Cross-border Unfair Competition Cases in Online Environment – the EU conflict-of-laws perspective in terms of legal certainty and predictability

Author(s):  
Iveta Rohová ◽  
Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 18-29
Author(s):  
G. K. Dmitrieva ◽  
O. V. Lutkova

The article has investigated the mechanisms of the national (both legal and non-legal) regulation of orphan works, i.e. works the holder (holders) of rights to which is (are) not identified and/or the location of the rights-holder is not established. Orphan works are supposedly protected by copyright, which means the validity of exclusive rights and the potential need to obtain permission from the copyright holder for any form of using the works under consideration, namely: reproduction including digitization, translation, processing, etc. However, in a situation where the right holder is not determined (is unavailable), the user does not have an objective opportunity to obtain such a permission, and the work actually remains unknown to the society, although it can be of artistic, cultural or historical value. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the national legal systems of a number of States have establish a special regime for the legal protection of orphan works, and about 20 states of the world have developed the foundations of such a regime so far. The article analyzes the regulation of orphan works in several states — in the EU and its member states, Great Britain, the USA, Canada, Korea, Japan, India. The authors have determined the foundations of the substantive and conflict of laws regulation of cross-border relations regulating orphan works. Features of regulation of works with an unidentified author in the era of a network society are highlighted: in particular, the need to digitize orphan works, since many of them are in a single copy on the medium ruined by time, and the fact that the digitized work can instantly spread from databases to other jurisdictions. The authors provide for the forecast of possible ways of evolution of legal regulation of relations in question with the use of mechanisms of national and international law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-193
Author(s):  
Carlos Llorente

Consumer law nowadays pervades all areas of activity where consumers are present. The EU, along with its Member States, is probably one of the leading actors in promoting consumer protection. Also, in a globalized world, where the fact of being a consumer is a valuable asset (given their purchasing power), the cross-border implications of consumer contracts need to be effectively tackled by legislators. The EU has tried to address global legal concerns concerning consumer contracts by producing conflict-of-law rules such as article 6 of the Rome I Regulation and others contained in specifically-focused directives. This article reviews the scope and application of those rules and offers some insight into the not-so-well construed interaction between them all, keeping in mind that article 6 of the Rome I Regulation should be the centre of rotation of all EU PIL law in this field.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ragne Piir ◽  
Karin Sein

The article discusses the abundance and interaction of rules aimed at determining the law applicable to cross-border consumer contracts. Firstly, it examines whether there is a continuing need for conflict-of-laws rules that stem from consumer-related directives. It then addresses the question of whether the Estonian Law of Obligations Act’s conflict-of-laws rules comply with the consumer-related directives. Lastly, the relations between the conflict‑of‑laws rules stemming from consumer-related directives and the Rome I Regulation are analysed. The authors conclude that the level of consumer protection afforded by Rome I seems to allow for a waiver of the various simultaneously existing directive-based conflict rules. Such renunciation would not only resolve the issue of inaccurate transposition to national laws – an apparent problem for the Estonian legislator as well – but also contribute to legal certainty. While the conflict-of-laws rules of Rome I and the national directive-based rules coexist, the latter are to be considered subordinately to Rome I. The conflict rules of the Estonian Law of Obligations Act are deemed to be only domestically mandatory and therefore not to be viewed as overriding mandatory rules in the sense of Article 9 of Rome I.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-56
Author(s):  
Elena Voytovich

The increase of cross-border contacts of individuals has shifted the emphasis in modern studies of the right to a name in Civil and Family law to Human rights and Private International Law. The article examines the problems of cross-border implementation of the right of an individual to a name, which are a consequence of state control over the circulation of names, as well as conflicts of national laws. The author offers to get acquainted with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union, which serves as an illustration of the peculiarities of the implementation of the right to a surname in the context of convergence of legal systems. The proposed court decisions demonstrate new approaches to protecting the right of an individual to a surname and open the way to the formation of an internally consistent, coherent system of rules governing the right to a name. The article analyzes the international private legal aspects of the implementation of the right to a surname; special attention is paid to the conflicting principles of determining the law to be applied. The author concludes that domestic practice of assigning surnames should seek to achieve legal certainty. Such practice should not interfere with the exercise of the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of movement and choice of place of residence, or discriminate. Taking into account the results of international justice, national rules on names, conflict of laws norms require revision and updating. The consistent application of lex personalis in determining the applicable law can lead to situations in which the identity of the individual will be in doubt. The solution to this problem is seen not only in improving conflict of laws approaches, but also in the mechanism of recognition of foreign administrative acts. The implementation of this proposal will eliminate lame relationships, ensure legal certainty and stability of the person’s status. The author also proposes to distinguish between conflict of laws rules governing family status and conflict of laws rules governing civil status of an individual.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-146
Author(s):  
Max Atallah

