applicable   property   law,   thereby   preventing   a   loss   of   property   rights   in   the   way   discussed  
here.19  
Similar  obstacles  can  also  occur  with  regard  to,  for  instance,  the  free  movement  of  capital.  
Acquiring  immovable  property  in  another  Member  State  is  considered  to  be  a  capital  movement  
under  EU  law,20  so  any  national  law  that  would  make  it  more  difficult  for  foreigners  to  acquire  
immovable   property   than   it   is   for   its   own   nationals   could   infringe   the   free   movement   of  
capital.21  Whenever  a  hindrance  to  free  movement  exists  or  is  likely  to  occur  it  is  necessary  to  
investigate   whether   the   EU   should   perhaps   intervene   by   creating   legislation   aimed   at   removing  
the  obstacle.  

2. Existing  EU  property  law  

A. Property  legislation  
Whether  the  EU  is  allowed  to  create  property  law  is  an  important  preliminary  issue  and  I  have  
dealt  with  that  question  elsewhere.22  I  will  return  to  it  briefly  below  when  discussing  a  recent  
CJEU   judgment   on   Article   345,   which   states   that   the   Treaties   shall   not   prejudice   the   national  
systems  of  property  ownership  and  which  has  sometimes  been  interpreted  as  precluding  the  EU  
from   legislating   on   matters   of   property   law.23  But   quite   apart   from   that   we   can   ask   ourselves  
whether  the  EU  has  already  created  property  law.  Before  a  serious  discussion  about  the  future  
of  EU  property  law  is  possible,  a  full  picture  of  the  present  of  EU  property  law  is  needed.    

                                                                                                                         
19  See   also   B.   Akkermans   &   E.   Ramaekers,   'Free   Movement   of   Goods   and   Property   Law',   ELJ   (European  

Law  Journal)  19/2  (2013):  237-­‐266.  

20  For  a  definition  of  capital  movements  see  Dir  88/361/EEC  for  the  implementation  of  Article  67  of  the  

EEC  Treaty,  [1988]   OJ  L  178/5,  Annex  I,  Nomenclature:  II  –  Investments  in  Real  Estate;  III   –  Operations  in  
Securities   normally   dealt   in   on   the   Capital   Market;   IV   Operations   in   Units   of   Collective   Investment  
Undertakings;  V  –  Operations  in  Securities  and  other  Instruments  normally  dealt  in  on  the  Money  Market;  
VII   –   Credits   related   to   Commercial   Transactions   or   to   the   Provision   of   Services   in   which   a   Resident   is  
participating;   VIII   –   Financial   Loans   and   Credits;   IX   –   Sureties,   other   Guarantees   and   Rights   of   Pledge;   XII  
–  Physical  Import  and  Export  of  Financial  Assets.  
21  Case   C-­‐213/04,   Burtscher   v   Stauderer   [2005]   ECR   I-­‐10309;   Case   452/01,   Ospelt   [2003]   ECR   I-­‐9743;  

Joined   Cases   C-­‐515/99,   C-­‐519/99   to   C-­‐524/99   and   C-­‐526/99   to   C-­‐540/99,   Reisch   [2002]   ECR   I-­‐2157;  
Case  C-­‐423/98,  Alfredo  Albore  [2002]  ECR  I-­‐5965;  Case  C-­‐320/97,  Konle  [1999]  ECR  I-­‐3099.  
22  E.   Ramaekers   2013,   Chapter   3:   The   EU’s   Competence   to   Regulate   Property   Law;   B.   Akkermans   &   E.  
Ramaekers,  'Article  345  TFEU  (ex  Article  295  EC),  Its  Meanings  and  Interpretations',  ELJ  (European   Law  
Journal)  16/3  (2010):  292-­‐314.  
23  Below  at  section  4.B.  

  6  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

 There   is   very   little   EU   legislation   that   actually   contains   rules   of   property   law.24  Those  
regulations   and   directives   that   do   usually   have   a   different   topic   or   aim   such   as   cross-­‐border  
insolvency  proceedings25  or  the  creation  of  a  trading  scheme  for  emission  rights.26  The  property  
law   rules   in   those   measures   are   more   of   a   by-­‐product   than   the   result   of   an   explicit   policy   to  
create   European   rules   of   property   law.   Perhaps   the   clearest   example   of   EU   property   law  
concerns  the  types  of  things  that  can  be  the  objects  of  property  rights:  whereas   at  national  level  
there  is  still  an  on-­‐going  debate  as  to  whether  or  not  intangible  things  should  be  governed  by  
property  law,  EU  law  seems  to  have  moved  beyond  this  debate  and  clearly  accepts  anything  that  
has  a  certain  economic  value  as  a  potential  object  of  property  rights,  regardless  of  its  nature.27  
 

B. Property  terminology  
When   Member   States   implement   EU   law   they   must   define   those   terms   that   have   not   been  
defined  by  the  EU  legislature  itself.  Consequently  there  is  a  risk  that  discrepancies  between  the  
national  implementing  laws  arise.  For  example,  if  a  directive  uses  the  term  ownership  without  
defining  it,  Spain  is  likely  to  define  it  differently  from  the  UK,  Austria,  or  Finland.  
To  find  out  the  extent  of  the  use  of  property  law  terminology  by  the  European  legislature  I  
compiled  a  list  of  approximately  forty  key  property  law  terms28  and  conducted  a  detailed  search  
of   the   EU’s   legislative   database.29  There   turned   out   to   be   hundreds   of   regulations   and   directives  
that   use,   but   do   not   define,   property   law   terms.   I   filtered   out   the   ones   that   do   contain   a  
definition   to   try   and   sketch   the   emerging   contours   of   a   European   system   of   property   law,   but  
the   picture   that   emerged   was   of   an   EU   property   law   that   is   still   highly   fragmented   and  

                                                                                                                         
24  For  a  full  overview  see  E.  Ramaekers  2013,  Chapter  4  Part  I:  Substantive  EU  Property  Law.  

25  Reg  1346/2000/EC  on  insolvency  proceedings,  [2000]  OJ  L  160/1.  

26  Dir   2003/87/EC   establishing   a   scheme   for   greenhouse   gas   emission   allowance   trading,   [2003]   OJ   L  

275/32.  
27  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  195-­‐196.  

28  The  terms  were:  owner/ownership/proprietor,  possessor/possession,  in  rem/in  re,  real  right/personal  

right,   proprietary,   numerus   clausus,   lex   rei   sitae,   transfer,   convey,   assign,   cession,   pledge,   mortgage,  
hypothec,  lien,  charge/floating  charge/fixed  charge,  estate,  tenure,  freehold,  fee  simple,  lease/leasehold,  
tenancy/tenancies,   title   to/interest   in/legal   title,   retention   of   title/reservation   of   ownership,   servitude,  
usufruct,   easement,   restrictive   covenant,   emphyteusis,   superficies,   trust/trustee,   beneficiary,  
movable/immovable,  tangible/intangible,  corporeal/incorporeal.  
29  For  a  detailed  description  of  how  the  search  was  conducted  see  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  166-­‐171.  

