Traditionally, the judiciary has been tasked with characterising a provision in EU secondary law as an overriding mandatory provision (“OMP”) in the sense of Art 9(1) Rome I Regulation. This paradigm has however shifted recently as the legislator has started setting out such OMP characterisation explicitly, which this paper addresses with regard to EU Directives. The analysis of two Directives on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain and on the resolution of financial institutions reveals that their explicit legislative characterisations of OMPs can benefit legal certainty if properly drafted by the EU and correctly transposed into national law by the Member States. These requirements have not yet been fully met as there are inconsistencies and confusion with only domestically mandatory provisions, which need to be resolved. More generally, the paper elucidates the tensions of competence between legislators and courts on both the EU and national levels due to the explicit legislative characterisation. It also considers the side effects on pre-existing and future provisions in Directives without explicit legislative characterisation. Finally, it acknowledges that the extraterritorial effect of OMPs is intensified and therefore requires the legislator to seek international alignment.

传统上，司法机构的任务是将欧盟二级法律中的条款定性为第 9 条第 1 款罗马 I 条例意义上的压倒一切的强制性条款 (“OMP”)。然而，这种范式最近发生了变化，因为立法者已经开始明确规定这种 OMP 特征，本文针对欧盟指令进行了阐述。对关于食品供应链中不公平贸易行为和金融机构决议的两项指令的分析表明，如果欧盟适当起草并由成员国正确转化为国家法律，它们对 OMP 的明确立法特征可以提高法律确定性。这些要求尚未完全满足，因为与仅国内强制性规定存在不一致和混淆，需要解决。更一般地说，由于明确的立法特征，该文件阐明了欧盟和国家层面的立法者和法院之间的权限紧张关系。它还考虑了对指令中现有和未来条款的副作用，而没有明确的立法特征。最后，它承认 OMP 的域外效力正在加强，因此要求立法者寻求国际协调。