Införandet av en europeisk hypotekslånemarknad och den fria rörligheten av kapital inom EU

Sammanfattning: The European Union has long worked to achieve free movement within the internal market. In most areas, work has come a long way but there are exceptions. The mortgage market in the EU, despite significant economic size, is not harmonized, and a number of obstacles to achieve free movement of capital exist. The focus of the essay is primarily on the harmonization and implementation of a European mortgage market, primarily from a consumer perspective, and on existing obstacles for the free movement of capital. Many believe that a harmonization of the mortgage market in the EU will lead to considerable savings, as mortgage loans represent a very large proportion of lending in Europe. In order for a harmonized mortgage market to become a reality it is required that obstacles and national differences in several areas of law are eliminated. Consumer protection, registration procedures, the early repayment of loans, lender control, law of property, the APR on loans, and foreclosure are just some of the areas where major differences exist between EU Member States. The supervision of financial companies in the EU is also discussed since it plays a vital role in the harmonization process of the European mortgage market. Several of the above mentioned areas are also politically sensitive. Existing proposals for harmonization measures, both from the Commission in the form of a White Paper and by independent expert reports, are examined. Eurohypothec, introduced in 2005 in an independent expert's report, is examined in particular since this is one of the most concrete proposals for harmonization measures that exist. The purpose of Eurohypothec is to provide a European standard, meant to facilitate the use of transnational mortgage loans in Europe. Through the Cassis de Dijon- and Trummer-cases a basic legal framework has been drawn up concerning consumer protection in the mortgage market within the EU. Different aspects of strong and weak consumer protection is discussed as well as the need for the development of EU case law. The conclusion is that new legislation and further research in a variety of areas is needed in order for free movement in the European mortgage market to become a reality. Moreover, the fact that no one knows exactly how much the process of harmonization in the European mortgage market is going to cost, or how long it will take, must also be taken into account. If costs will be too great or if the process takes too long, the potential benefits of a harmonization could be lost.