indicated by the term(party)autonomy. The second one stresses the need to protect weak parties, lead ing to mandatory law, as a socialist or at least left wing concept, for which the current term is 'solidarity. Mattei is a clear example of the second view. In the Netherlands, this contrast has recently become a much debated issue. 20 admit that this point is an important one. But I wonder how much room the European framework leaves us for a choice between autonomy and solidarity. Choices of this kind have already been made in the fundamental rules and principles of the EC treaty. The Common Market requires a wide field for party autonomy, as every market economy does Of course, mandatory law is needed to guarantee a level playing ground for the participants and an effective protection of weak players against ' corporate rapacity. But those rules, to a large extent, have already been developed. A European contract law will have to accept the boundaries of the protection resulting from this development, just as they have to accept the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. Within those bound aries many choices are still open, but I wonder whether we will have the choice between a liberal and a much more attention. Here again we meet the balance between innovation and continua socialist approach. I suspect questions of efficiency, effectiveness and transparency will have been used here as examples, cannot be characterized as liberal or left wing On,which Moreover, things like the duty of care, a duty of cooperation, a duty of informat 7. The fallacy of neglecting the problem of court congestion I come to my last point: flanking measures. Some five years ago I suggested to facilitate the work on a European civil code by founding an international institute with scientific organisational and political tasks. 2 I will not go into this matter again, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in many of the reactions this suggestion has been picked up. The institute now even has a name: the European Law Institute(ELD), alluding to the well-known American Law Institute(ALI). If we want to build a European contract law, the build ing company needs an offic There are other flanking measures that need our attention. Unifying black-letter law as part of the entire unifying process is only a first step. The following steps must be set by practice, which means by the courts. This raises the problem of court congestion. At this moment, the implementation of European law principles is to a large extent entrusted to the national courts, which may put questions to the ECJ. To induce a Dutch court to ask questions may take several years. To obtain an answer will usually take again several years In other Member States, the situation may be worse. Court congestion in some Member States now already leads to long lists of parties filing identical complaints with the Court in Strasbourg on the basis of violation of the words within a reasonable time' in article 6 of the EHRCC. everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.) This state of things will certainly not be acceptable if a large part of European private law has been brought together in a binding instrument asking for interpretation. Effective unification a book on this subject by members of the Law Faculty of the Universiteit of Amsterdam will appear 2003: Privaatrecht tussen autonomie en solidariteit w.Snijders, The Organisation of the Drafting of a European Civil Code: A Walk in Imaginary Gardens, 4 ERLP 1997, p. 483 ff.indicated by the term (party) ‘autonomy’. The second one stresses the need to protect weak parties, leading to mandatory law, as a socialist or at least left wing concept, for which the current term is ‘solidarity’. Mattei is a clear example of the second view. In the Netherlands, this contrast has recently become a much debated issue.20 I admit that this point is an important one. But I wonder how much room the European framework leaves us for a choice between autonomy and solidarity. Choices of this kind have already been made in the fundamental rules and principles of the EC treaty. The Common Market requires a wide field for party autonomy, as every market economy does. Of course, mandatory law is needed to guarantee a level playing ground for the participants and an effective protection of weak players against ‘corporate rapacity’. But those rules, to a large extent, have already been developed. A European contract law will have to accept the boundaries of the protection resulting from this development, just as they have to accept the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. Within those boundaries many choices are still open, but I wonder whether we will have the choice between a liberal and a socialist approach. I suspect questions of efficiency, effectiveness and transparency will get much more attention. Here again we meet the balance between innovation and continuity. Moreover, things like the duty of care, a duty of cooperation, a duty of information, which have been used here as examples, cannot be characterized as liberal or left wing. 7. The fallacy of neglecting the problem of court congestion I come to my last point: flanking measures. Some five years ago I suggested to facilitate the work on a European civil code by founding an international institute with scientific, organisational and political tasks.21 I will not go into this matter again, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in many of the reactions this suggestion has been picked up. The institute now even has a name: the European Law Institute (ELI), alluding to the well-known American Law Institute (ALI). If we want to build a European contract law, the building company needs an office. There are other flanking measures that need our attention. Unifying black-letter law as part of the entire unifying process is only a first step. The following steps must be set by practice, which means by the courts. This raises the problem of court congestion. At this moment, the implementation of European law principles is to a large extent entrusted to the national courts, which may put questions to the ECJ. To induce a Dutch court to ask questions may take several years. To obtain an answer will usually take again several years. In other Member States, the situation may be worse. Court congestion in some Member States now already leads to long lists of parties filing identical complaints with the Court in Strasbourg on the basis of violation of the words ‘within a reasonable time’ in Article 6 of the EHRC (‘. . . everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time . . .’). This state of things will certainly not be acceptable if a large part of European private law has been brought together in a binding instrument asking for interpretation. Effective unification 20 A book on this subject by members of the Law Faculty of the Universiteit of Amsterdam will appear in 2003: ‘Privaatrecht tussen autonomie en solidariteit’. 21 W. Snijders, ‘The Organisation of the Drafting of a European Civil Code: A Walk in Imaginary Gardens’, 4 ERLP 1997, p. 483 ff