Teemu Juutilainen, Secured Credit in Europe: From Conflicts to Compatibility
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.3366/elr.2020.0663 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Pages | 447-448 |
Reform of security over moveable property has become a subject of increasing interest internationally in recent times. It is now generally accepted that a modern secured transactions law brings economic benefit. Lenders typically will offer loans at lower interest rates where assets are available over which security can be taken. But for moveable property there is a particular challenge. The clue is in the name. Moveable assets move. This raises important questions. Will a security right created over vehicles in Germany subsist if these are driven to Scotland? And how best could security be taken over assets owned by a multi-national company in multiple jurisdictions? These are the issues which provide the background to Teemu Juutilainen's impressive book, which is based on his doctoral thesis completed in 2015 at the University of Helsinki. Its aim is to find the optimal path to compatibility between the laws of European countries in relation to (a) security over corporeal moveables (as we would call these in Scotland) and (b) receivables.
The book provides a detailed analysis of the existing literature in the area which has been written in recent years in English, German, the Scandinavian languages and Finnish. By doing this the author already provides a service to those such as this reviewer whose foreign language skills are considerably more limited. The literature itself often considers existing European Union legislation which has attempted to harmonise commercial law, such as the Late Payment Directive, or proposals which could provide the basis for future reform such as the Draft Common Frame of Reference (“DCFR”) Book nine.
Following a relatively brief introduction, the book is divided into three long (perhaps too long) chapters. The first is entitled “Options: The Variety of Means to Promote Compatibility”. It considers four approaches: (one) the centralised substantive approach; (two) the centralised conflicts-approach; (three) the local conflicts-approach; and (four) the local substantive approach. Approach (one) would be the most radical: replacing national security rights laws with a unified (or at least significantly harmonised) European law, perhaps based on Uniform Commercial Code Article nine of the USA or the DCFR Book nine. The remaining approaches would be “gentler” (54). Approach (two) would involve unification of conflict of law rules across Europe. Approach (three) – weaker still – would see conflict of law rules in relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial