scholarly journals INTERNET CASES IN EU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW—DEVELOPING A COHERENT APPROACH

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lutzi

AbstractInternet communication has long been known to pose a challenge to private international law and its reliance on geographical connecting factors. This article looks at the problem from the perspective of EU private international law and argues that the way in which it has been accommodated by Regulations Brussels I, Rome I, and II conflicts with some of its central paradigms. It advances an alternative approach that would generally submit claims against information society service providers established in the EU to the jurisdiction and substantive laws of their ‘country of origin’ but make certain exceptions for private persons and consumers. The article argues that implementing such an approach would require little legislative change, be more faithful to the particularities of internet communication, and give greater effect to the central paradigms of EU private international law.

Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle

Chapter 8 examines the harmonized provisions on private international law in the EU. It discusses the conflict of law rules in civil and commercial matters contained in the Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Rome I Regulation (applicable law contracts) and Rome II Regulation (non-contractual obligations). It analyses their scope of application and the general and special rules of jurisdiction for contract and torts, and the law applicable to different types of contracts and non-contractual liability. It provides a general overview of the main aspects of private international law in the EU and how this applies in internet cases.


Author(s):  
Cordero-Moss Giuditta

This chapter assesses Norwegian perspectives on the Hague Principles. To understand the significance in Norway of the Hague Principles, it is necessary to explain the Norwegian system of private international law and its sources. Historically, conflict rules in Norway were not codified. Nowadays, private international law, at least as far as civil obligations are concerned, is undergoing a process of codification. A proposal for a statute on the law applicable to obligations has been released for public consultation, which has been concluded, and the Ministry is expected to draft a Proposition on that basis. The proposal is largely based on the EU regulations Rome I and Rome II. The Norwegian system of private international law may therefore be said to have turned into a system that is de facto parallel to EU Private International Law. Should the proposed statute be enacted, the system will also formally, albeit unilaterally, be parallel to Rome I and Rome II. Generally, therefore, it can be assumed that conflict rules will coincide with the rules contained in Rome I. In such a picture, the role that the Hague Principles may play for the Norwegian regime of party autonomy is quite restricted, as Norwegian courts generally use sources of soft law as a corroboration of Norwegian law, but not as a correction.


Author(s):  
Maksymilian Pazdan

The position of the executor of the will is governed by the law applicable to succession (Article 23(2)(f) of the EU Regulation 650/2012), while the position of the succession administrator of the estate of a business of a physical person located in Poland is subject to the Law of 5 July 2018 on the succession administration of the business of a physical person (the legal basis for such solution is in Article 30 of the EU Regulation 650/2012). However, if the court needs to determine the law applicable to certain aspects of appointing or functioning of these institutions, which have a nature of partial or preliminary questions, these laws will apply, as determined in line with the methods elaborated to deal with partial and preliminary questions in private international law. The rules devoted to the executors of wills are usually not self-standing. In such situations, the legislators most often call for supportive application of the rules designed for other matters existing in the same legal system (here — of the legis successionis). This is referred to as the absorption of the legal rules.


Author(s):  
Юрий Юмашев ◽  
Yuriy Yumashev ◽  
Елена Постникова ◽  
Elena Postnikova

The article deals with international law aspects of the GCL. To this aim firstly the international conventions on copyright law are analyzed, in particular: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in the wording of the Paris Act of 1971, the Convention on the Establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations of 1961 and Aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) 1994. There is also an analysis of the EU copyright law in terms of its correlation with the law of the EU member-states and an assessment of its evolution. It is emphasized that the core fact of origin of authorship is determined on the basis of the national legislation of the Member-States. Special attention is paid to the scope of the “principle of exhausted rights”. The article also touches upon the aspect of private international law. Particular attention is paid to the legal regulation of the Internet, including Internet providers, and its impact on the formation of the GCL. The problem of combating Internet piracy is also raised, as copyright infringement often occurs in relation to works published online. In addition, the article revealed what changes were made to the GCL to comply with EU law (including secondary law acts and the practice of the EU Court). The result of the study is, among other things, the conclusion that special legal mechanisms should be developed to regulate new forms of selling works that have emerged as a result of technological progress and in the near future the Internet will undoubtedly form ways for the further development of the GCL. However, this process can negatively affect the leading role of the author as a creative person.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 84-103
Author(s):  
O. F. Zasemkova

In May 2018, at the 4th and final meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters that had been developed since 1992 was represented. It is expected that after the Diplomatic Session that will be held in the mid-2019 the draft will be finalized and the Convention will be adopted and opened for signature.In this regard, the article attempts to analyze the main provisions of the draft Convention and assess the appropriateness for the Russian Federation to access it, taking into account the fact that Russia has a limited number of international treaties permitting recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia and decisions of Russian courts abroad. Based on the results of the analysis, the author concludes that the adoption of this Convention will provide for a simple and effective basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments eligible for States with different legal, social and economic circumstances. This, in turn, will increase the practical value of court decisions ensuring the most comprehensive protection of the rights and interests of the party in whose favour the decision has been made and, as a consequence, will contribute to the attractiveness of this method of dispute resolution for parties involved in cross-border private law relations.However, the mixed attitudes of the EU and the USA to the Draft Convention raises the question of their accession to the future Convention and may significantly reduce the impact of the adoption of the document under consideration.


Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle

Chapter 11 provides a critical analysis of private international law with regard to disputes based on torts between private parties arising from infringements of privacy and data protection rights, and defamation, committed by internet communication. This is a fast-developing and changing area. It compares the private international law rules in Germany and England. The proceedings examined in this chapter are civil litigation, as opposed to judicial review of administrative action (Chapter 7). The chapter covers the harmonized rules under the Brussels Regulation and, in particular, the jurisprudence in respect of the mosaic rule established in Shevill and the rules on civil jurisdiction in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Additionally, where the Brussels Regulation does not apply, it examines in detail the national rules of jurisdiction in Germany and England, in particular the “conflicts of interest” test in Germany, and, for defamation cases in England, the new test on the most appropriate place under the Defamation Act 2013. Since the rules on applicable law for privacy, defamation, and other personality rights cases are not harmonized in the Rome II Regulation, national law prevails. The rules in Germany and England are analysed—contrasting and comparing the approaches in internet cases. It unravels the extraordinarily complicated and twisted knot of jurisdiction and applicable law in the area of personality rights infringements online and brings some clarity to this area. It concludes with some robust suggestions for improving the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law to provide a better balance of conflicting interests.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document