scholarly journals The Internet and the Global Reach of EU Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 112-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner
Keyword(s):  
Significant Influence ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Universal Values ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Global Reach

The internet has had a significant influence on how EU law applies beyond EU borders, and has enabled the EU to extend the application of its fundamental values to third countries. There are many examples of the EU exerting its global reach regarding the internet, particularly in data protection and privacy law. The EU’s actions in exercising its global reach with regard to the internet implicate important normative issues, such as distinguishing between the furtherance of core EU legal values and the advancement of the EU’s political interests; promoting the principles of EU law as universal values; ensuring that EU legal values are upheld in practice; and determining the territorial boundaries of EU law. The influence exercised by the EU carries responsibilities towards third countries, particularly those in the developing world. The internet may itself also be influencing EU law.

scholarly journals Can the Internet Forget? – Rhe Eight to be Forgotten in the EU Law and its Actual Impact on the Internet. Comparison of the Approaches Towards the Notion and Assessment of its Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gebuza
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Actual Impact ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe main aim of the article is to provide analysis on the notion of the right to be forgotten developed by the CJEU in the ruling Google v. AEPD & Gonzalez and by the General Data Protection Regulation within the context of the processing of personal data on the Internet. The analysis provides the comparison of approach towards the notion between European and American jurisprudence and doctrine, in order to demonstrate the scale of difficulty in applying the concept in practice.

scholarly journals European law, national law and (un)certainty of law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-177
Author(s):  
Gian Benacchio
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
Radical Shift ◽  
The Eu

One of the fundamental values of any legal system is the principle of certainty of law, whose highest expression is its encoding in the various bodies of law. However, today this value is strongly, albeit inadvertently, called into question by the European Union - in particular, by a set of principles, and related mechanisms, designed to ensure uniformity of law across the EU Member States. These include the principle of primacy of EU law over the laws of its Member States, the principle of the disapplication of national laws that are incompatible with EU law (including the provisions of directives that have not yet been implemented, or that have implemented in a manner deemed incorrect), the principle of interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law and, above all, the conclusive and binding effect of the judgments of the EU Court of Justice even when they provide a 'unique' or unusual interpretation, not expressly provided for in EU law. These principles are now well-established benchmarks in supreme and national courts as well, to the extent that there has been a radical shift in the system and hierarchy of sources of law in each legal system of the EU Member States, at the expense of citizens, businesspeople and legal practitioners, who all find it hard to identify the exact rule to apply to specific cases.

The Global Reach of EU Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-63
Author(s):  
Joanne Scott
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Global Reach ◽  
At Home

This chapter explores the mechanisms that enable the EU to extend the global reach of its laws. These include extraterritoriality, territorial extension and the ‘Brussels Effect’. It offers multiple examples of territorial extension operating at different levels and considers the relationship between territorial extension and the Brussels Effect. The second part of the chapter includes a case study on territorial extension in EU environmental law. While it is increasingly accepted that the ‘effects’ doctrine may be invoked to regulate foreign conduct that entails significant effects at home, this chapter considers whether the concept of complicity may help to justify EU regulation that seeks to address environmental problems that are manifested outside the EU.

scholarly journals EU Data Protection Rules and the Lack of Compliance in Sweden

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Ester Herlin-Karnell
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Private Data ◽  
External Dimension ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In this short reflection paper, I will set out to explain how and why Sweden breaches EU data protection rules. I will start by providing a brief overview of the EU data protection framework to paint the background picture. Thereafter I will discuss the scope for derogating from the obligations set out in the GDPR and thereby test the Swedish exception and show that it is not proportionate and undermines the purpose of the GDPR. Subsequently, I will discuss why some core fundamental rights of EU law should not be possible to derogate from, when as in the Swedish case it seems to boil down to economic question of who gets to own the data. I will conclude by linking the question of the right to data protection and why licenses should not give companies a carte blanche to publish personal data about people in Sweden to the question of market access. There is an imbalanced relationship here, to use the internal market vocabulary, with Swedish people having all their private data published online while other EU states do not do that. Likewise, there is an external dimension here: the data is available on the internet globally and therefore third countries also access it.

