672 e v a - m a r i a k i e n i n g e r

unsecured creditors or secured creditors who have registered after the sales contract has been concluded. The EBRD Model Law (article 9)77 provides that during the six months following the conclusion of a sales contract with retention of title, the so-called unpaid vendor’s charge which only secures the purchase price specific to the charged goods need not be registered. After six months it either ceases to exist or must be transformed into a registered charge. In contrast, Article 9 UCC submits the purchase money security interest to the general requirement of filing and only allows for a grace period of twenty days.78 For the EU Member States, a general exemption from the need to register what has hitherto been known as simple retention of title, be it for six months or a slightly longer or shorter period, seems better to reflect the status of spontaneous harmonisation already reached. The other question is whether a purchase-money security interest should be given a general priority over previously registered security interests, since otherwise sellers will not be able to take any security in the sold goods if those are already included within a security right over after-acquired property. Such priority is granted by Articles 9--324 UCC79 as well as by the EBRD Model Law (article 17.3.). Under the present European systems, the same result is reached through regarding the seller’s right as retained ownership which could never pass to the buyer or his creditors before payment of the purchase price. It seems indisputable that a super-priority along the lines of Article 9 UCC and the EBRD Model Law must be conferred on a purchase-money security interest also within a uniform European Security Rights regime. Another, far more difficult, question is how far this priority should be extended to claims that are not related to the particular goods in question (all-monies clauses) and, even more importantly, to proceeds of the sold goods. Other than in the area of simple retention of title, we have seen that the European jurisdictions are divided on these issues,80 so that no recommendation can be founded on a common core.

Bibliography

Roy Goode, ‘The Protection of Interests in Movables in Transnational Commercial Law’, Unif. L. Rev./Rev. dr. unif. 1998, 453 ff.

Jörg Stefan Greving, Der Treuhandgedanke bei Sicherungsübertragungen im italienischen und deutschen Recht (2002).

77 See Dahan/Simpson, supra, chapter 5, pp. 105 f.

Stefanie Hellmich, Kreditsicherungsrechte in der spanischen Mehrrechtsordnung

(2000).

Sylvia Kaufhold, Internationales und europäisches Mobiliarsicherungsrecht (1999). Eva-Maria Kieninger, Mobiliarsicherheiten im Europäischen Binnenmarkt (1996). Karl Kreuzer, ‘‘Europäisches Mobiliarsicherungsrecht oder: Von den Grenzen

des Internationalen Privatrechts” in: Festschrift für von Overbeck (1990), 613 ff. ‘‘Gutachtliche Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur

Ergänzung des Internationalen Privatrechts (Außervertragliche Schuldverhältnise und Sachen)” in: D. Henrich (ed.), Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen Sachenund Immaterialgüterrechts, 37 ff.

‘‘La propriété mobilière en droit international privé”, Recueil des Cours 259 (1996) 9 ff.

Jan-Hendrik Röver, Vergleichende Prinzipien dinglicher Sicherheiten (1999). Ulrike Seif, Der Bestandsschutz besitzloser Mobiliarsicherheiten im deutschen und

englischen Recht (1997).

Teun Struycken, ‘‘The International Assignment of Debts: the Dutch Hoge Raad applies the Rome Convention, Article 12, to the Proprietary Issues”, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 1998, 345 ff.

Manfred Wenckstern, ‘‘Die englische Floating Charge im deutschen Internationalen Privatrecht”, RabelsZ 56 (1992) 624 ff.