fied.The case dealt with one of the most interesting questions concerning the interaction between EU law and Swedish legal culture, and the case should therefore have been treated at length, at least by those who over the years have maintained that the standards of EU law simply must cause a reduction in importance of legislative history in Swedish law. Still, not a single Swedish EU law expert commented on or mentioned the case.This unexpected silence should probably be construed as a sign of disappointment on behalf of those scholars who hoped that the outcome would be the opposite, and that the Court would give the Swedish government a well-deserved trouncing. Such a failure to react represents yet another expression of resistance towards legislative history. In our analysis of the outcome of the case there are three basic reasons for consideration.Two of them were openly stated by the Court. The third is my personal interpretation. First of all, the Court took into account the fact that the annex with the list of examples of unfair contract terms (which, according to the Commission, should have been inserted into the Swedish statute)was not binding.This was stated explicitly in article3of the directive.The Court held that the function of the annex was to serve as a tool of interpretation. Courts in the member states would not be prevented in future, for instance, from declaring that a particular term in aconsumer contract was unfair simply because that term was not enumerated in the annex.The annex itself did not confer any new rights upon EU consumers.This lack of binding effect of the annex was perhaps the most important reason for determining the outcome of the case, but the least interesting reason from a methodological point of view. Second, the Court accepted the Swedish explanation that legislative history is a central part of Swedish statutory interpretation, as it is in Denmark, Finland and Norway.The Court pointed out that Swedish legislative history is easily available, a fact also emphasised by the AG. Obviously the Court considered that the practices of the Swedish legislator were regular and reliable enough and hence suitable for incorporating non-binding Community law material.Though the annex might undoubtedly contain important information, there was no risk that consumers would not be able to acquire necessary knowledge about it, not only because the legislative history was available, but also because the material would typically be invoked in a situation of statutory interpretation - that is, the only situation where the annex would be relevant.This reason, in fact, reveals an r i chard nordqu i st 203
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=