本书由欧洲民法典研究组、欧盟现行私法研究组编著。欧洲民法典研究组由相关领域的顶尖专家组成，代表着欧洲的主要法系，主要成员包括：克里斯蒂安•冯•巴尔 (Christian von Bar)教授（德国／奥斯纳布吕克，主席）、圭多•阿尔帕(Guido Alpa)教授 （罗马／热亚那）、迈克尔•基•布里奇(Michael G.Bridge)教授（伦敦）、毛里•博伟达(Maurits Barendrecht)教授（荷兰／蒂尔堡）、休•比尔 (Hugh Beale)教授（华威）、埃里克•克莱夫(Eric Clive)教授(英国／爱丁堡)、尤金•达克罗尼亚(Eugenia Dacoronia) 教授（雅典）。

本书是来自欧盟成员国的所有法域的法学家历经25年多通力合作的结果。它将学者们数十年的独立和合作研究以及私法、比较法和欧共体法的专家意见以规则的形式予以浓缩，承载了促进欧盟各国私法发展的殷殷希望。尤其是通过本书，人们能看到各国私法之间的相似性和相互影响，以及这些法律在多大程度上能够被看作是全部欧洲文化遗产的区域性表现。本书为欧洲私法理念提供一个新的基础，增进相互理解并促进对欧洲私法的集体研究。它将对欧盟各国的内国法和共同体法以及欧盟之外的法制改革项目产生深远的影响。

本书论述了欧洲私法的“原则、定义和示范规则”。其中，“原则”是欧州私法所适用的一般规则；“定义”旨在构建统一的欧洲法律术语；而“示范规则”则提供各国法律改革可能的参照文本。

本书的英文全名为“Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law：Draft Common Frame of Reference”，直译为《欧洲私法的原则、定义和示范规则：共同参照框架草案》。为使书名更加简洁，根据原书主编之一冯•巴尔教授的建议，改译为《欧洲示范民法典草案——欧洲私法的原则、定义和示范规则》。本书的翻译得到了国家社科基金后期资助项目资助。

译者简介

高圣平，中国人民大学法学院副教授，美国明尼苏达大学法学院访问教授（2010年9月—2012年4月），世行集团国际金融公司中国法律专家，中国人民大学民商事法律科学研究中心专职研究人员，全国人大《中华人民共和国物权法》翻译专家组成员。

已经出版的译著有《美国统一商法典及其正式评述（第三卷）》（独译）（中国人民大学出版社2006年版）、《美国统一商法典及其正式评述（第二卷）》（合译）（中国人民大学出版社2005年版），即将出版的译著有《美国法律重述第三版：担保法》（独译）（法律出版社即出）、《最新魁北克民法典》（独译）（法律出版社即出）、《土地法改革》（第一译者字）（法律出版社即出）。

欧洲示范民法典草案中译本序言（克里斯蒂安•冯•巴尔）

非常荣幸，也十分高兴地受邀为《欧洲示范民法典草案》的中译本作序。《欧洲示范民法典草案》是欧洲学者们所起草的欧洲私法共同参考框架，本中译本的出版，促进了中欧之间在私法领域的交流，我们作为起草者对此倍感欣慰。欧盟各成员国的私法与东亚主要国家的私法之间原本就十分接近，与欧洲目前的法典化趋势一样，亚洲也正掀起一股新的法典化运动，以使各国原有法典适应现代社会的要求。在这一进程中，唯有保持紧密联系，才不致于错过相互学习和共享资源的机会。事实上，我曾设想建立亚欧民法典研究组，共同起草包括债法在内的示范条文。我深信这些示范规则对于立法、法学研究和法学教育均深具助益。

《欧洲示范民法典草案》是由学者发起起草的文本，自着手研究之始，就没有得到欧盟宪法机构的官方“授权”。它是源于欧洲法学研究中心的自发产物，在欧洲合同法委员会，也就是著名的以其丹麦籍主席命名的兰道委员会（Lando-Group）的前期研究成果的基础上，加入了有名合同、非合同责任法和物权法相关领域的示范规则。而且，《欧洲示范民法典草案》涵盖了与欧盟现行私法相关的合同责任规则和非合同责任规则，其中大部分由欧洲民法典民法典研究组的专家起草，其余则由另外一个研究机构——欧盟现行私法研究组的欧洲学者起草。由分别来自两个研究组的成员共同组成的编校工作组负责汇纂最终的文本。为了了解各界对《欧洲示范民法典草案》的态度，我们先公布了草案的临时纲要版，其后出版了两种形式的正式文本：一种是单卷本的纲要版（即本书），仅包括原则、定义和示范规则；一种是六卷本的完整版，对示范规则详加评述，并罗列了欧盟各成员国的相关规定及所收集的大量资料的索引。

