Make a Submission
Vol. 41 (2021)
General Articles

Special Jurisdiction in Infringements of Personality Rights

PDF
  • Marek Świerczyński,
  • Remigijus Jokubauskas
Marek Świerczyński
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University (Warsaw)
Remigijus Jokubauskas
Mykolas Romeris University (Vilnius)

Published 2022-06-30

Keywords

  • Internet,
  • special jurisdiction,
  • personality rights,
  • Brussel I bis,
  • torts

Copyright (c) 2022 Polish Yearbook of International

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Special Jurisdiction in Infringements of Personality Rights. (2022). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 41, 235-251. https://doi.org/10.24425/PYIL.2022.142348

Abstract

This article focuses on the problems of jurisdiction in cross-border civil proceedings concerning an alleged violation of personality rights. There are no specifc rules on jurisdiction for such torts in European Union law. In the current case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is applicable to such disputes. Nevertheless, the authors argue that the CJEU has misinterpreted this article when the claim is based on violation of personality rights, and has thus created a legal chaos in such disputes. The authors analyse the peculiarities of Internet infringements and the locus delicti connecting factor in the case law of the CJEU in this area. The Court has adopted the criterion of ‘centre of interests’ as the major connecting factor to establish international jurisdiction. The authors criticize this approach and argue that it has led to a structural misunderstanding of the infringement of personality rights. Finally, the authors propose a new rule on jurisdiction in cases concerning violation of personality rights, which should be established in the Brussels I bis Regulation to ensure legal certainty and proper international dispute settlement.

