Personal Jurisdiction Based on the Location of a Server: Chinese Territorialism in the Internet Era?

Whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction based on the location of a server in internet tort cases is a controversial issue. Its significance comes from the paradox that the internet is de-localized because it is ubiquitous, but servers are indispensable to the internet and every server has a geographic location. Since 2001, Chinese law has allowed courts to exercise personal jurisdiction solely based on the location of a server or other computing equipment in intellectual property infringement cases. Recently, it has extended this jurisdiction rule to all internet torts. This paper asks whether the location of a server should be considered as the place where the tort occurs and whether this territorial-based jurisdiction rule can suffice its public-law legislative goal. It may enrich current research about technology-mediated legal challenges to private international law in two aspects. Firstly, it conducts a broad international survey by looking into laws in China, the US, Australia and the EU. It also analyzes where the tort occurs when servers are owned by an infringer, a third party or an infringee in domain name registration, service outsourcing, platform, cloud computing, commercial spams, etc. It concludes that in legal theory, the location of the server is not the place where an internet tort occurs. Secondly, by analyzing China’s experience, it argues that, in the internet era, states have to look for private-international-law tools to advance their public policy claims. However, the practice shows that the territorial-based jurisdiction rule is limited in fulfilling its pubic-law legislative goal.

AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18): Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display. With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION

This article examines how the jurisdictional rules of the recast of the Brussels I Regulation, namely the rules of exclusive jurisdiction for immovable property and company law and governance matters and the rules of special jurisdiction for contracts and torts, deal with unjust enrichment claims and issues concerning unjust enrichment. It also asks whether a new special jurisdiction rule for unjust enrichment should be added to the Regulation.

La reconvención en los litigios sobre contratos internacionales de trabajo. (Comentario a la STJUE de 21 de junio de 2018, asunto C-1/17, Petronas Lubricants Italy) = The counter-claim in litigation about international contracts of employment. (Commentary to EUCJ judgment 21 June 2018, case C-1/17, Petronas Lubricants Italy)

Resumen: en su Sentencia de 21 de junio de 2018, en el asunto Petronas Lubricants Italy, el TJUE afirma la viabilidad de una reconvención del empleador contra el trabajador respecto de unos créditos cedidos por otro empleador. La Sentencia tiene aspectos positivos, pues consolida la competencia del juez inicial para una reconvención por razones de economía procesal, incluso cuando el demandante reconvencional sea una parte más fuerte jurídica y económicamente, como es un empleador. En su haber, también, exigir que la reconvención tenga un origen común a la demanda inicial, pues en este foro también persiste el objetivo de buscar resoluciones coherentes. Entre los aspectos negativos, el Tribunal, al aplicar la doctrina general al caso concreto, legitima una situación abusiva. El demandante reconvencional está utilizando el entramado de sociedades del grupo para diseñar la reconvención y lo hace a través de una cesión de créditos que afecta a la posición procesal del demandado reconvencional. Y ello cuando este demandado reconvencional no participa de dicha cesión (es un acto ajeno) y ni siquiera puede calcular sus efectos, al ser posterior a la interposición de la demanda inicial.Palabras clave: contrato de trabajo, competencia judicial internacional, reconvención. Reglamento “Bruselas I.bis”.Abstract: in its Judgment of 21 June 2018, in case Petronas Lubricants Italy, the EUCJ affirms the viability of a counterclaim by the employer against the worker with respect to credits assigned by another employer. The Judgment has positive aspects, due to it consolidates the jurisdiction of the initial court for a counterclaim for reasons of procedural economy, even when the counterclaimant is a stronger legal and economic party, such as an employer. Also it is positive to require that the counterclaim has a common origin to the initial claim, because this jurisdiction rule keeps the purpose of seeking coherent decisions. Among the negative aspects, the Court, when applies the general doctrine to the specific case, legitimizes an abusive situation. The counterclaimant is using the network of group companies in order to design the counterclaim by an assignment of credits that affects the procedural position of the counterclaim defendant. That occurs when this counterclaim defendant does not participate in said assignment (it is an external act) and cannot even calculate its effects, since it is subsequent to the filing of the initial claim.Keywords: contract of employment. international jurisdiction. counter-claim. Brussels I.a Regulation.