  7  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

inconsistent.30  In   most   instances,   the   drafters   do   not   seem   to   have   consciously   chosen   to   use  
property   terminology.   Of   course,   in   the   absence   of   travaux   préparatoires,   speculating   about  
what   the   drafters   might   or   might   not   have   consciously   decided   always   remains   that,  
speculation.  Having  said  that,  the  picture  that  emerged  from  the  search  certainly  did  not  suggest  
any   pre-­‐conceived   approach.   Nevertheless,   as   stated   earlier,   all   these   regulations   and   directives  
do   share   certain   topics,   such   as   taxes,   financial   products   and   services,   environmental   issues,  
anti-­‐terrorism  measures,  and  agricultural  matters.  

3. The  Future  Development  of  EU  Property  Law  

Once   I   had   an   image   of   what   EU   property   law   currently   looks   like   I   could   start   to   develop   a  
proposal  for  its  future  development.  A  system  of  property  law  consists  essentially  of  two  parts:  
a   core,   consisting   of   the   property   rights,   and   a   set   of   rules   surrounding   that   core,   which  
determine  how  a  property  right  can  be  acquired,  transferred,  registered  or  cease  to  exist.31  The  
core  of  property  rights  therefore  functions  within  this  system  of  rules,  which  I  have  called  the  
‘operating   system’.   Just   as   the   operating   system   on   a   computer   enables   the   user   to   use   the  
software,   so   too   does   the   operating   system   in   property   law   enable   parties   to   use   property  
rights.  The  proposal  for  a  European  system  of  property  law  that  I  set  out  contains  both  a  core  of  
property  rights  and  an  operating  system.32  
 

A. An  optional  instrument  on  EU  property  law  

The  problems  outlined  above  with  exporting  property  rights  to  another  Member  State  could  be  
solved   by   introducing   European-­‐autonomous   property   rights   that   can   be   used   throughout   the  
Union.   Property   rights   essentially   have   two   functions:   to   enable   a   person   to   make   use   of   and  
enjoy  the  benefits  of  certain  objects;  or  to  enable  a  person  to  use  those  objects  as  security  for,  
for  instance,  a  loan.  Looking  at  these  functions  of  property  rights,  it  would  suffice  to  create  three  
European   property   rights:   one   that   encompasses   all   these   powers   and   is   equivalent   to  
ownership,  which  I  have  called  the  primary  right;  one  right  to  use;  and  one  security  right.  These  
rights   should   be   complemented   with   a   European   operating   system   that   determines   how   they  
are  to  be  created  and  transferred  to  ensure  that  they  function  in  the  same  way  throughout  the  

                                                                                                                         
30  For   a   complete   list   and   for   more   detailed   examples   see   E.   Ramaekers   2013,   Chapter   4   Part   II:  
Terminology  and  the  Annex.  
31  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  20-­‐38.  

32  E.  Ramaekers  2013,  Chapter  6  Part  II:  Where  to?  

  8  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

EU.33  As  far  as  the  European  primary  right  (or  EPR)  is  concerned,  it  could  be  used  by  parties  as  
an  alternative  to  their  national  primary  rights  (i.e.  ownership,  fee  simple,  title…).  Transferring  
an     EPR   from   one   party   to   another   would   be   done   in   accordance   with   the   rules   laid   down   in   the  
European  operating  system.  The  question  then  remains  where  the  ‘first’  EPR  comes  from:  how  
is  it  created?34  Let  us  take  the  example  of  a  person  owning  a  plot  of  land  in  Austria  wishing  to  
sell  that  land  to  a  purchaser  in  Italy,  but  not  by  granting  him  his  ownership  under  Austrian  law  
but   by   granting   him   an   EPR   in   the   land.   There   cannot   be   two   people   holding   two   primary   rights  
in  relation  to  the  same  plot  of  land,  so  the  Austrian  right  of  ownership  would  have  to  come  to  an  
end   somehow   once   the   Italian   buyer   acquires   the   EPR.   This   problem   could   be   resolved   through  
a  method  of  conversion.  The  optional  instrument  would  have  to  provide  that  a  national  primary  
right   would   first   have   to   be   converted   into   an   EPR   before   the   EPR   could   be   transferred   to  
someone   else.   The   conversion   would   extinguish   the   national   primary   right.   It   should   also   be  
possible   to   convert   an   EPR   back   into   a   national   primary   right.   Such   conversion   ought   to   be  
registrable.   Existing   limited   property   rights   (e.g.   mortgage,   superficies)   would   not   be  
extinguished   when   the   primary   right   on   which   they   depend   is   converted   into   an   EPR.   In  
accordance   with   the   nemo   dat   rule,   which   determines   that   one   cannot   grant   more   property  
rights   than   one   has,   a   national   primary   right   such   as   ownership   that   is   burdened   with   one   or  
more  limited  property  rights  could  only  be  converted  into  an  EPR  that  is  burdened  with  those  
same  rights.  
I   have   proposed   to   lay   all   of   this   down   in   a   so-­‐called   optional   instrument.   An   optional  
instrument   has   the   advantage   of   not   replacing   national   property   law   but   of   simply   existing   next  
to   it   and   giving   private   parties   a   choice   between   national   law   and   a   European   alternative.   Given  
that  choice  of  law  is  traditionally  not  an  option  in  property  law,  the  introduction  of  an  optional  
instrument  as  a  second  regime  within  each  Member  State,  existing  next  to  each  of  their  national  
property   laws,   would   be   pointless   since   parties   could   not   choose   it.   The   instrument   should  
therefore  be  directed  at  the  Member  States,  obliging  them  to  make  the  optional  regime  available  
next   to   their   own   national   law.   In   this   way,   once   the   rules   of   private   international   law   have  
indicated   the   applicable   national   law   to   a   proprietary   relationship,   within   the   applicable  
national   law   private   parties   would   be   provided   with   a   choice   between   the   two   property  
regimes:   the   national   law   that   is   of   national   origin   and   the   national   law   that   is   of   European  

                                                                                                                         
33  For   a   more   detailed   description   of   this   proposal   for   EU   property   law   see   E.   Ramaekers   2013   at   289-­‐

291.  
34  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  271-­‐273.  

  9  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

origin.35  If   parties   refrain   from   making   a   choice,   the   national   property   law   regime   that   is   of  
national  origin  (i.e.  the  pre-­‐existing  national  property  law  rather  than  the  optional  instrument)  
should   be   the   default   applicable   law.   The   European   Regulation   laying   down   the   optional  
instrument   should   contain   a   rule   of   private   international   law   to   determine   which   law   applies   to  
any  issues  not  regulated  by  the  optional  instrument.36  The  most  likely  candidate  would  be  the  
lex   rei   sitae   rule   because   of   its   widespread   use   to   determine   the   applicable   property   law,  
keeping  in  mind,  though,  that  this  rule  in  itself  does  not  sit  entirely  easily  within  EU  law.37  If  a  
conflict   arose   between   national   property   law   and   the   optional   instrument,   the   optional  
instrument   would   have   to   be   given   preference   over   national   law   in   accordance   with   the  
principle  of  supremacy  of  EU  law  as  laid  down  in  Costa  v.  E.N.E.L.38  
The   frequency   with   which   parties   will   actually   opt   for   the   European   instrument   could  
indicate   to   what   extent   there   was   actually   a   need   for   property   law   that   functions   in   a   cross-­‐
border   situation,   something   which   is   very   difficult   to   measure   empirically.   Moreover,   because  
an   optional   instrument   is   less   intrusive   for   Member   States’   legal   systems   than   a   mandatory  
instrument,  it  may  be  easier  to  find  a  legal  basis  for  it  in  the  Treaties.39  
This   proposal   may   appear   quite   far-­‐reaching   at   first   and   it   may   feel   counterintuitive   to  
propose  such  an  integrated  approach  by  the  EU  in  a  field  of  law  to  which  it  has  previously  not  
paid   much   attention.   But   I   believe   that,   for   property   law,   this   would   be   the   way   forward.  
Previous  experiences  show  that  projects  which  intend  to  leave  too  many  aspects  to  national  law  
will   have   limited   or   no   success.40  The   property   laws   of   the   Member   States   are   simply   more  

                                                                                                                         
35  Cf   The   European   Commission’s   ‘Green   paper   on   policy   options   for   progress   towards   a   European  
Contract   Law   for   consumers   and   businesses’   COM(2010)   348   final,   at   9:   ‘A   Regulation   could   set   up   an  
optional   instrument,   which   would   be   conceived   as   a   “2nd   regime”   in   each   Member   State,   thus   providing  
parties  with  an  option  between  two  regimes  of  [domestic  law].’  
36  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  288-­‐289.  

37  See  above,  section  1.B.  

38  Case  6/64  Flaminio   Costa   v.   E.N.E.L.   [1964]  ECR  585:  ‘The   precedence   of   Community   law   is   confirmed   by  

Article   189   [EEC],   whereby   a   Regulation   “shall   be   binding”   and   “directly   applicable   in   all   member   states”.  
This   provision,   which   is   subject   to   no   reservation,   would   be   quite   meaningless   if   a   state   could   unilaterally  
nullify  its  effects  by  means  of  a  legislative  measure  which  could  prevail  over  Community  law  .’  
39  This  would  be  in  line  with  the  proportionality  principle  as  expressed  in  Article  5(4)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  

European  Union  (TEU).  

40  See  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  275-­‐280  for  a  discussion  of  the  1973  Draft  Directive  on  mutual  recognition  of  

securities   on   movables,   the   Euromortgage,   the   Cape   Town   Convention   on   International   Interests   in  
Mobile   Equipment   and   Book   IX   of   the   Draft   Common   Frame   of   Reference   on   Proprietary   security   in  
movable  assets.  
  10  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

divergent  than  other  areas  of  private  law  and  their  closed  and  mandatory  nature  is  intended  –  
particularly   when   it   comes   to   land   –   to   protect   national   interests.   Therefore,   if   a   European  
measure  in  the  field  of  property  law  leaves  too  many  aspects  to  be  decided  by  national  law,  the  
effect  will  be  that  the  national  law  will  draw  these  aspects  entirely  into  its  own  closed  system,  
thereby   hindering   the   effectiveness   of   the   European   measure.   By   introducing   a   European  
system   of   property   law   through   an   optional   instrument   as   an   alternative   to   national   property  
law,   national   property   law   would   not   be   distorted   or   replaced.   Rather,   parties   would   be  
provided   with   an   alternative   that   might   prove   particularly   useful   –   from   a   cost-­‐reduction  
perspective   but   certainly   also   to   prevent   a   loss   of   property   rights   –   in   cross-­‐border   settings   and  
for  parties  entering  into  proprietary  relationships  in  a  number  of  Member  States.41  
This   proposal   presents   one   way   in   which   EU   property   law   could   be   shaped,   but   it   is   hard   to  
make  predictions,  especially  about  the  future.42  The  next  and  final  section  of  this  paper  will  be  
used  to  illustrate  a  few  recent  developments  and  on-­‐going  projects  that  might  shine  some  light  
on  the  likely  future  of  EU  property  law.  

4. Recent  developments  
This  final  section  will  be  used  to  highlight  some  recent  developments  in  EU  property  law.  It  is  
not  meant  to  be  exhaustive,  but  it  purports  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  current  challenges  and  
advances  in  this  field  and  is  meant  to  give  a  sense  of  what  can  be  expected  in  the  (near)  future.  It  
will  discuss  four  issues:  (i)  the  classification  of  objects  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  
Union   (CJEU);   (ii)   recent   case   law   on   Article   345   of   the   Treaty   on   the   Functioning   of   the  
European  Union  (TFEU),  a  provision  which  has  sometimes  been  interpreted  as  prohibiting  the  
EU   from   legislating   on   matters   of   property   law;   (iii)   the   Cross-­‐Border   E-­‐Conveyancing   project  
(CROBECO);  and  (iv)  three  Regulations  that  have  been,  or  are  being,  developed  in  the  context  of  
Judicial  Cooperation  in  Civil    Matters.43  
 

A. The   continued   (ir)relevance   of   Article   345   of   the   Treaty   on   the  

Functioning  of  the  European  Union  
Article  345  TFEU  states:  

                                                                                                                         
41  E.g.  multinational  businesses.  

42  The  precise  source  of  this  quote  is  uncertain.  It  has  at  various  points  been  attributed  to  Niels  Bohr,  Yogi  

Berra  and  Mark  Twain.  

43  Chapter  3  of  Title  V  of  the  TFEU  on  the  Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice.  

  11  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

 ‘The   Treaties   shall   in   no   way   prejudice   the   rules   in   Member   States   governing   the   system  
of  property  ownership.’  

This   provision   has   spun   a   lengthy   academic   debate   as   to   whether   or   not   it   prevents   the  
European   legislature   from   enacting   legislation   that   concerns   property   law   as   it   is   understood   in  
the  private  law  sense.44  I  have  argued,  on  the  basis  of  the  historical  development  of  Article  345  
and  of  the  travaux  préparatoires  for  this  provision,  that  it  only  refers  to  the  so-­‐called  principle  of  
neutrality,   which   means   that   the   EU   is   neutral   to   Member   States’   choices   regarding   the  
privatisation   or   nationalisation   of   undertakings   and   that   it   does   not   exclude   the   EU’s  
competence  to  legislate  in  the  area  of  property  law.45    
The  CJEU  has  recently  had  another  opportunity  to  clarify  its  case  law  on  this  provision.  
On   24   February   2012   the   Dutch   supreme   court   (Hoge   Raad)   asked   the   CJEU   preliminary  
questions  on  Article  345  in  three  joined  cases.46  These  cases  revolved  –  as  far  as  Article  345  is  
concerned   –   around   the   so-­‐called   privatiseringsverbod,   or   ban   on   privatization,   resulting   from  
the   Dutch   Besluit   aandelen   netbeheerders. 47  Directives   2003/54/EC 48  and   2003/55/EC 49  
concerning   common   rules   for   the   internal   market   in   electricity   and   natural   gas   respectively,  
form   the   original   background   to   the   Dutch   Decree.   According   to   these   Directives,   distribution  
system   operators   of   electricity   or   gas   must   be   independent   in   terms   of   their   organisation   and  
decision   making   from   other   activities   not   related   to   distribution. 50  The   Directives   were  

