This paper from the area of private international law addresses certain aspects of choice of law under the universal collision rules of Community law for contractual
obligations (Rome I Regulation) and non-contractual obligations (Rome II Regulation). The authors discuss the institution of choice of law from the vantage point of Czech private international law, and in doing so reflect on the differences
brought about by the fact that the Rome I Regulation came into being by way of a transformation of an international convention. Since these two rules of community law contain no longer any choice-of-law concept in its pure form, but various forms of limitations (of various origin and character and with various objectives) apply, the authors engage in an analysis of these individual types. Their rejection of the generally accepted doctrine according to which choice of law is permissible in intrastate (contractual and non-contractual) obligations appears controversial. In their view, situations that were possible at the time at which the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations was still in force are no longer permissible under the Rome I and Rome II Regulations. Other limitations of the choice of law – such as the requirement that EU interests be respected or certain groups of entities be protected – have also found the interest of (and are in some cases being criticized by) the authors.