A refusal to grant access to a grid within the provision of crude oil transfer services as an example of a prohibited abuse of a dominant position in the EU and Polish competition law

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Paweł SZYDŁO
Keyword(s):  
Crude Oil ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Effective Competition ◽  
Oil Pipelines ◽  
Transfer Services ◽  
The Eu

Aim: The paper discusses cases in which a refusal by an energy enterprise to connect other enterprises to the network is treated as a prohibited abuse of the enterprise's dominant position and, equally, will represent behavior prohibited by art. 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and by art. 9 par. 2 item 2 of the Competition and Consumer Protection Law as well as legal consequences of such refusal. It is important to pinpoint such cases since the EU sectoral regulation does not provide for obligating any undertakings which manage and operate oil pipelines to enter into contracts with other undertakings such as contracts on connecting into their network or contracts on providing crude oil transfer services. Conditions for accessing oil pipelines and selling their transfer capacities are determined by the owners of the networks: private oil companies in the countries across which the pipelines are routed. These conditions are not governed by the EU law.  Furthermore, the very obligation of connecting other entities to own network by energy undertakings operating in the oil transfer sector in Poland will only arise from generally applicable provisions of the Polish competition law.  Design / Research methods: The purpose of the paper has been reached by conducting a doctrinal analysis of relevant provisions of Polish and EU law and an analysis of guidelines issued by the EU governing bodies. Furthermore, the research included the functional analysis method which analyses how law works in practice. Conclusions / findings: The deliberations show that a refusal to access the network will be a manifestation of a prohibited abuse of a dominant position and will be a prohibited action always when the dominant's action is harmful in terms of the allocation effectiveness. It will be particularly harmful when delivery of goods or services objectively required for effective competition on a lower level market, a discriminatory refusal which leads to elimination of an effective competition on the consequent market, a refusal leading to unfair treatment of consumers and an unjustified refusal. Originality / value of the article: The paper discusses the prerequisites which trigger the obligation to connect entities to own network by energy undertakings operating in the oil transfer sector. The obligation has a material impact on the operations of the oil transmitting undertakings, in particular on those who dominate the market. The regulatory bodies in the competition sector may classify a refusal of access to own network by other enterprises as a prohibited abuse of the dominant position, exposing such undertakings to financial consequences.Implications of the research: The research results presented in the paper may be used in decisions issued by the President of the OCCP and in judgement of Polish civil courts and EU courts. This may cause a significant change in the approach to classifying prohibited practices to prohibited behavior which represent abuse of the dominant position. The deliberations may also prompt the Polish and EU legislator to continue works on the legislation.

EU Non-Refoulement: (The Irrelevance of) Territoriality and Pre-Border Controls

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Keyword(s):  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Functional Understanding ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu

This chapter identifies the content and scope of application of the EU prohibition of refoulement. Following the ‘cumulative standards’ approach, the analysis incorporates developments in international human rights law (IHRL) and international refugee law (IRL). Taking account of the prominent role of the ECHR and the Refugee Convention (CSR51) as sources of Article 19 CFR, these are the two main instruments taken in consideration. The scope of application of Articles 33 CSR51 and 3 ECHR will be identified in turns. Autonomous requirements of EU law will be determined by reference to the asylum acquis as interpreted by the CJEU. The main focus will be on the establishment of the territorial reach of EU non-refoulement. The idea that it may be territorially confined will be rejected. Drawing on the ‘Fransson paradigm’, a ‘functional’ understanding of the ‘implementation of EU law’ standard under Article 51 CFR will be put forward, as the decisive factor to determine applicability of Charter provisions. The implications of non-refoulement for the different measures of extraterritorial control considered in Part I will be delineated at the end.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Reform Initiatives ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
History Of

Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online, severely affecting areas as diverse as e-commerce, data privacy, law enforcement, content take-downs, cloud computing, e-health, Cyber security, intellectual property, freedom of speech, and Cyberwar. In this innovative book, Professor Svantesson presents a vision for a new approach to Internet jurisdiction––for both private international law and public international law––based on sixteen years of research dedicated specifically to the topic. The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to a territorial thinking that is out of sync with our modern world, especially, but not only, online. Having made the claim that our adherence to the territoriality principle is based more on habit than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction. He also proposes several other reform initiatives such as the concept of ‘investigative jurisdiction’ and an approach to geo-blocking, aimed at equipping us to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. In addition, the book provides a history of Internet jurisdiction, and challenges our traditional categorisation of different types of jurisdiction. It places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how properly to understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction. While Solving the Internet Puzzle paints a clear picture of the concerns involved and the problems that needs to be overcome, this book is distinctly aimed at finding practical solutions anchored in a solid theoretical framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document