Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

Conflicts of Law in Privacy, Data Protection, and Defamation Disputes: German and English Law

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.

Civil and Commercial Cases in the EU: Jurisdiction, Recognition, and Enforcement, Applicable Law—Brussels Regulation, Rome I and II Regulations

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.

Intellectual Property—Internet Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

Chapter 12 covers jurisdiction and applicable law in respect of internet cases involving intellectual property (IP). It covers both registered rights (eg trademarks, patents, design rights) and unregistered rights (eg passing off, copyright). It incisively discusses the relationship between IP and the territoriality principle, and how the English courts have moved away from the strict territoriality rule in recent years. The chapter discusses the Berne Convention and, within the EU, the Copyright Directive overcoming the strict territoriality of copyright. It includes a discussion of domain names and in rem jurisdiction at the place of registration of the domain name. The chapter then moves to an explanation of the jurisdictional rules in England, as well as the harmonized EU rules in the Brussels Regulation. The chapter analyses in rem, subject-matter jurisdiction and its interplay with personal jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation and the English Jurisdiction rules. The chapter briefly discusses the jurisdictional provisions in the EU Trademark Regulation, Community Design Regulation, and the European Patent. Finally, it covers the rules on applicable law in the Rome II Regulation and the Berne Convention.

Why Allianz v West Tankers Still Applies under the Brussels Regulation (Recast): An Analysis of Nori Holdings v Bank Otkritie [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm)

This article analyses Nori Holdings v Bank Otkritie [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm)—the only English decision hitherto holding that EU law’s prohibition on anti-suit injunctions based on arbitration agreements established in Allianz v West Tankers survives the Brussels Regulation (recast). We argue that Males J’s rejection of AG Wathelet’s hypothesis in his Gazprom opinion to the effect that the Regulation (recast) has overruled West Tankers is largely persuasive. At the same time, we also identify two problematic aspects of the judgment. Namely, we contend that the High Court was arguably wrong (i) to interpret AG Wathelet as envisaging that a case would ‘move in and out’ of the Regulation and (ii) to interpret Gazprom as holding that Member State courts are permitted to enforce all arbitral ‘anti-suit’ awards, including those enjoining a party from litigating in another EU Member State.

La promesa de hecho ajeno: cuestiones de competencia judicial internacional en la Unión Europea = The promise of a third party´s fact: issues of international judicial competence in the European Union

Resumen: La promesa de hecho ajeno es una modalidad contractual ampliamente conocida en la Unión Europa y, a su vez, paradigma de uno de los principios fundamentales del Derecho privado: la relatividad de los contratos. Desde una perspectiva axiológica y práctica, el operador jurídico debe conocer el escenario que puede devengarse en un supuesto internacional. Por ello, resulta oportuno trazar una aproximación al sector de la competencia judicial internacional en el Derecho Internacional Privado de la UE.Palabras clave: promesa de hecho ajeno, relatividad de los contratos, Reglamento Bruselas I-bis, contrato de prestación de servicios, competencia judicial internacional.Abstract: The promise of a third party´s fact is a contractual modality widely known in the European Union and, in turn, paradigm of one of the fundamental principles of private law: the relativity of contracts. From an axiological and practical perspective, the legal operator must know the landscape that may arise in an international case. For this reason, it is appropriate to draw an approximation to the sector of the international judicial competence in the EU Private International Law.Keywords: promise of a third party´s fact, relativity of contracts, Brussels Regulation I-bis, contract for the provision of services, international judicial competence.

Choice of Court Agreements after Brexit

The aim of the contribution is to assess whether Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement and Brussels Ibis Regulation are comparable legal instruments as far as choice of court agreements are concerned. The article shall analyze mutual features of the two legal instruments as well as their divergences in relation to choice of court agreements. The article shall demonstrate whether Hague Convention presents a complete and a comprehensive solution in terms of choice of court agreements for the UK provided that the Brussels Regulation is no longer applicable.

JURISDICTION IN TORT CLAIMS FOR NON-PHYSICAL HARM UNDER BRUSSELS 2012, ARTICLE 7(2)

Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation, 2012 confers jurisdiction, in matters relating to tort, on the courts of the Member State in which the harmful event occurred. In Bier v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace, the CJEU held that this covers both the place where the event which caused the damage takes place and the place where the damage itself takes place. In later cases, however, it held that does not cover the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial damage following upon initial damage arising and suffered by the victim in another Member State. A problem arises if there is no physical harm but only financial loss or some other kind of non-physical harm. It is not always clear in such a situation where the damage occurs. This article considers this problem with special reference to pure financial loss but also two other torts in which no physical harm occurs: defamation and intellectual-property infringement.