No abstract

No abstract

The high numbers of over‐indebtedness and of evictions in Europe since the financial crisis have highlighted the need to re‐think the role that mortgage credit plays for societies. This contribution examines the social function of contract law, based on the observation that contract law is a means of allocating welfare in a political economy in which the welfare state is in retreat. The claim asserted in this article is that EU law in the field of mortgages does not fulfil its social function because it is based on a formalistic understanding of contract law. In order to close the protective gap brought about by a shift in the allocation of welfare from public provision to private markets without altering the understanding of contracts, the proposal is to follow the cooperative contract model of contracts as social cooperation. This approach allows for an assessment of fairness that acknowledges the long‐term character of mortgage contracts and the ensuing need to distribute market risks between both contracting parties.

This article analyses the recent case law concerning Uber and other platforms. Its main objective is to examine the question of whether and under what conditions platforms can be considered the contract partners of the individuals who seek goods and services through the platform’s infrastructure. In a first step, the criteria employed by the courts, both the Court of Justice of the European Union and national courts, are identified that characterise the role of platforms in relation to the underlying service provision. In a second step, the article looks at the approach to intermediaries in more traditional consumer contract law. A differentiated image emerges, which underlines the need for legislative clarification.

This article explores the different meanings of the right to housing in Europe in public and private relations with housing providers. In light of the fundamental right to housing's meaning in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, we offer a new reading of the CJEU judgments that have hitherto been heralded as extending the social dimension of EU (private) law. We submit that the emphasis on economic and procedural rights risks further 'economisation' of housing relations in Europe. While the possibilities to grant direct horizontal effect to the right to housing in EU law currently offer limited potential to counter this trend, private law provides part of the framework for a further balancing of social and economic elements in housing cases. Accordingly, we call for a debate on the specific aspects of horizontal relationships in the complex system of housing justice. * Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law (ACT), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The authors wish to thank their colleagues at the Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law (formerly Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, CSECL), University of Amsterdam, and participants at the European Network for Housing Research conference 2018 for most helpful comments and discussions. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. All responsibility lies with the authors. All URLs were last accessed on