                                                                                                                         
44  See   inter   alia   J.L.   Caramelo   Gomes,   'Unification   in   the   Field   of   Property   Law   from   the   Perspective   of  

European   Law',   in   W.   Faber   and   B.   Lurger   (eds.),   Rules   for   the   transfer   of   Movables,   a   candidate   for  
European  Harmonisation  or  National  Reform?   (Munich:   Sellier   European   Law   Publishers,   2008),   at   239;  
W.  Devroe,  'Privatizations  and  Community  Law:  Neutrality  versus  Policy',  CMLRev  (Common   Market   Law  
Review)   34   (1997):   267-­‐306;   S.   Bartels,   'Europees   privaatrecht:   over   de   bevoegdheidsverdeling   tussen  
Unie  en  Lid-­‐Staat  met  betrekking  tot  het  eigendomsrecht',  Ars  Aequi  44/4  (1995):  244-­‐251;  R.  Riegel,  'Die  
Einwirkung   des   europäischen   Gemeinschaftsrechts   auf   die   Eigentumsordnung   der   Mitgliedstaaten   -­‐  
Zugleich  ein  Beitrag  zur  Auslegung  von  Art.  222  EWGV',  Recht  der  Internationalen  Wirtschaft  11  (1979):  
744-­‐49.  
45  B.  Akkermans  &  E.  Ramaekers  ELJ  2010:  299-­‐302.  

46  De  Staat  der  Nederlanden  v  Essent  BV  and  Essent  Nederland  BV,   LJN:   BQ9210,   HR,   10/03851;   De  Staat  

der  Nederlanden  v  Eneco  Holding  NV,  LJN:  BQ9212,  HR,  10/03852;  and  De  Staat  der  Nederlanden  v  Delta  
NV,  LJN:  BQ9214,  HR,  10/03853.  
47  Decree   on   shares   in   system   operators.   [translation   as   used   on   http://curia.europa.eu   in   the   English  

version  of  the  Reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling  in  Joined  Cases  C-­‐105,  106  and  107/12]  
48  [2003]  OJ  L  176/37.  

49  [2003]  OJ  L  176/57.  

50  Artt  15(2)  and  13(2)  respectively.  

  12  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

implemented   in   the   Netherlands   through   the   Interventie-­‐   en   Implementatiewet   (Intervention-­‐  
and   Implementation   Law)   and   the   Wet  onafhankelijk  netbeheer  (Law   on   independent   network  
operation).   The   latter   Law   entailed   a   fragmentation   of   ownership,   leaving   the   economic  
ownership   of   the   networks   with   the   distribution   system   operators   (netbeheerders).   On   the  
basis  of  this  latter  Law,  the  Decree  laid  down  that  shares  in  the  distribution  system  operators  
could  not  be  held  by  private  parties.  This  ban  on  privatisation  was  contested  by  Essent,  Eneco  
and   Delta.   The   Dutch   Hoge   Raad   stayed   the   proceedings   and   asked   the   CJEU   the   following  
preliminary  question:  

‘Must   Article   345   TFEU   be   interpreted   as   meaning   that   the   ‘rules   in   Member   States  
governing   the   system   of   property   ownership’   also   include   the   rule   in   respect   of   the  
absolute   ban   on   privatisation   which   is   at   issue   in   the   present   case,   as   set   out   in   the  
Besluit   aandelen   netbeheerders   (Decree   on   shares   in   system   operators),   in   conjunction  
with  Article  93  of  the  Elektriciteitswet  1998  (1998  Law  on  electricity)  and  Article  85  of  
the   Gaswet  (Law   on   gas),   under   which   shares   in   a   system   operator   can   be   transferred  
only  within  the  circle  of  public  authorities?’  

The   Court   in   its   judgment   confirmed   that   Article   345   is   an   expression   of   the   aforementioned  
principle  of  neutrality  and  that  the  Treaties  do  not  preclude  the  nationalisation  or  privatisation  
of   undertakings   as   such.51  At   the   same   time,   it   reiterated   that   even   though   a   Member   State’s  
choice   to   nationalise   or   privatise   remains   their   own,   the   consequences   of   such   a   decision   will  
still   be   scrutinised   in   light   of   the   Treaties’   provisions   on   free   movement   and   competition,   the  
two  cornerstones  of  the  internal  market.52  The  judgment  is  therefore  in  line  with  previous  cases  
such   as   Commission   v   Italy   (intellectual   property   law),53  Konle54  and   Ospelt.55  In   addition,   and  
this  is  where  the  judgment  becomes  most  important  for  EU  property  lawyers,  there  is  nothing  in  
the   judgment   that   suggests   that   Article   345   in   any   way   prevents   the   EU   legislature   from  
enacting  measures  in  the  field  of  property  law.  
 

                                                                                                                         
51  Para.  29-­‐35.  

52  Para.  36-­‐38.  

53  Case  C-­‐235/89,  Commission  v  Italy  [1992]  ECR  I-­‐777,  para.  14.  

54  Case  C-­‐302/97,  Konle  [1999]  ECR  I-­‐3099,  para.  38.  

55  Case  C-­‐452/01,  Ospelt   and   Schlössle   Weissenberg   [2003]  ECR  I-­‐9743,  para.  24.  See  also  Case  C‑171/08,  

Commission  v  Portugal  [2010]  ECR  I‑6817,  para.  64;  and  Case  C‑271/09,  Commission  v  Poland  [2011]  ECR  

I‑13613,  para.  44.  

  13  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

 B. Classification   of   objects   in   case   law   of   the   Court   of   Justice   of   the  
European  Union  
EU   property   law   has   most   clearly   and   consistently   developed   with   regard   to   the   ‘things’  
(objects,  assets…)  that  can  be  the  objects  of  property  rights.  Essentially,  as  long  as  a  thing  has  an  
economic  value  it  can  be  an  object  of  property  rights  (or  rights   in  rem  as  is  the  term  used  in  EU  
law).56  Because  this  aspect  of  property  law  is  most  clearly  developed  in  European  legislation  it  
is  worthwhile  to  note  what  European  case  law  has  to  say  on  the  matter.  
  There  is  a  rich  body  of  case  law  from  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (CJEU)  
concerning   the   classification   of   objects,   that   is   the   determination   of   objects   as   being   either  
movable   or   immovable,   and   tangible   or   intangible.   This   case   law   has   developed   almost  
exclusively  within  the  context  of  the  Value  Added  Tax  Directive.57  Article  5  (now  14  and  15)  on  
the  supply  of  goods,  Article  7  (now  24  and  25)  on  the  supply  of  services,  and  Article  13B  (now  
135)   on   certain   transactions   that   are   exempt   from   VAT   revolve   around   the   concepts   of  
immovable,  tangible  and  intangible  but  do  not  provide  definitions  of  these  concepts.  The  CJEU  
has  therefore  had  to  interpret  these  terms  in  a  series  of  cases.  
  As  far  as  the  term  immovable  is  concerned,  the  case  law  deals  with  structures  that  are  
on   the   movable/immovable   boundary   such   as   tents   and   caravans,58  prefabricated   buildings59  
and  mooring  births.60  The  most  recent  case  in  this  series  is  Leichenich.61  This  case  concerned  a  
houseboat.   The   Court   decided   to   evaluate   not   just   the   houseboat   in   isolation   but   also   the  
surrounding   area   into   which   the   houseboat   was   integrated.62  It   used   the   criteria   it   had   laid  
down  in  the  earlier  case  of  Maierhofer63  (on  prefabricated  buildings)   to  come  to  the  conclusion  
that   the   houseboat   constituted   immovable   property.   In   Maierhofer   the   Court   hat   stated   that   it  
was  not  necessary  for  a  structure  to  be  indissociably  incorporated  into  the  ground  on  which  it  