AbstractThe objective of this study was to gather information about the last habitual residence (LHR) of the deceased in the context of the upcoming EU Succession Regulation. In addition, the aim was to analyze the adequacy of the legally undefined LHR as the principal connecting factor in cross-border succession within the EU. This study was carried out as a part of a bachelor thesis conducted on the same subject. The data were collected from relevant jurisprudence, international law, national acts, the EU published materials and case law. These results suggest that the legally undefined LHR is an unstable connecting factor for the purposes of the Succession Regulation, since it cannot guarantee sufficient legal certainty, and hence, the EU citizens are not able to fully utilize their right to free movement. The findings indicate that there might be a need to amend a legal definition for the LHR, not only for the EU Member States to be able to apply the concept in an harmonized way, but also for the EU citizens to know whether they are considered habitually resident in a state or not.


This chapter is devoted to cross-border principles. It begins with an examination of two sets of opposing principles: unity of proceedings versus plurality and universality or territoriality in the administration of the debtor's assets in insolvency. This is followed by an examination of two major instruments: the widely adopted 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and the EU Insolvency Regulation (recast), approved in 2015 and incorporating numerous significant changes to the former EC Regulation. The Model Law is concerned with recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, carrying with it an automatic stay of local proceedings, and the status of foreign administrators and duties of co-operation with foreign courts and foreign administrators. The EU Insolvency Regulation (recast) is primarily a conflict of laws regulation governing jurisdiction and the law applicable to insolvency matters.


Author(s):  
Valentyna Bohatyrets ◽  
Liubov Melnychuk ◽  
Yaroslav Zoriy

This paper seeks to investigate sustainable cross-border cooperation (CBC) as a distinctive model of interstate collaboration, embedded in the neighboring borderland regions of two or more countries. The focus of the research revolves around the establishment and further development of geostrategic, economic, cultural and scientific capacity of the Ukrainian-Romanian partnership as a fundamental construct in ensuring and strengthening the stability, security and cooperation in Europe. This research highlights Ukraine’s aspirations to establish, develop and diversify bilateral good-neighborly relations with Romania both regionally and internationally. The main objective is to elucidate Ukraine-Romania cross-border cooperation initiatives, inasmuch Ukraine-Romania CBC has been stirring up considerable interest in terms of its inexhaustible historical, cultural and spiritual ties. Furthermore, the similarity of the neighboring states’ strategic orientations grounds the basis for development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. The authors used desk research and quantitative research to conclude that Ukraine-Romania CBC has the impact not only on the EU and on Ukraine multi-vector foreign policy, but it also has the longer-term global consequences. In the light of the current reality, the idea of introducing and reinforcing the importance of Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) sounds quite topical and relevant. This research considers a number of explanations for Ukraine-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation as a key element of the EU policy towards its neighbors. Besides, the subject of the research is considered from different perspectives in order to show the diversity and complexity of the Ukraine-Romania relations in view of the fact that sharing common borders we are presumed to find common solutions. As the research has demonstrated, the Ukraine-Romania cross border cooperation is a pivotal factor of boosting geostrategic, economic, political and cultural development for each participant country, largely depending on the neighboring countries’ cohesion and convergence. Significantly, there is an even stronger emphasis on the fact that while sharing the same borders, the countries share common interests and aspirations for economic thriving, cultural exchange, diplomatic ties and security, guaranteed by a legal framework. The findings of this study have a number of important implications for further development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. Accordingly, the research shows how imperative are the benefits of Romania as a strategic partner for outlining top priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.


Author(s):  
Matteo Gargantini ◽  
Carmine Di Noia ◽  
Georgios Dimitropoulos

This chapter analyzes the current regulatory framework for cross-border distribution of investment funds and submits some proposals to improve it. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a schematic description of the legal taxonomy for collective investment schemes. Section 3 addresses the EU disclosure regimes that apply to the distribution of various types of investment funds. Sections 4 and 5 consider conduct-of-business rules and, respectively, the legal framework for the allocation of supervisory powers on product regulation when fund units are distributed in more than one country. Section 6 provides some data that help assess the performance of the current framework for cross-border distribution. It then analyzes some of the residual legal rules and supervisory practices that still make cross-border distributions of funds more burdensome than purely national distributions, whether these restrictions are set forth in the country where investors are domiciled (Section 7) or in the fund's home country (Section 8).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document