Some envisioned a federal Europe run by a European government and others merely aimed for an economic co-operation only to achieve a common internal market.
The European Commission has also looked toward harmonisation by proposing to develop a so-called Common Frame of References.
These various developments demonstrate that although a convergent tendency is apparent at some points, differences between Member States remain substantial.
[2] European tort law is not only about slowly growing harmony in certain respects but also about rich diversity in many others.
In the institutions of the European Union, such as the Council, the Commission and the Court, where lawyers from all Member States work closely together, different legal backgrounds inevitably play a role.
'[4] To acknowledge the existence of a general principle of law, the ECJ does not require that the rules be a feature of all the national legal systems.
Rather, the Court merely finds that the principle is generally acknowledged and that, beyond divergences, the domestic laws of the Member State show the existence of common criteria.
The legal framework of the European Union consists of the treaties, regulations, directives and case law.
[2] Article 288 of the TFEU, however, concedes that a directive 'shall be binding as to the result to be achieved, upon each member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods'.
Article 288 of the TFEU explicitly regulates the liability of Community Institutions for damage caused by the breach of Union Law.
This article does not give precise liability rules but refers to the general principles common to the laws of Member States.
[9] The need for harmonisation may be self-evident because the idea was that differences between the Member States were an obstacle to the achievement of an internal market.
Most legal systems acknowledge the possibility to be liable for damage caused by the violation of a statutory duty.