The metaphor is appropriate indeed. It has become even a kind of common place. If you are conscious of it, you meet it everywhere. A curious side of this is that law buildings, other than real buildings, are moving all the time. Walls are toppling in slow motion sometimes they remain slanted for some time. Two or more build ings may develop into a new one. This metaphor fascinates me, and I will return to it several times Having said this, I come to my real subject: What to expect of European contract law against the background of the famous communication of the European Commission of 11 July 2001? This communication proposes four options for further action: option 1: doing nothing, option 2: soft restatement of general principles; option 3: improvement of legislation already in place; option 4: binding new legislation. The reactions concerning these options have been summarized by the Commission in a subsequent paper. My contribution to this discussion will consist of drawing your attention to some of the fallacies that should be avoided here 1. The fallacy of ignoring the problem The simplest way of tackling a new problem is often to deny it. This seems to be the prevailing attitude in the Netherlands. On the website of the Commission, I found no reactions from the Dutch government, nor from Dutch governmental organisations, nor from Dutch business or consumers organisations, nor from Dutch legal practitioners and their organisations. Only three academics gave their opinions. 4 The Belgian attitude is quite d ifferent. Reactions were received from the ministries of Justice. Finance and economic Affairs. The Ministry of Justice coordinated these reactions, including some reactions from business and consumer organisations. The entire reaction is substantial and positive. It seems to me that the dutch attitude should be the first and perhaps the most important of the fallacies to expose here Why is it a fallacy? Annex I to the communication of the Commission makes it perfectly clear that important, though scattered, fields of private law are already covered by European directives. They not only concern consumer protection but also matters such as late payments in commercial transactions, electronic money, cross-border cred it transfers commercial agents, electronic commerce and financial services, intellectual property financial collateral arrangements and, last but not least, the monetary rules concerning the is one of the projects under way. The European integration process in fact entails ay ayments euro, touching private law on many points. a true internal market for all individual p increasing flow of European legislation, including legislation on private law issues But this is not the only gateway through which European law is penetrating our national law systems. European concepts may have a disintegrative, disturbing effect on the national system. This means that the national authorities have to adapt their national rules preferably by interpreting or by incorporating European rules in their general standards, like good faith or negligence. The result is a kind of creeping Europeanisation of national law. Mr Joerges has written extensively on the subject a third gateway consists in the obligation of Five mem bers of Dutch law faculties, but two of them are in fact belgians C Joerges, "Interactive Adjudication in the Europeanisation Process? A Demanding Perspective and a Modest Example, ERPL 2000, p. 1 ff.The metaphor is appropriate indeed. It has become even a kind of common place. If you are conscious of it, you meet it everywhere. A curious side of this is that law buildings, other than real buildings, are moving all the time. Walls are toppling in slow motion, sometimes they remain slanted for some time. Two or more buildings may develop into a new one. This metaphor fascinates me, and I will return to it several times. Having said this, I come to my real subject: What to expect of European contract law against the background of the famous communication of the European Commission of 11 July 2001? This communication proposes four options for further action: option 1: doing nothing; option 2: soft restatement of general principles; option 3: improvement of legislation already in place; option 4: binding new legislation. The reactions concerning these options have been summarized by the Commission in a subsequent paper. My contribution to this discussion will consist of drawing your attention to some of the fallacies that should be avoided here. 1. The fallacy of ignoring the problem The simplest way of tackling a new problem is often to deny it. This seems to be the prevailing attitude in the Netherlands. On the website of the Commission, I found no reactions from the Dutch government, nor from Dutch governmental organisations, nor from Dutch business or consumers organisations, nor from Dutch legal practitioners and their organisations. Only three academics gave their opinions.4 The Belgian attitude is quite different. Reactions were received from the Ministries of Justice, Finance and Economic Affairs. The Ministry of Justice coordinated these reactions, including some reactions from business and consumer organisations. The entire reaction is substantial and positive. It seems to me that the Dutch attitude should be the first and perhaps the most important of the fallacies to expose here. Why is it a fallacy? Annex I to the communication of the Commission makes it perfectly clear that important, though scattered, fields of private law are already covered by European directives. They not only concern consumer protection but also matters such as late payments in commercial transactions, electronic money, cross-border credit transfers, commercial agents, electronic commerce and financial services, intellectual property, financial collateral arrangements and, last but not least, the monetary rules concerning the euro, touching private law on many points. A true internal market for all individual payments is one of the projects under way. The European integration process in fact entails an increasing flow of European legislation, including legislation on private law issues. But this is not the only gateway through which European law is penetrating our national law systems. European concepts may have a disintegrative, disturbing effect on the national system. This means that the national authorities have to adapt their national rules, preferably by interpreting or by incorporating European rules in their general standards, like good faith or negligence. The result is a kind of creeping Europeanisation of national law. Mr Joerges has written extensively on the subject.5 A third gateway consists in the obligation of 4 Five members of Dutch law faculties, but two of them are in fact Belgians. 5 C. Joerges, ‘Interactive Adjudication in the Europeanisation Process? A Demanding Perspective and a Modest Example’, ERPL 2000, p. 1 ff