David Ramos Muñoz | Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (original) (raw)
Papers by David Ramos Muñoz
Civitas Revista Espanola De Derecho Europeo, Oct 1, 2012
<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> El Abuso del Derecho define un problema hace mucho reconocid... more <b>Spanish Abstract:</b> El Abuso del Derecho define un problema hace mucho reconocido, pero una doctrina de reciente creación en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE (TJUE), de modo que aún es mucho lo que se desconoce sobre su significado e implicaciones. Aunque comparte elementos con doctrinas similares de los Estados, como parte del Derecho de la UE plantea retos interpretativos únicos. El artículo propone algunos ejemplos hipotéticos donde los tribunales nacionales podrían solicitar una cuestión prejudicial al TJUE en materia de abuso del Derecho. Sobre esta base, procede a examinar la base conceptual de la doctrina y sus límites. Al hacerlo, presta especial atención a la (supuesta) multiplicidad de la doctrina al aplicarse a diferentes ámbitos (ej. divergencias entre casos verticales y horizontales), y sostiene que el elemento teleológico o finalista de la doctrina le proporciona, necesariamente, una "unidad en la diversidad". Finalmente, ofrece algunos ejemplos de los retos interpretativos a los que el abuso del Derecho deberá enfrentarse, a la luz de su estatus como doctrina transversal, que permea el Derecho de la UE, con especial referencia a problemas relativos a la economía social de mercado, Derecho de sociedades o regulación financiera, o la dificultad de su aplicación en casos de Derecho Internacional Privado. <b>English Abstract:</b> Abuse of Law is a long-acknowledged problem, but a recently-spawned doctrine in the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and much is still unknown about its meaning and implications. Even though it shares elements with similar doctrines of Member States, as part of EU law it poses unique interpretative challenges. The article proposes some hypothetical examples where domestic courts could make a preliminary reference to the ECJ on abuse of law. On that basis, it proceeds to examine the doctrine's conceptual foundations and boundaries. In doing so, it pays specific attention to the (alleged) multiplicity of the doctrine in different ambits (e.g. divergences vertical and horizontal cases), and argues that the teleological or finalistic element necessarily gives abuse of law its "unity in diversity". Finally, it offers some examples of the interpretative challenges that abuse of law will have to confront, in light of its status as a transversal doctrine that permeates through all EU law, with special reference to problems with the social-market economy, company law or financial regulation, or the difficulty of application in Private International Law cases.
European Review of Private Law
: The relationship of fundamental rights and private law is often filled with mistrust, which res... more : The relationship of fundamental rights and private law is often filled with mistrust, which results in a framework where (1) the issue of horizontal effect acquires an oversized importance; (2) the relationship is described in terms of the conflict between fundamental rights and private rights; and (3) fundamental rights are seen as a constraint on consent. This article proposes a different, symbiotic, approach, where (1) horizontal effect is given less attention, because, in general, courts refuse to be tied by a single, unifying theory, when they approach the issue; (2) the purported ‘conflict between’ is reframed as an issue of overlapping conflicts between private interests on one level, and fundamental rights on the other, which are resolved through different methods; and (3) party autonomy is a cornerstone of both fundamental rights and private law, and a tool to address the two levels of conflict. With this approach we can identify some ‘false’ conflicts and restrict the ‘real conflicts’ to identifiable scenarios. The analysis is based on the extensive case law of Spanish courts, and the case law by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), using parallels with other jurisdictions for purposes of comparison. Résumé: Les rapports entre les droits fondamentaux et le droit privé sont souvent empreints de méfiance, ce qui aboutit à un cadre où (i) la question de l’effet horizontal acquiert une trop grande importance; (ii) les rapports sont décrits en termes de conflit entre les droits fondamentaux et les droits privés; et (iii) les droits fondamentaux sont considérés comme un frein au consentement. Le présent article propose une approche différente, symbiotique, où (i) l’on attache moins d’attention à l’effet horizontal, parce que en général, les tribunaux refusent d’être tenus par une seule théorie unificatrice lorsqu’ils abordent la question; (ii) le prétendu ‘conflit entre’ est redéfini comme une question de conflits qui s’entrecroisent entre des intérêts privés d’une part et des droits fondamentaux d’autre part, qui sont résolus par différentes méthodes; et (iii) l’autonomie des parties est la pierre angulaire à la fois des droits fondamentaux et du droit privé, et un outil pour aborder les deux niveaux de conflit. Grâce à cette approche nous pouvons identifier plusieurs ‘faux’ conflits limitant les ‘conflits réels’ à des scenarios identifiables. L’analyse se base sur l’abondante jurisprudence des tribunaux espagnols et la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme (CEDH), utilisant des parallèles avec d’autres juridictions dans un but de comparaison.