                                                                                                                         
56  E.  Ramaekers  2013  at  172-­‐174.  

57  Dir  2006/122/EC  recasting  the  Sixth  Council  Directive  77/388/EEC  on  the  harmonisation  of  the  laws  

of  the  Member  States  relating  to  turnover  taxes,  [2006]  OJ  L  347/1.  
58  Case  C-­‐60/96,  Commission  v  France  (tents,  caravans  and  mobile  homes)  [1997]  ECR  I-­‐3827.  

59  Case  C-­‐315/00,  Maierhofer  [2003]  ECR  I-­‐586.  

60  Case  C-­‐428/02,  Fonden  Marselisborg  Lystbådehavn  [2005]  ECR  I-­‐1527.  

61  Case   C-­‐532/11,   Susanne  Leichenich  v  Ansbert  Peffekoven  and  Ingo  Horeis,   15   November   2012   [not   yet  

reported].  
62  Para.  19-­‐20.  

63  See  fn.  42.  

  14  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

rests  for  it  to  be  immovable.64  Much  depends  on  how  easy  or  difficult  it  is  to  move  the  structure.  
In   Leichenich   the   Court   attached   particular   importance   to   the   fact   that   the   submerged   and  
demarcated   part   of   the   riverbed   where   the   housing   boat   was   moored   constituted   immovable  
property;65  that   the   chains   and   anchors   with   which   the   boat   was   immobilised   could   not   be  
easily   removed;   and   that   the   boat   had   a   postal   address,   telephone   line   and   connections   to   the  
water  and  electricity  mains.  Therefore,  although  the  boat  was  not  indissociably  connected  to  the  
ground  (i.e.  the  riverbed),  it  was  nonetheless  classified  as  an  immovable  object  for  the  purposes  
of  the  VAT  Directive.  
  As  far  as  the  terms  tangibles  and  intangibles  in  the  Directive  are  concerned,  the  Court’s  
case   law   does   not   establish   any   criteria   by   which   it   decides   whether   an   object   is   tangible   or  
intangible.   It   does,   however,   provide   some   guidance   on   the   peculiar   phenomenon   that   certain  
intangibles  are  equated  with  tangibles  in  the  context  of  the  VAT  Directive.  Article  15(2)  of  the  
VAT  Directive  states  that  Member  States  may  regard  the  following  intangible  things  as  tangible  
property:  

‘(a)  certain  interests  in  immovable  property;  

(b)  rights  in  rem  giving  the  holder  thereof  a  right  of  use  over  immovable  property;  

(c)  shares  or  interests  equivalent  to  shares  giving  the  holder  thereof  de  jure  or  de  facto  
rights  of  ownership  or  possession  over  immovable  property  or  part  thereof.’  

This   is   however   a   complex   issue,   the   details   of   which   go   beyond   the   scope   of   this   paper.66  In  
short,  the  fact  that  the  VAT  Directive  treats  certain  intangibles  as  if  they  were  tangibles  seems  to  
be  a  result  of  the  fact  that,  because  of  the  tax  law  context,  the  Court  and  the  legislature  are  more  
concerned   with   who   possesses   the   actual   value   of   property   rather   than   what   the   specific  
property   rights   are   that   someone   holds;   and   because   the   Directive   distinguishes   between   the  

                                                                                                                         
64  Para.   21-­‐25.   In   a   separate   line   of   case   law   the   Court   deals   with   the   principle   of   accession   (or   the  
superficies  solo  cedit  rule),  according  to  which  anything  built  on  or  attached  to  the  land  accedes  to  the  land  
and   follows   the   ownership   of   or   title   to   the   land.   For   a   description   of   these   cases   see   E.   Ramaekers,  
'Classification  of  Objects  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice',  ELR  (European  Law  Review)  39/4  (2014):  447-­‐
69  (to  be  published  September  2014).  
65  The   Court   here   referred   to   Fonden   Marselisborg   Lystbådehavn:   para.   21.   See   also   Case   C-­‐451/06,  
Walderdorff   [2007]   ECR   I-­‐10637,   para.   19;   Case   C-­‐166/05,   Heger   [2006]   ECR   I-­‐7749,   para.   20-­‐22:  
immovable  property  is  attached  to  a  specific  part  of  the  earth’s  surface.  The  fact  that  that  surface  may  be  
covered   in   water   is   immaterial,   as   long   as   it   is   permanently   delimited.   Similarly   Advocate   General  
Sharpston  in  Heger,  para.  30.  
66  See  however  E.  Ramaekers  ELR  2014:  460-­‐464.  

  15  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

provision   of   goods   (covering,   broadly,   tangible   property)   and   the   provision   of   services  
(covering  intangible  property).  

C. The  CROBECO  project  

Technology   is   often   one   step   ahead   of   the   law.   Technological   developments   are   making   it  
possible   to   convert   national   land   registries   into   electronic   systems.   Once   land   is   electronically  
registered   the   possibility   of   e-­‐conveyancing   (electronic   conveyancing)   arises.   There   may   be  
legal  reasons  why  countries  wish  to  restrict  e-­‐conveyancing  to  their  own  jurisdiction,  but  there  
are   no   practical,   technological   reasons   why   e-­‐conveyancing   could   not   be   extended   to   cross-­‐
border  transactions.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  eminently  suitable  for  it.  The  question  then  becomes  
how  to  balance  the  interests  of  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  national  land  registry  with  these  
technological   advances   and   the   interests   of   those   wishing   to   engage   in   cross-­‐border  
transactions  of  immovable  property  in  the  most  efficient  and  legally  secure  way.  
The   European   Land   Registry   Association   (ELRA)   has   responded   to   this   question   by  
initiating  the  Cross-­‐Border  E-­‐Conveyancing  (CROBECO)  project.67  The  main  participants  in  this  
project   have   been   Dutch   and   Spanish   land   registrars   and   notaries,   though   English   and  
Portuguese   land   registries   have   become   increasingly   involved   as   well.68  Confronted   with   an  
almost  complete  standstill  of  conveyances  Spanish  land  registrars  attempted  to  breathe  new  life  
into   cross-­‐border   transfers   in   land,   together   with   their   Dutch   counterparts.69  There   are   many  
(potential)  Dutch  buyers  of  Spanish  holiday  homes,  but  they  may  be  confronted  with  language  
barriers   and   a   lack   of   understanding   of   the   local   law   (primarily   property   law   but   also  
administrative   law)   with   any   number   of   possible   negative   consequences.70  These   negative  
consequences   may   deter   people   from   entering   into   such   cross-­‐border   transactions   in  
immovable   property,   which,   from   a   free   movement   perspective,   translates   to   a   hindrance   to   the  
free  movement  of  persons  and  capital.71  CROBECO  goes  some  way  to  removing  these  obstacles  

                                                                                                                         
67  http://www.elra.eu/elra-­‐european-­‐land-­‐registry-­‐association/crobeco/.    