PDF

References

  1. Ahern J., Binehy W., Rome II Regulation on Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague: 2009.
  2. Bogdan M., Defamation on the Internet, Forum Delicti and the E-Commerce Directive: Some Comments on the ECJ Judgment in the eDate Case, 13 Yearbook of Private International Law 483 (2011), pp. 483-492.
  3. Bollée S., Haftel B., Les nouveaux (dés)équilibres de la compétence internationale en matière de cyberdélits après l’arrêt eDate Advertising et Martinez, Recueil Dalloz 1285 (2012).
  4. Borchers P., Tort and Contract Jurisdiction via the Internet: The ‘Minimum Contacts’ Test and The Brussels Regulation Compared, 50(3) Netherlands International Law Review 401 (2003), pp. 401-418.
  5. Brkan M., Data Protection and Conflict-of-Laws: A Challenging Relationship, 2(3) European Data Protection Law Review 324 (2016), pp. 324-341.
  6. Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 27 September 1968, OJ 1990 C 189.
  7. Calliess G. (ed.), Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Law (Part Two), Wolters Kluwer, Cham: 2011.
  8. Carruthers M., Crawford E., Variations on a theme of Rome II. Reflections on proposed choice of law rules for non-contractual obligations: Part I, 9 Edinbourgh Law Review 65 (2005), pp. 65-97.
  9. Carruthers M., Crawford E., Variations on a theme of Rome II. Reflections on proposed choice of law rules for non-contractual obligations: Part II, 9 Edinburgh Law Review 238 (2005).
  10. Chalmers D., European Union Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2014.
  11. Comments on the European Commission’s draft proposal for a Council regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, available at: https://bit.ly/3MKicZT, accessed 30 June 2022).
  12. Cornils K., Der Begehungsort von aeusserungsdelikten im Internet, 8 JuristenZeitung 394 (1999), pp. 394-398.
  13. Council of Europe, Study on forms of liability and jurisdictional issues in the application of civil and administrative defamation laws in Council of Europe member states, DGI (2019)04.
  14. Dickinson A., The Rome II Regulation, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2009.
  15. Dornis T., When in Rome, do as the Romans do? - A defense of the lex domicilii communis in the Rome II Regulation, 4 European Legal Forum 152 (2007), pp. 152-159.
  16. ECtHR, Arlewin v. Sweden (App. No. 22302/10), Judgment, 1 March 2016.
  17. European Commission, Comparative study on the situation in the 27 Member States as regards the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, 2009, JLS/2007/C4/028. Final Report, pp. 79-112.
  18. Fawcett J., Carruthets M., G.P. North, Private International Law (14th ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2008.
  19. Feraci O., Digital Rights and Jurisdiction: The European Approach to Online Defamation and IPRs Infringements, in: E. Carpanelli, N. Lazzerini (eds.), Use and Misuse of New Technologies, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham: 2019.
  20. Feraci O., La legge applicabile alla tutela dei diritti della personalità nella prospettiva comunitaria, 4 Rivista di diritto internazionale 1020 (2009), pp. 1020-1085.
  21. Francq S., Responsabilité du fournisseur d’information sur Internet: affaires eDate Advertising et Martinez, 1-2 La Semaine Juridique - édition Générale 35 (2012).
  22. Fronczak E., Cuius legislatio, eius iurisdictio? The emerging synchronisation of European private international law on tort, 17 ERA Forum 173 (2019).
  23. Gołaczyński J., Zalisko M., Jurysdykcja krajowa szczególna w sprawach dotyczących czynu niedozwolonego lub czynu podobnego do czynu niedozwolonego w rozporządzeniu nr 1215/2012 [Special national jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict in Regulation no. 1215/2012], 4 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 23 (2019), pp. 23-31.
  24. Graziano T., Das auf aufservertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht nacht Inkraftreten der Rom II – Verordnung, 73 RabelsZ 1 (2009), pp. 1-77.
  25. Hartley T.C., Jurisdiction in tort claims for non-physical harm under Brussels 2012, Article 7(2), 67(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 987 (2018), pp. 987-1003.
  26. Hein J. von, Protecting victims of cross-border torts under Article 7(2) Brussels Ibis: towards a more differentiated and balanced approach, 16 Yearbook of Private International Law 241 (2015), pp. 241-274.
  27. Hörnle J., Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2009.
  28. Hörnle J., The Jurisdictional Challenge of the Internet, in: L. Edwards, C. Waelde (eds.), Law and the Internet, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2008.
  29. Huber P. (ed.), Rome II Regulation, Munich 2011.
  30. Joined cases C‑509/09, C‑161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH and Others v. X and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v. MGN Limited [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:685.
  31. Judgment of 17 October 2017 in case C-194/16 Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB (BOÜ/Ilsjan) [2017], ECLI:EU:C:2017:766.
  32. Judgment of 21 June 2021 in case C-800/19 Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v. SM [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:489.
  33. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 in case C-228/11 Melzer v. MF Global UK Ltd [2013], ECLI:EU:C:2013:305.
  34. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 in case C‑533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhors [2009], ECLI:EU:C:2009:257.
  35. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – Gtflix Tv v DR, C‑251/20 Gtflix Tv v. DR [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036.
  36. Judgment of the Court of 30 November 1976 in Case C-21/76 Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse D’Alsace SA [1976], ECLI:EU:C:1976:166.