Columbia Journal of European Law, 2018
Perspectiva legal y económica del fenómeno FinTech, 2021, ISBN 978-84-18662-46-1, págs. 709-739, 2021
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017
European Company and Financial Law Review, 2016
Capital Markets Law Journal, 2015
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Non-monetary remedies, especially specific performance, have long been the subject-matter of law ... more Non-monetary remedies, especially specific performance, have long been the subject-matter of law and economics and comparative and uniform law. For civil law countries, it is a normal remedy; for common law countries, it is exceptional. Yet once its status seems to be converging under contract law, the debate has restarted in arbitration. Arbitration being based on consent, it is intuitively unrelated to anything conducive to coercion, hence the need to revisit some matters. The article examines the classification of non-monetary remedies as a substantive or procedural issue, and then studies the different sources where arbitrators can draw their power to order the performance of a contract. Albeit such sources vary, the consensus is in favor of allowing it. Yet as the dispute and its contents become more complex, one realizes that the real problem with non-monetary relief has to do with its role in ordering the parties' relationship in the future (pro futuro orders) something that is somehow contrary to the role that adjudication (not just arbitration) has traditionally played. Resolving this contradiction, and establishing more clearly the sources and nature of the arbitrators' powers to order future conduct, and the limits to such powers is an important task that can enhance, or hinder, arbitration's usefulness as a dispute resolution mechanism.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Bankruptcy-remote structure is a common way to refer to securitization and other transactions. Bu... more Bankruptcy-remote structure is a common way to refer to securitization and other transactions. But what does it mean, and what are its implications for bankruptcy law? This paper sets itself the task of clarifying those two questions. It shows that bankruptcy-remoteness is a goal, with two conceptions ("basic", and "enhanced"): one tries to achieve the insulation of the bankruptcy-remote assets from the bankruptcy of the sponsor; the other tries to achieve their insulation from bankruptcy proceedings altogether. The contrast between these goals and bankruptcy policy provides good ground to contrast the bankruptcy policy views on consolidation/atomization of the estate or contractarianism/judicialism in bankruptcy law. Also, the international mobility of these structures (and the SPVs usually employed in them) provides a good testing ground for the debate on territoriality/universality in international insolvency. Bankruptcy law is mandatory, so in theory the parties cannot exclude bankruptcy proceedings, determine the size of the estate, or choose jurisdiction and applicable law. In practice, however, transaction parties use combinations of mechanisms that allow them to achieve exactly that. The paper does a comparative analysis to study how different jurisdictions (by statute, and, mainly, court decisions) have dealt with those mechanisms in light of the apparent contradiction with bankruptcy principles (principles that are, themselves, the subject of controversy).The results are interesting. Despite attention has been mostly focused on the "basic" notion of bankruptcy remoteness, the partitioning between the sponsor's estate and bankruptcy-remote assets is relatively uncontroversial, and doctrines such as "true sale" or "substantive consolidation", which have acquired an ominous connotation, are empty threats. Peril comes in other forms, which are analyzed in the study.Much more relevant seems to be the courts' perspective on the mechanisms to achieve "enhanced" bankruptcy remoteness, which provides an interesting guidance on how contractarian solutions could work in practice. Since court decisions discuss individual contract mechanisms, rather than the idea of "bankruptcy remoteness" itself, their reaction was often more intuitive than policy-oriented. Contract provisions, however, cannot work miracles, and do not eliminate the underlying conflict between creditors. Also, the approach based on detailed rules can be rigid in hard cases in the absence of interpretative criteria that can replace bankruptcy principles.Finally, the analysis of international cases shows the difficulties of finding an acceptable and predictable setting for these transactions, when existing rules that determine jurisdiction and applicable law rely on a concept of "insolvency proceedings" that is anathema for these structures. Bankruptcy-remote structures provide an interesting (minimalistic) ground to test hypotheses that may be extrapolated to bankruptcy policy as a whole. But the analysis also shows the benefit of observation, before any views are formed.
Law and Financial Markets Review, 2010
Abstract: In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents... more Abstract: In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent ...
Capital Markets Law Journal, 2010
* Dr in Law David Ramos Muñoz, University of Bologna (College of Spain). Assistant Professor of C... more * Dr in Law David Ramos Muñoz, University of Bologna (College of Spain). Assistant Professor of Commercial and Securities Law. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. This article was conceived and drafted during a visiting fellowship at the London School of Economics and Political ...