68  http://www.elra.eu/about-­‐crobeco/.  

69  J.H.M.   van   Erp   &   B.   Akkermans,   ‘Public   or   private   harmonisation   of   the   EU   mortgage   market?’,   ZeuP  

(Zeitschrift  für  Europäisches  Privatrecht)  1  (2013):  43-­‐59.  

70  W.  Louwman  &  J.  Vos,  'De  overdracht  van  buitenlandse  onroerende  zaken  via  de  lokale  notaris’,  WPNR  

(Weekblad  voor  Privaatrecht,  Notariaat  en  Registratie)  144/6992  (2013):  907-­‐919,  913.  
71  Acquiring   immovable   property   in   another   Member   State   is   considered   to   be   a   capital   movement   for   the  

purposes   of   free   movement   of   capital:   Case   C-­‐515/99,   Reisch   [2002]   ECR   I-­‐2157,   para.   29.   See   also   the  
Nomenclature  of  capital  movements,  attached  as  Annex  I  to  Dir.  88/361/EEC  for  the  implementation  of  
Art.  67  EEC  Treaty  (free  movement  of  capital),  at  II  –  Investments  in  Real  Estate.  
  16  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

to  free  movement.  It  makes  it  possible  for  a  Dutch  buyer  and  seller72  to  transfer  ownership  of  
the   Spanish   property   with   a   deed   drawn   up   by   their   own,   familiar,   Dutch   notary   rather   than  
having   to   make   use   of   a   Spanish   notary.73  The   deed   is   drawn   up   bi-­‐lingually   and   must   be  
submitted   through   the   CROBECO   online   conveyancing   system,   which   makes   use   of   a   unique  
identification   number   for   the   deed   and   of   the   notary’s   e-­‐signature   in   accordance   with   the  
European   Directive   on   electronic   signatures.74  The   Spanish   land   registrar   will   accept   the   deed  
and  register  it  in  the  Spanish  land  registry.  The  underlying  foundation  for  CROBECO  is  therefore  
the   well-­‐known   (in   EU   law)   concept   of   mutual   recognition:75  the   Spanish   and   Dutch   registrars  
and   notaries   have   together   designed   a   deed   that   complies   with   the   legal   standards   of   both  
jurisdictions   and   which   they   are   both   willing   to   accept   as   legally   valid,   provided   the   correct  
online  conveyancing  software  is  used  to  provide  the  necessary  safeguards.76  
  This   process   only   works   if   the   recipient   country’s   legal   system   accepts   the   registrability  
of  foreign  deeds.  This  is  the  case  in  Spanish  law,77  but  many  legal  systems  insist  that  deeds  must  
be   drawn   up   by   a   notary   (or   equivalent   official)   who   has   the   nationality   of   that   country.  
Whether  such  a  nationality  requirement  is  compatible  with  EU  law  on  non-­‐discrimination  and  
the   free   movement   of   services   and   establishment   is   doubtful.   The   Spanish   supreme   court   has  
recently  held  that,  in  light  of  the  free  movement  of  services,  a  Spanish  registrar  may  not  refuse  a  

                                                                                                                         
72  Experience  has  shown  that  Dutch  purchasers  tend  to  buy  properties  primarily  from  other  Dutch  sellers.  

73  J.H.M.  van  Erp  &  B.  Akkermans  ZeuP  2013:  58;  W.  Louwman  &  J.  Vos  WPNR  2013:  913-­‐914.  

74  Dir  1999/93/EC  on  a  Community  framework  for  electronic  signatures,  [2000]  OJ  L  13/12.  

75  On   mutual   recognition   more   generally   and   on   its   application   to   property   rights   see   E.   Ramaekers   2013  

at  56-­‐59.  
76  So  far,  transactions  have  only  gone  in  the  direction  Netherlands  >  Spain,  but  a  transaction  in  the  other  

direction   is   conceivable,   although   the   demand   from   Spanish   consumers   for   second   homes   in   the  
Netherlands  is  somewhat  on  the  low  side.  
77  Article   1462   of   the   Spanish   civil   code   does   not   require   that   a   deed   is   drawn   up   by   a   Spanish   notary:  

‘The   thing   sold   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   delivered   when   it   is   put   in   the   power   and   possession   of   the  
purchaser.   Where   the   sale   has   been   made   pursuant   to   a   public   deed,   the   execution   thereof   shall   be  
equivalent   to   the   delivery   of   the   thing   constituting   the   subject   matter   of   the   contract,   unless   it   should  
result   or   it   should   clearly   be   deduced   otherwise   from   the   public   deed.’   (Translation   provided   by   ELRA:  
http://www.elra.eu/wp-­‐content/uploads/file/Spanish_Civil_Code_(Código_Civil)%5B1%5D.pdf;   the  
original   reads:   ‘Se   entenderá   entregada   la   cosa   vendida   cuando   se   ponga   en   poder   y   posesión   del  
comprador.  Cuando  se  haga  la  venta  mediante  escritura  pública,  el  otorgamiento  de  ésta  equivaldrá  a  la  
entrega  de  la  cosa  objeto  del  contrato,  si  de  la  misma  escritura  no  resultare  o  se  dedujere  claramente  lo  
contrario.’  
  17  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

foreign   deed   properly   drawn   up   by   a   foreign   notary   (or   equivalent).78  Moreover,   the   CJEU   has  
held  in  a  series  of  cases  that  Member  States  are  not  allowed  to  impose  a  nationality  condition  
for  access  to  the  profession  of  civil-­‐law  notary  because  such  a  condition  infringes  the  freedom  of  
establishment.79  
  The   beauty   of   CROBECO   is   that   it   is   a   private   initiative   that   makes   full   use   of   existing   EU  
law   without   altering   national   property   law   and   without   touching   the   lex   rei   sitae,80  a   delicate  
point  for  property  lawyers.81  In  accordance  with  the  Rome  I82  and  Rome  II83  Regulations  on  the  
law   applicable   to   contractual   and   non-­‐contractual   obligations   respectively,   parties   are   able   to  
choose  the  applicable  law  and  forum  with  regard  to  the  obligational  side  of  their  transaction.84  
The   proprietary   side   –   i.e.   the   actual   transfer   of   ownership   –   remains   governed   by   the   lex  rei  
sitae   but   this   no   longer   causes   any   real   problems   for   the   parties   involved,   since   their   local  
notary   will   have   access   to   all   the   requisite   information   about   Spanish   property   law   and   about  
the  specifics  of  the  plot  of  land  that  is  being  transferred.85  
 