  37. Judgment of the Court of 7 March 1995 in Case C-68/93 Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v. Presse Alliance SA [1995], ECLI:EU:C:1995:61.
  38. Kohl U., Jurisdiction and the Internet: Regulatory Competence Over Online Activity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2007.
  39. Kohl U., Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, in: N Tsagourias, R. Buchan (eds.), Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham: 2017.
  40. Kozyris P., Rome II: Tort Conflicts on the Right Track! A Postscript to Symeon Symeonides’ Missed Opportunity, 56 American Journal of Comparative Law 471 (2008), pp. 471-497.
  41. Kramberger Škerl J., Jurisdiction in On-line Defamation and Violations of Privacy: In Search of a Right Balance, 9(2) Lexonomica 87 (2017), pp. 87-108.
  42. Kronke H., Applicable Law in Torts and Contracts in Cyberspace, in: C. Kessedjian, K. Boele-Woelki, Michel Pelichet (eds.), Internet – Which Court Decides? Which Law Applies?, Proceedings of the international colloquium, Kluwer Law International, The Hague: 1998.
  43. Kyselovská T., Critical Analysis of the “Mosaic Principle” under Art. 7 Para 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation for Disputes Arising out of Non-Contractual Obligations on the Internet, 1 Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych 36 (2019), pp. 36-44.
  44. Leible S., Lehmann M., Die neue EG-Verordnung über aufervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht (Rom II), 53 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (2007).
  45. Lundstedt L., Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16): What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?, 49 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 1022 (2018), pp. 1022-1047.
  46. Lutzi T., Internet cases in private international law: developing a coherent approach, 66(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 687 (2017), pp. 687-721.
  47. Lutzi T., Private International Law Online, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2020.
  48. Lutzi T., Shevill is dead, long live Shevill!, 134 The Law Quarterly Review 210 (2018).
  49. Magnus U. et al., Brussels I-bis Regulation, Sellier European Law Publishers, Münich: 2016.
  50. Mankowski P., Article 7, in: U. Magnus et al. (eds.), Brussels I-bis Regulation, Sellier European Law Publishers, Münich: 2016.
  51. Marino S., Nuovi sviluppi in materia di illecito extracontrattuale on line, 4 Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 879 (2012).
  52. Miguel Asensio P. De, Conflict of Laws and the Internet, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham: 2020.
  53. Nagy C., The Word Is a Dangerous Weapon: Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Personality Rights in EU Law – Missed and New Opportunities, 2 Journal of Private International Law 251 (2012), pp. 251-296.
  54. Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 23 February 2021, Case C‑800/19 Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v SM, ECLI:EU:C:2021:124.
  55. Pilich M., Orecki M., Jurysdykcja i prawo właściwe w sprawach o ochronę dóbr osobistych przed naruszeniem w Internecie. Glosa do wyroku TSUE (wielka izba) z 25 października 2011 r. w sprawach połaczonych C-509/09 i C-161/10 eDate Advertising v. X oraz Oliver Martinez, Robert Martinez v. MGN Limited [Jurisdiction and applicable law in cases concerning the protection of personal rights against infringement on the Internet. Glossary to the judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising v. X and Oliver Martinez, Robert Martinez v. MGN Limited], 1 Polski Proces Cywilny 109 (2015).
  56. Pilich M., Prawo właściwe dla dóbr osobistych i ich ochrony [The law applicable to personal rights and their protection], 3 Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego 599 (2012), pp. 599-650.
  57. Plender R., Wilderspin M., European Private International Law of Obligation, Sweet & Maxwell, London: 2009.
  58. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. 2012, L 351, p. 1.
  59. Reymond M., The ECJ eDate Decision: A Case Comment, 13 Yearbook of Private International Law” 493 (2011), pp. 493-506.
  60. Rushworth A., Scott A., Rome II: Choice of law for non-contractual obligations, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 274 (2008).
  61. Schack H., Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Verletzung von Urhebervermögensrechten über Internet, 50 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3630 (2013).
  62. Svantesson D., B. Jerker, Time for the Law to Take Internet Geolocation Technologies Seriously, 3 Journal of Private International Law 473 (2012), pp. 473-487.
  63. Svantesson D., Geo-location Technologies and Other Means of Placing Borders on the “Borderless” Internet, 23 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 101 (2008), pp. 101-139.
  64. Symeonides S., Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity, 56 American Journal of Comparative Law 173 (2008).
  65. Tomaszek A., Dochodzenie roszczeń z tytułu czynów niedozwolonych w Internecie [Pursuing claims for tort on the Internet], 11 Monitor Prawniczy 685 (2000) pp. 685-690.
  66. Weitz K., Forum delicti commissi w sprawach o naruszenie dóbr osobistych w Internecie w świetle art. 5 pkt 3 rozporządzenia nr 44/2001 [Forum delicti commissi in cases of infringement of personal rights on the Internet in the light of Art. 5 point 3 of Regulation No 44/2001], 3 Polski Proces Cywilny 316 (2013), pp. 316-337.
  67. Weitz K., Jurysdykcyjne aspekty umownych i deliktowych zobowiązań elektronicznych w świetle rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 44/2001 – zagadnienia węzłowe [Jurisdictional aspects of electronic contractual and tort obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – nodal issues], in: J. Gołaczyński (ed.), Kolizyjne aspekty zobowiązań elektronicznych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa: 2007.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.