Revista De Derecho Bancario Y Bursatil, 2012
dialnet.unirioja.es
... | Ayuda. La Convención de Viena sobre contratos de compraventa internacional de mercaderías. ... more ... | Ayuda. La Convención de Viena sobre contratos de compraventa internacional de mercaderías. Autores: David Ramos Muñoz; Localización: Derecho internacional económico y de las inversiones internacionales / coord. por ...
CGN: Banks (Topic), 2012
<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Durante los 'go-go years' previos a la crisis financ... more <b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Durante los 'go-go years' previos a la crisis financiera (y varios de los años de crisis) se asistió a un incremento extraordinario en la comercialización de productos financieros 'híbridos', que otorgaban a los inversores una participación en el capital de instituciones financieras (pero no el voto). En España el producto más importante fueron las 'participaciones preferentes' (no denominadas 'acciones' porque debían poder ser emitidas por las cajas, que no podían emitir derechos de propiedad). Este artículo trata de pintar un cuadro completo del entorno institucional (y sus fallos) que condujeron a la comercialización masiva de estos productos a inversores minoristas <b>English Abstract:</b> The go-go years prior to the financial crisis (and several crisis years) saw an extraordinary increase in the marketing of hybrid financial products which granted investors a participation in financial institutions' capital (but no vote). In Spain the more important product were 'preferred participations' (not called 'shares' because they had to be issued by savings banks, which could issue no ownership rights). This article tries to draw a full picture of the institutional environment (and failures) that led to the massive marketing of these products to retail investors.
"Tax" and "arbitration" are two seemingly unrelated terms. Yet recent efforts... more "Tax" and "arbitration" are two seemingly unrelated terms. Yet recent efforts, first by the OECD, and then by the United States and other countries to introduce arbitration clauses in their Tax Treaties require to reconsider the association. Alas, rather than rejoicing by the presence of a new member of the "arbitration club" the contents of the solutions envisaged in those Treaties command caution. Wanting the best of both worlds, States have tried to take the benefits of arbitration without giving away the control that it needs to work properly. The series of middle-of-the-road solutions envisaged in the Treaties not only raises suspicion about the practical functioning of the mechanism itself. They also pose fundamental questions about what can be called "arbitration", how is it supposed to work, and whether the hybrid tax arbitration can ultimately improve expediency, while preserving accountability.
Civitas Revista Espanola De Derecho Europeo, Oct 1, 2012
<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> El Abuso del Derecho define un problema hace mucho reconocid... more <b>Spanish Abstract:</b> El Abuso del Derecho define un problema hace mucho reconocido, pero una doctrina de reciente creación en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE (TJUE), de modo que aún es mucho lo que se desconoce sobre su significado e implicaciones. Aunque comparte elementos con doctrinas similares de los Estados, como parte del Derecho de la UE plantea retos interpretativos únicos. El artículo propone algunos ejemplos hipotéticos donde los tribunales nacionales podrían solicitar una cuestión prejudicial al TJUE en materia de abuso del Derecho. Sobre esta base, procede a examinar la base conceptual de la doctrina y sus límites. Al hacerlo, presta especial atención a la (supuesta) multiplicidad de la doctrina al aplicarse a diferentes ámbitos (ej. divergencias entre casos verticales y horizontales), y sostiene que el elemento teleológico o finalista de la doctrina le proporciona, necesariamente, una "unidad en la diversidad". Finalmente, ofrece algunos ejemplos de los retos interpretativos a los que el abuso del Derecho deberá enfrentarse, a la luz de su estatus como doctrina transversal, que permea el Derecho de la UE, con especial referencia a problemas relativos a la economía social de mercado, Derecho de sociedades o regulación financiera, o la dificultad de su aplicación en casos de Derecho Internacional Privado. <b>English Abstract:</b> Abuse of Law is a long-acknowledged problem, but a recently-spawned doctrine in the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and much is still unknown about its meaning and implications. Even though it shares elements with similar doctrines of Member States, as part of EU law it poses unique interpretative challenges. The article proposes some hypothetical examples where domestic courts could make a preliminary reference to the ECJ on abuse of law. On that basis, it proceeds to examine the doctrine's conceptual foundations and boundaries. In doing so, it pays specific attention to the (alleged) multiplicity of the doctrine in different ambits (e.g. divergences vertical and horizontal cases), and argues that the teleological or finalistic element necessarily gives abuse of law its "unity in diversity". Finally, it offers some examples of the interpretative challenges that abuse of law will have to confront, in light of its status as a transversal doctrine that permeates through all EU law, with special reference to problems with the social-market economy, company law or financial regulation, or the difficulty of application in Private International Law cases.