                                                                                                                         
78  Sentencia  del  Tribunal  Supremo  (España)  STS  Nº  998/2011  on  19/06/2012.  The  judgment  (in  Spanish)  

can  be  found  here:    

http://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/SALA%20DE%20PRENSA/NOVEDADES/28079119912012100007_S
TS%20998_2011_escritura_aleman.pdf.  
79  Cases   C-­‐47/08,   C-­‐50/08,   C-­‐51/08,   C-­‐54/08,   C-­‐61/08   and   C-­‐52/08,   Commission   v   Belgium,   France,  
Luxembourg,  Austria,  Germany,  Greece  and  Portugal,  summarised  in  Press  Release  No  50/11,  Luxembourg,  
24  May  2011.  
80  See  the  CROBECO  Principles:    

http://www.elra.eu/elra-­‐european-­‐land-­‐registry-­‐association/crobeco/principles/.    
81  On  the  (in)compatibility  of  the  lex   rei   sitae   rule  with  European  internal  market  law,  and  with  Article  1  

First   Protocol   to   the   European   Convention   on   Human   Rights,   see   respectively   B.   Akkermans   &   E.  
Ramaekers  in  Property  Law  Perspectives  I  2012  and  E.  Ramaekers,  'Lex  situs  and  Article  1  Protocol  1  -­‐  The  
influence  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  on  Private  International  Law',  in  B.  Akkermans,  
E.J.   Marais   &   E.   Ramaekers   (eds.),   Property   Law   Perspectives   II   (Ius   Commune   Europaeum;  
Antwerpen/Oxford/Portland:  2013).  
82  Reg  593/2008/EC,  [2008]  OJ  L  177/6.  

83  Reg  864/2007/EC,  [2007]  OJ  L  199/40.  

84  W.  Louwman  &  J.  Vos  WPNR  2013:  913-­‐914.  

85  This   information   is   provided   through   the   CROBECO-­‐helpdesk,   which   makes   use   of   local   lawyers   and  

international   experts   in   private   law   and   conflicts   of   laws.   It   contains,   amongst   others,   a   repository   of  
clauses   drafted   by   experts   in   the   recipient   countries,   which   the   notary   in   the   home   country   can   make   use  
of  to  ensure  that  the  contractual  part  of  the  transaction  properly  connects  to  the  proprietary  side  of  the  
transaction  so  that  there  are  no  ‘gaps’  in  the  transfer  of  ownership.  
  18  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

 D. Judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters  
The  EU  has  become  increasingly  active  in  the  field  of  family  property  law.  Since  the  entry  into  
force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  it  has  proposed  three  Regulations:  the  Succession  Regulation,86  which  
has   been   enacted   and   will   enter   into   force   on   17   August   2015;   a   Rome   IV   Regulation   on  
matrimonial   property   regimes;87  and   a   Rome   V   Regulation   on   the   property   consequences   of  
registered   partnerships.88  The   latter   two   are   currently   making   their   way   through   the   legislative  
process.   All   three   of   these   Regulations   are   based   on   Article   81   TFEU   (ex   Article   65   EC)   on  
judicial   cooperation   in   civil   matters   having   cross-­‐border   implications. 89  Although   these  
Regulations   purport   only   to   regulate   the   conflict   of   laws   aspects   and   defer   to   national   law   as   far  
as   the   substantive   matters   of   property   law   (and   family   law)   are   concerned,   they   nevertheless  
carry  the  potential  to  affect  national  property  law.  In  addition,  they  deviate  from  the  lex  rei  sitae  
rule  in  certain  circumstances.  As  we  saw  in  section  1.B  the  lex  rei  sitae  rule  is  at  odds  with  EU  
free   movement   law.   The   three   Regulations   described   below   therefore   have   the   potential   to  
remove   some   of   the   obstacles   to   free   movement   caused   by   the   application   of   the   lex  rei  sitae  
rule.  

i. The  Succession  Regulation  

The  Succession  Regulation  determines  that  the  law  applicable  to  a  succession  shall  either  be  the  
law  of  the  State  in  which  the  deceased  had  his  habitual  residence  at  the  time  of  death,90  or  the  
law  of  the  State  whose  nationality  the  deceased  possessed  at  the  time  of  death  or  at  the  time  the  
person  chose  this  law  to  be  the  applicable  law.91  The  applicable  law  will  govern  the  succession  
as  a  whole,92  meaning  that  the  traditional  conflict  of  laws  rule  lex   rei   sitae   –  according  to  which  
property  is  always  subject  to  the  property  laws  of  the  place  where  it  is  located  and  to  which  all  

                                                                                                                         
86  Reg   650/2012/EU   on   jurisdiction,   applicable   law   and   enforcement   of   decisions   and   acceptance   and  

enforcement   of   authentic   instruments   in   matters   of   succession   and   on   the   creation   of   a   European  

Certificate  of  Succession,  [2012]  OJ  L  201/107.  
87  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  

of  decisions  in  matters  of  matrimonial  property  regimes,  COM(2011)  126  final.  
88  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  

of  decisions  regarding  the  property  consequences  of  registered  partnerships,  COM(2011)  127  final.  
89  Art   81(2)(c)   provides   the   legal   basis   for   measures   aimed   at   ensuring   ‘the   compatibility   of   the   rules  

applicable  in  the  Member  States  concerning  conflict  of  laws  and  of  jurisdiction’.  
90  Art  21.  

91  This  limited  choice  of  law  is  provided  for  in  Art  22(1).  

92  Art  23.  

  19  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

EU   Member   States   currently   adhere93  –   is   deviated   from   in   favour   of   the   lex   domicilii   and   a  
limited  choice  of  law.  The  consequences  of  the  Regulation  for  national  property  law  follow  form  
Article  31  of  the  Regulation,  which  states  that  Member  States  must  try  and  adapt  foreign  rights  
in  rem  to  which  a  party  is  entitled  under  the  applicable  law  to  the  closest  equivalent  right  in  rem  
under   their   own   law.   Despite   the   fact   that   Recital   15   of   the   Preamble   to   the   Regulation   states  
that   the   numerus  clausus  of   property   rights   in   the   Member   States   shall   remain   unaffected,   the  
practical   effects   of   Article   31   could   be   that   a   Member   State   somehow   has   to   recognise   and  
assimilate  a  foreign  property  right  that  has  no  real  equivalent  in  its  own  legal  system.94  
 

ii. The  Rome  IV  and  V  Regulations  

The   Rome   IV   Regulation   on   matrimonial   property   regimes,   if   adopted   in   its   proposed   form,  
would  continue  the  deviation  from  the  lex  rei  sitae  rule  even  more  explicitly  than  the  Succession  
Regulation  does.  The  Explanatory  Memorandum  that  accompanies  the  Proposal  states:  