The Decay of the International Rule of Law Project (1990–2015)

The chapter challenges the idea that the 1990s are the beginning of a golden era of the international rule of law. Rather they are interpreted as the climax of a phase of a US-dominated international institutional system and a phase of relatively uncontested Western hegemony which was often realized through transnational institutions but which was not necessarily created by international law. However, many institutional characteristics of this era conflicted or continued to conflict fundamentally with central elements of the original early twentieth-century rule of law project in international relations which subscribed to compulsory jurisdiction, rule-based collective security, sovereign equality of states, and codification. The United States and its Western partners missed out on the opportunity to use the ‘unipolar’ moment in modern world history to eventually realize and entrench such a fair rule of law system in international relations.

Stosowanie deliktowych łączników lokalnych do zdarzeń mających miejsce na pokładzie statku morskiego lub powietrznego w unijnym prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym

The article is aimed at determining the relevance of the flag state (regarding vessels) and the country of registration (regarding aircrafts) principles for the purpose of the application of territorial connecting factors (the place of the event giving rise to damage (place of acting) and the place where the damage occurred (place of damage)) employed by article 7(2) of the Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis Regulation) providing a special jurisdiction rule in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict and by article 4(1) of the Regulation No 864/2007 (Rome II Regulation) specifying the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or delict. The flag state and the country of registration principles could be taken into account when circumstances constituting the event giving rise to damage or the damage itself are situated on board of a vessel navigating in or an aircraft flying through the areas outside the sovereignty of any state (in particular the High Seas). The reference to the flag state or the country of registration instead of the sovereignty in order to identify the member state whose courts have jurisdiction pursuant to article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation or the statewhose law is applicable according to article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation may also be possible in cases when the determination of the place where the event giving rise to damage occurred or where the damage occurred is difficult or even when the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law identified based on the sovereignty over the area where the vessel navigated or the aircraft flew at the moment when the event giving rise to damage occurred or damage occurred does not materialise the closest connection principle.

La precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo como foro de competencia y punto de conexión en los reglamentos europeos = The determination of the habitual place of work as jurisdiction rule and as connecting point in the European regulations

Resumen: La finalidad de este trabajo es identificar y analizar los indicios que las autoridades judiciales de la Unión Europea utilizan para determinar el lugar habitual de trabajo, como foro de com­petencia judicial internacional y como punto de conexión, en los casos en que el mismo es impreciso, porque el trabajador realiza sus funciones en varios países. También se estudian los principales índices que la jurisprudencia europea ha rechazado o aquellos cuya utilidad ha matizado. El estudio es eminen­temente casuístico y se articula a través de las sentencias del TJUE y las conclusiones de los distintos Abogados Generales.Palabras clave: contrato de trabajo internacional, precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo, método indiciario, indicios empleados por la jurisprudencia, indicios matizados, indicios rechazados.Abstract: The purpose of this paper is the identification and analysis of the indicia used by the judicial authorities of the European Union to determine the habitual place of work, as forum of interna­tional jurisdiction and as connecting point, in cases where it is diffuse because the employee performs his duties in several countries. It will also be analyzed the main indicia rejected by the European Court of Justice, or those whose usefulness has been qualified. This work is mainly casuistic and it is framed through the judgments of the ECJ and the conclusions of different General Advocates.Keywords: international employment contract, accuracy of the habitual place of work, circumstan­tial method, indicia used by the Case Law, nuanced indicia, rejected indicia.

13 Interim and Emergency Relief: (SIAC RULE 30)

This chapter focuses on Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rule 30. Interim or emergency relief is aimed at preserving the status quo between parties pending the resolution of a dispute. A party to a SIAC arbitration has three options for obtaining interim relief during the course of an arbitration. Depending on the circumstances in which the relief is sought, a party can seek interim relief from: (a) the tribunal (Rule 30.1); (b) an emergency arbitrator (Rule 30.2 and Schedule 1); or (c) a court of competent jurisdiction (Rule 30.3). Each of these three options is discussed in turn.