European Review of Private Law
: The relationship of fundamental rights and private law is often filled with mistrust, which res... more : The relationship of fundamental rights and private law is often filled with mistrust, which results in a framework where (1) the issue of horizontal effect acquires an oversized importance; (2) the relationship is described in terms of the conflict between fundamental rights and private rights; and (3) fundamental rights are seen as a constraint on consent. This article proposes a different, symbiotic, approach, where (1) horizontal effect is given less attention, because, in general, courts refuse to be tied by a single, unifying theory, when they approach the issue; (2) the purported ‘conflict between’ is reframed as an issue of overlapping conflicts between private interests on one level, and fundamental rights on the other, which are resolved through different methods; and (3) party autonomy is a cornerstone of both fundamental rights and private law, and a tool to address the two levels of conflict. With this approach we can identify some ‘false’ conflicts and restrict the ‘real conflicts’ to identifiable scenarios. The analysis is based on the extensive case law of Spanish courts, and the case law by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), using parallels with other jurisdictions for purposes of comparison. Résumé: Les rapports entre les droits fondamentaux et le droit privé sont souvent empreints de méfiance, ce qui aboutit à un cadre où (i) la question de l’effet horizontal acquiert une trop grande importance; (ii) les rapports sont décrits en termes de conflit entre les droits fondamentaux et les droits privés; et (iii) les droits fondamentaux sont considérés comme un frein au consentement. Le présent article propose une approche différente, symbiotique, où (i) l’on attache moins d’attention à l’effet horizontal, parce que en général, les tribunaux refusent d’être tenus par une seule théorie unificatrice lorsqu’ils abordent la question; (ii) le prétendu ‘conflit entre’ est redéfini comme une question de conflits qui s’entrecroisent entre des intérêts privés d’une part et des droits fondamentaux d’autre part, qui sont résolus par différentes méthodes; et (iii) l’autonomie des parties est la pierre angulaire à la fois des droits fondamentaux et du droit privé, et un outil pour aborder les deux niveaux de conflit. Grâce à cette approche nous pouvons identifier plusieurs ‘faux’ conflits limitant les ‘conflits réels’ à des scenarios identifiables. L’analyse se base sur l’abondante jurisprudence des tribunaux espagnols et la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme (CEDH), utilisant des parallèles avec d’autres juridictions dans un but de comparaison.
Columbia Journal of European Law, 2018
Perspectiva legal y económica del fenómeno FinTech, 2021, ISBN 978-84-18662-46-1, págs. 709-739, 2021
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017
European Company and Financial Law Review, 2016
Capital Markets Law Journal, 2015
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Non-monetary remedies, especially specific performance, have long been the subject-matter of law ... more Non-monetary remedies, especially specific performance, have long been the subject-matter of law and economics and comparative and uniform law. For civil law countries, it is a normal remedy; for common law countries, it is exceptional. Yet once its status seems to be converging under contract law, the debate has restarted in arbitration. Arbitration being based on consent, it is intuitively unrelated to anything conducive to coercion, hence the need to revisit some matters. The article examines the classification of non-monetary remedies as a substantive or procedural issue, and then studies the different sources where arbitrators can draw their power to order the performance of a contract. Albeit such sources vary, the consensus is in favor of allowing it. Yet as the dispute and its contents become more complex, one realizes that the real problem with non-monetary relief has to do with its role in ordering the parties' relationship in the future (pro futuro orders) something that is somehow contrary to the role that adjudication (not just arbitration) has traditionally played. Resolving this contradiction, and establishing more clearly the sources and nature of the arbitrators' powers to order future conduct, and the limits to such powers is an important task that can enhance, or hinder, arbitration's usefulness as a dispute resolution mechanism.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Bankruptcy-remote structure is a common way to refer to securitization and other transactions. Bu... more Bankruptcy-remote structure is a common way to refer to securitization and other transactions. But what does it mean, and what are its implications for bankruptcy law? This paper sets itself the task of clarifying those two questions. It shows that bankruptcy-remoteness is a goal, with two conceptions ("basic", and "enhanced"): one tries to achieve the insulation of the bankruptcy-remote assets from the bankruptcy of the sponsor; the other tries to achieve their insulation from bankruptcy proceedings altogether. The contrast between these goals and bankruptcy policy provides good ground to contrast the bankruptcy policy views on consolidation/atomization of the estate or contractarianism/judicialism in bankruptcy law. Also, the international mobility of these structures (and the SPVs usually employed in them) provides a good testing ground for the debate on territoriality/universality in international insolvency. Bankruptcy