‘Immovable   property   has   a   special   place   in   the   property   of   couples,   and   one   of   the  
possible   options   would   be   to   make   it   subject   to   the   law   of   the   country   in   which   it   is  
located   (lex   situs)   […]   This   solution   is,   however,   fraught   with   difficulties   […]   in   that   it  
would  lead  to  an  undesirable  fragmentation  of  the  unity  of  the  matrimonial  property  […]  
The  Regulation  therefore  provides  that  the  law  applicable  to  matrimonial  property  […]  
will   apply   to   all   the   couple’s   property,   movable   or   immovable,   irrespective   of   their  
location.’  95  [emphasis  added]  

Furthermore,  the  Proposal  states  that  the  Regulation  does  not  affect  the  nature  of  rights  in  rem  
relating   to   property,   just   as   the   Succession   Regulation   did.   This,   however,   seems   just   as  
untenable   as   it   did   in   the   Succession   Regulation.   Member   States   will   have   to   recognise   the  
validity  of  rights  in  rem  acquired  under  the  law  applicable  to  the  matrimonial  property  regime,96  
although   a   provision   such   as   Article   31   in   the   Succession   Regulation,   stating   explicitly   that  
foreign  property  rights  must  be  adapted  to  the  closest  equivalent  under  the  law  of  the  receiving  

                                                                                                                         
93  The  lex   rei   sitae  rule  is  strictly  followed  most  of  the  time,  but  there  are  a  few  minor  exceptions  such  as  

for  goods  in  transit,  to  which  the   lex  destinationis  (the  law  of  destination)  or  the   lex  registrationis  (the  law  
of  the  place  of  registration)  are  sometimes  applied:  E.  Ramaekers  2013,  at  204-­‐206.  
94  E.   Ramaekers   2013,   at   146-­‐147;   B.   Akkermans,   'De   invloed   van   het   Europese   recht   op   het   Nederlandse  

goederenrecht',  WPNR  (Weekblad  voor  Privaatrecht,  Notariaat  en  Registratie)  144/6992  (2013):  890-­‐99,  
891-­‐895.  
95  COM(2011)  126  final,  at  8.  

96  The   Explanatory   Memorandum   states   explicitly   that   the   Regulation   is   based   on   mutual   recognition:  

COM(2011)  126  final,  at  9.  See  also  B.  Akkermans  WPNR  2013:  893-­‐895.  
  20  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

Member  State,  is  absent  in  the   Proposal  for  a  Rome  IV  Regulation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  effects  
of   this   requirement   of   mutual   recognition   seem   somewhat   mitigated   by   the   inclusion   of   two  
provisions   meant   to   protect   third   parties:   Article   18   of   the   Proposed   Regulation   provides   that   a  
retrospective   change   of   applicable   law   based   on   a   choice   by   the   parties   may   not   affect   the  
validity   of   previous   transactions   or   the   rights   of   third   parties   deriving   from   the   previously  
applicable   law;   and   Article   35   allows   Member   States   in   certain   circumstances   to   provide   that  
the   law   applicable   to   the   matrimonial   property   regime   may   not   be   relied   on   by   a   spouse   in  
dealings  with  a  third  party  unless  the  third  party  was  aware  of  or  ought  to  have  been  aware  of  
the  law  applicable  to  the  matrimonial  property  regime.   This  is  in  keeping  with  national  rules  of  
property   law   which,   in   specific   circumstances,   prevent   property   rights   from   being   invoked  
against   certain   third   parties.97  It   is   also   important   to   note   that   Article   22   of   the   Proposed  
Regulation  makes  it  possible  for  a  Member  State  where  the  family  home  is  located  to  apply  its  
own  rules  if  that  is  deemed  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  family  home.  
  The   Rome   V   Regulation   on   property   consequences   of   registered   partnerships   follows  
the   same   structure   as   the   Rome   IV   Regulation   and   contains   mostly   the   same   rules.   It   is   a   bit  
more  limited  than  the  Rome  IV  Regulation  as  far  as  the  applicable  law  to  the  property  regime  of  
registered  partners  is  concerned  in  that  it  designates  the  law  of  the  State  of  registration  as  the  
sole   possible   applicable   law.98  Unlike   the   Succession   Regulation   and   the   Rome   IV   Regulation,   no  
choice  of  law  is  provided  to  the  partners.  

Conclusion  
The  development  of  EU  property  law  is  gaining  speed.  Bits  and  pieces  of  it  were  already  present  
in   some   of   the   earliest   European   legislation,   but   they   were   always   to   be   found   in   instruments  
that   regulated   other   matters   than   those   that   private   lawyers   would   consider   to   belong   to   the  
core   of   property   law.99  They   did   not   seem   to   be   part   of   or   founded   on   any   clear   policy.  
Nevertheless,   they   have   accumulated   to   form   the   contours   of   an   emerging   system   of   EU  
property  law.100  The  more  recent  developments  as  discussed  in  this  contribution  show  that,  on  

                                                                                                                         
97  Probably  the  most  well-­‐known  exception  is  that  of  the  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value  without  notice  of  

previously   existing   rights   or   of   a   defect   in   a   previous   transaction:   see   e.g.   (in   English   law)   Pitcher   v  
Rawlins  (1871-­‐72)   LR   7   CH   App   259,   269,   Per  James   LJ;   (in   Dutch   law)   Art   86   of   Book   3   of   the   Dutch   civil  
code;  (in  German  law)  §  932  of  the  German  civil  code.  
98  COM(2011)  127  final,  at  8.  

99  E.g.   the   return   of   stolen   cultural   objects,   cross-­‐border   insolvency   proceedings,   or   late   payments   in  
commercial  transactions.  
100  E.  Ramaekers  2013,  at  247-­‐253.  

  21  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003

the   one   hand,   the   European   institutions   are   aware   of   the   sensitivities   surrounding   the  
involvement  of  EU  law  in  national  property  law,  but  on  the  other  hand  are  touching  ever  more  
closely   on   issues   that   do   concern   the   core   of   property   law   and   they   are   doing   it   much   more  
clearly   based   on   specific   policies,   albeit  –   for   the   moment   –   only   in   measures   regulating   conflict  
of   laws.   Additionally,   private   initiatives   such   as   the   CROBECO   project101  show   that   there   is   a  
need   for   a   degree   of   European   ‘regulation’   of   cross-­‐border   property   transactions   and   that,   if  
European  legislation  or  case  law  is  lagging  behind,  practitioners  and  academics  will  try  to  meet  
this   need.   Nevertheless,   despite   the   growing   interest   in   and   development   of   EU   property   law,  
this   field   of   law   remains   highly   fragmented   and   is   not   yet   approached   by   the   European  
Institutions  with  the  coherence  it  needs.  Suffice  it  to  say,  these  are  exciting  times  for  researchers  
of  EU  property  law  and  a  great  deal  of  work  lies  ahead.  

                                                                                                                         
101  One  could  also  think  of  the  EULIS  (European  Land  Information  Service)  project,  which  digitally  links  

national  land  registries  so  that  they  can  be  accessed  from  abroad:  http://eulis.eu.    
  22  
 

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2605003