Only last week the ICC issued a similar message in response to a different Commission consultation on harmonising EU contract laws.
This week's hearing concerned the Rome Convention of 1980, which the Commission plans to update and convert into a Community instrument – an instrument with a working title of Rome I. This should not be confused with Rome II, a different instrument that is intended to deal with non-contractual cross-border disputes, such as those on product liability or defamation.
The 1980 Convention deals with disputes over international contracts. It only came into force in 1991 and exists to clarify whose laws apply in the event of a cross-border contractual dispute where there is a choice between the laws of different countries.
It does not apply in certain disputes, including those involving wills and property rights related to family relationships, arbitration agreements and disputes governed by company law.
The 1980 Convention allows the signatories of a contract to choose the law applicable to their contract, and to select the court that will hear disputes arising from that contract.
If the parties have not stated the applicable law, the Convention provides that the contract will be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected – usually the habitual residence of the party performing the contract, or the place of central administration for businesses.
The Convention does not provide for a judicial body that would hear disputes involving its interpretation. This is, according to the European Commission, a shortcoming that inhibits the co-operation between Member States' courts.
To solve this problem, the Commission suggested that the Rome Convention should be converted into a Community instrument. If this happens, Member States' courts will be able to ask the European Court of Justice to interpret the provisions of the convention, in cases of dispute.
Such a conversion would also, the Commission argues, be an opportunity to update the law in certain areas, such as consumer protection and employment contracts with cross-border elements.
The Commission included its proposals in a Green Paper, and a consultation was carried out, which was followed on Tuesday by a public hearing into the proposals.
At the hearing the ICC announced that its response favours the status quo. Michael Hancock, co-head of ICC's work on jurisdiction and applicable law issues, said:
"ICC questions whether Rome I needs revising at all. Companies base their decisions and business models on current laws and regulations. Tampering with the text of legal instruments necessarily has a negative side effect that must be balanced against the expected benefits."
The ICC's fear is that the proposed revision could lead to the undermining of existing global commercial law instruments, which would then obstruct international trade.
Mr Hancock said ICC was specifically concerned that the European Commission may be taking a "one-size-fits all" approach by failing to make a clear distinction between B2B contracts (contracts between two businesses) and B2C contracts (contracts between a business and a consumer) when employing the term 'weaker party'. While the term is applicable to B2C agreements, it is inappropriate in the context of B2B contracts.
He added:
"The economic strength of two businesses will always be different. There is no need for this to be specifically addressed in the wording of a regulation. Any business retains the option of seeking the best business terms available from potential partners, except in the relatively rare case of abuse of a dominant position."
Speaking after the hearing Hancock said:
"In this afternoon's debate, no consensus was reached to make any fundamental changes to the existing Rome Convention. Therefore if the EU Commission wishes to convert the Convention into a Regulation, we urge that its substantive provisions should remain unchanged, rather than subjecting business to new, untested rules."