law is mandatory, so in theory the parties cannot exclude bankruptcy proceedings, determine the size of the estate, or choose jurisdiction and applicable law. In practice, however, transaction parties use combinations of mechanisms that allow them to achieve exactly that. The paper does a comparative analysis to study how different jurisdictions (by statute, and, mainly, court decisions) have dealt with those mechanisms in light of the apparent contradiction with bankruptcy principles (principles that are, themselves, the subject of controversy).The results are interesting. Despite attention has been mostly focused on the "basic" notion of bankruptcy remoteness, the partitioning between the sponsor's estate and bankruptcy-remote assets is relatively uncontroversial, and doctrines such as "true sale" or "substantive consolidation", which have acquired an ominous connotation, are empty threats. Peril comes in other forms, which are analyzed in the study.Much more relevant seems to be the courts' perspective on the mechanisms to achieve "enhanced" bankruptcy remoteness, which provides an interesting guidance on how contractarian solutions could work in practice. Since court decisions discuss individual contract mechanisms, rather than the idea of "bankruptcy remoteness" itself, their reaction was often more intuitive than policy-oriented. Contract provisions, however, cannot work miracles, and do not eliminate the underlying conflict between creditors. Also, the approach based on detailed rules can be rigid in hard cases in the absence of interpretative criteria that can replace bankruptcy principles.Finally, the analysis of international cases shows the difficulties of finding an acceptable and predictable setting for these transactions, when existing rules that determine jurisdiction and applicable law rely on a concept of "insolvency proceedings" that is anathema for these structures. Bankruptcy-remote structures provide an interesting (minimalistic) ground to test hypotheses that may be extrapolated to bankruptcy policy as a whole. But the analysis also shows the benefit of observation, before any views are formed.
Law and Financial Markets Review, 2010
Abstract: In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents... more Abstract: In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent ...
Capital Markets Law Journal, 2010
* Dr in Law David Ramos Muñoz, University of Bologna (College of Spain). Assistant Professor of C... more * Dr in Law David Ramos Muñoz, University of Bologna (College of Spain). Assistant Professor of Commercial and Securities Law. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. This article was conceived and drafted during a visiting fellowship at the London School of Economics and Political ...
Revista De Derecho Bancario Y Bursatil, 2012
dialnet.unirioja.es
... | Ayuda. La Convención de Viena sobre contratos de compraventa internacional de mercaderías. ... more ... | Ayuda. La Convención de Viena sobre contratos de compraventa internacional de mercaderías. Autores: David Ramos Muñoz; Localización: Derecho internacional económico y de las inversiones internacionales / coord. por ...
CGN: Banks (Topic), 2012
<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Durante los 'go-go years' previos a la crisis financ... more <b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Durante los 'go-go years' previos a la crisis financiera (y varios de los años de crisis) se asistió a un incremento extraordinario en la comercialización de productos financieros 'híbridos', que otorgaban a los inversores una participación en el capital de instituciones financieras (pero no el voto). En España el producto más importante fueron las 'participaciones preferentes' (no denominadas 'acciones' porque debían poder ser emitidas por las cajas, que no podían emitir derechos de propiedad). Este artículo trata de pintar un cuadro completo del entorno institucional (y sus fallos) que condujeron a la comercialización masiva de estos productos a inversores minoristas <b>English Abstract:</b> The go-go years prior to the financial crisis (and several crisis years) saw an extraordinary increase in the marketing of hybrid financial products which granted investors a participation in financial institutions' capital (but no vote). In Spain the more important product were 'preferred participations' (not called 'shares' because they had to be issued by savings banks, which could issue no ownership rights). This article tries to draw a full picture of the institutional environment (and failures) that led to the massive marketing of these products to retail investors.
"Tax" and "arbitration" are two seemingly unrelated terms. Yet recent efforts... more "Tax" and "arbitration" are two seemingly unrelated terms. Yet recent efforts, first by the OECD, and then by the United States and other countries to introduce arbitration clauses in their Tax Treaties require to reconsider the association. Alas, rather than rejoicing by the presence of a new member of the "arbitration club" the contents of the solutions envisaged in those Treaties command caution. Wanting the best of both worlds, States have tried to take the benefits of arbitration without giving away the control that it needs to work properly. The series of middle-of-the-road solutions envisaged in the Treaties not only raises suspicion about the practical functioning of the mechanism itself. They also pose fundamental questions about what can be called "arbitration", how is it supposed to work, and whether the hybrid tax arbitration can ultimately improve expediency, while preserving accountability.