《欧洲示范民法典草案》出版不久，即激起了广泛的争议，同时，也迎来了世界范围内的共鸣。各主要语种的翻译文本促进了它的传播。欧盟委员会刚刚启动了一个后续的项目，拟将《欧洲示范民法草案》翻译成德文、法文、意大利文、波兰文和西班牙文。相比较而言，将其翻译成中文更富有挑战性，也更费时间和精力。勿庸置疑，我为此壮举而深深感动。

《欧洲示范民法典草案》的起草旨在提供可供参照的范本，也就是为欧盟和各成员国的立法者提供一个灵感的来源。更进一步的目标是使各国法院了解立法争议以及其他国家的解决方案，并为法学教育提供一个新的工具，以使学者精确地找到本国法律制度与欧洲基准相比所处的位置。《欧洲示范民法典草案》达到上述目标已经越来越明确。

《欧洲示范民法典草案》受到我们的同行（甚至是一些日报）的广泛关注，可能主要归功于这样一个事实：它已经成为欧洲法律政策的一部分。它正接受欧洲议会、欧盟理事会和欧盟委员会的详细审查。尽管业已起步的政治进程的结果还不够明朗，但一些最基本的路线却日益清晰。欧盟委员会已经组成了一个专家组，专门负责从《欧洲示范民法典草案》中提取出一个草案，并研究将其中示范规则植入欧盟立法程序的可行性。这一草案所涉及的范围比《欧洲示范民法典草案》更受限制，规划中的方案仅包括合同法总则（《欧洲示范民法典草案》第一卷至第三卷）以及买卖合同、服务合同（《欧洲示范民法典草案》第四卷第一编和第三编）。主事委员认为，在“第一轮”就支持起草新的欧盟私法在政治上暂不合时宜，因此，《欧洲示范民法典草案》仍将持续地起着为立法者、司法者和法学家提供灵感源泉的主要作用。此外，《欧洲示范民法典草案》受到广泛关注的另外一个原因可能是还没有哪一个官方文本能够象《欧洲示范民法典草案》这样整合了如此丰富的比较法资料。

在政治上修正《欧洲示范民法典草案》（在我看来，与原始文本之间的差异仅仅只是次要的问题）的目标应当是通过一个法规（Regulation），但就此尚无定论。公开磋商程序已经启动，专家组尚未正式签署认可的文本，实际上文本已经“出炉”，将送至相关人员以作进一步地考量。磋商也已在欧洲议会法律事务委员会的代表之间以及欧盟委员会的专家顾问之间进行。在2011年的下半年，欧盟理事会波兰轮值主席会议将为拟启动的立法程序奠定基础，但最终通过的日期尚无法精准地预期，因此，十分欢迎来自世界各地，尤其是中国，的专家意见。

值得注意的是，不管是《欧洲示范民法典草案》，还是议定中的法规，都不是法律统一化的经典文献。法律之间的接近具有间接相关性。这是因为正在起草中的欧洲合同法最终极有可能是采取选择性文件(Optional Instrument)的形式，也就是说，它仅是另外一个可供选择的法律制度，不会触动各成员国的国内法律制度。暂时看来，它只有在合同当事人选择的时候，才得以适用。因此，其适用的前提条件是当事人选择将其作为准据法，我希望，在纯粹国内贸易背景下，例如，在网上交易中，也有当事人选择适用它。但是，如果没有最初就这一新的欧洲文本的深入磋商，在未来就没有哪一个欧盟国家的立法机构会启动这一程序。这或多或少是植根于《欧洲示范民法典草案》的统一化观念。就其有限的调整范围而言，以《欧洲示范法民法典草案》为基础的选择性文件只是开了一个头；相比较而言，在其他领域，《欧洲示范民法典草案》暂时仍然是灵感的源泉。

克里斯蒂安•冯•巴尔

2011年3月于德国奥斯纳布吕克

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