scholarly journals Legal Aspects of Telepathology

2000 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 97-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Dierks
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Exchange ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Spatial Distance ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Security Level ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border

In some legal surroundings telepathology is considered a breach of registrational barriers. The recommendation of the G 8 states in Europe for required legislation in telemedicine suggests to recognise that the localization of the remote health care professional defines the site not only of licensure but also of liability. This approach must be considered helpful, since it can solve many problems brought about by the doubtful results of private international law and conventions like the European Union (EU) and Lugano Convention. Under today's conditions in private international law it must be considered essential to agree upon a choice of law and stipulate a court of jurisdiction when doing telepathology. However, the opposing aims of insuring the patients claims and avoiding jurisdictions that exceed the local expectations of the medical professional must be reconciled. Data protection and data security are other crucial topics that require attention. Generally speaking, the principles of minimum data exchange, anonymity, pseudonymity and cryptography must be established as a basis for all telepathology procedures. Only when personal data is needed, its use can be legitimated. Written consent of the patient is advised. To guarantee a cross‐border security level the regulations of the EU‐Data Protection Directive need to be transformed into national law. In practise, cross‐border dataflow shall only take place where the security level can be maintained even within the other country. Finally, reimbursement questions must be answered to establish a sound economical basis for telepathology. The spatial distance between the participants may yield the question, whether the service has been rendered to an extent necessary and sufficient for reimbursement. If reimbursement takes place on a cross‐border or cross‐regional level, severe disturbances of the health systems can occur. Regulation schemes or treaties need therefore to be developed to avoid such disturbances and encompass mutual standards of care as well as methods to balance reimbursement.

Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law Lessons from European Civil Procedure

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pietro Ortolani
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Hard Law ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

One of the main purposes of private international law is the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil matters. In the European Union (EU), this goal is pursued by an articulate body of regulations, forming part of what is usually labelled as ‘European procedural law’ or ‘European civil procedure’. In criminal law, by contrast, no such system exists: although Eurojust aims at resolving conflicts of jurisdiction by facilitating the identification of the jurisdiction that should prosecute cross-​border crimes, no hard-​law instrument regulates this matter in a binding fashion.

scholarly journals Private International Law and the African Economic Community: A Plea for Greater Attention

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 911-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Frimpong Oppong
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Subject ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons

Private international law deals with problems that arise when transactions or claims involve a foreign element. Such problems are most frequent in a setting that allows for the growth of international relationships, be they commercial or personal. Economic integration provides such a setting and allows for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital across national boundaries. The facilitation of factor mobility resulting from economic integration and the concomitant growth in international relationships results in problems which call for resolution using the tools of private international law. An economic community cannot function solely on the basis of economic rules; attention must also be paid to the rules for settling cross-border disputes. Consequently, considerable attention is given to the subject within the European Union (EU)1 and other economic communities.2

scholarly journals Las insolvencias transfronterizas en la Unión Europea: perspectivas jurisprudenciales y retos = Cross-border insolvencies in the European Union: recent case law and new challenges

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 360
Author(s):  
Elisa Torralba Mendiola
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

  Resumen: El Reglamento 848/2015, sobre procedimientos de insolvencia regula los problemas de Derecho internacional privado que suscitan las situaciones concursales en el ámbito de la Unión Euro­pea. En este trabajo se analiza la más reciente jurisprudencia del TJUE en materia concursal y los retos que se plantean a día de hoy en el tratamiento de la materia, que ponen de relieve la necesidad de adaptar la aplicación de los textos legales a situaciones políticas –y jurídicas– cambiantes.Palabras clave: insolvencia, cooperación, competencia.Abstract: Regulation 2015/848 on Insolvency Proceedings rules the private international law mat­ters regarding insolvencies within the European Union. This paper analyses the most recent case law of the EUCJ and the challenges actually existing in this area, that evidence the need to adapt the application of the rules to the changing legal and political context.Keywords: insolvency, cooperation, jurisdiction.

scholarly journals SPECIALIZATION OF JURISDICTION BACK FROM OBLIVION – A NEW ATTENTIVE AND ASSIDOUS APPROACH TO COMPLEX CROSS BORDER FAMILY LAW CASES OR POSSIBLE REVITALIZATION OF ‘MUTUAL TRUST’

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milka Rakočević ◽  
Ilija Rumenov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Complex Cross ◽  
The Hague

New trend emerges in the quest for establishing real actual trust between the main stakeholders in the complex cross border family law cases, which is providing for concentration of jurisdiction. The Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH) and the European Union (EU) are in forefront of establishing concentrating jurisdiction for those proceedings based on limitation of the number of courts in order to solve two problems: to enhance the predictability and the uniformity of the outcomes in these cases and to re-establish the mutual trust on realistic grounds instead of its current notion as a political decision. Such strategy is welcomed since it starts from the bottom and it tends to elevate the trust between the persons concerned in these proceedings and with that it stretches its prerogatives to the top, which is to enhance the trust between the legal systems. Whether it will succeed it depends again on the modalities of its establishment in the national legal systems. Generally, specialization of jurisdiction is frequently considered to be an important reform initiative in improving the development of a successful judicial system which is why it is recognized as a rapidly growing trend regarding the organization of the judiciary systems worldwide. The article will discuss the concepts of specialization of jurisdiction and its possible implementation in the national legal system of Republic of North Macedonia (N. Macedonia) regarding the complex cross border family law cases.

Cross-border litigation in England and Wales

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihail Danov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Eu

In the pre-Brexit era, England has established itself as one of the dominant jurisdictions for the resolution of cross-border disputes in the European Union (and the world). The legal regime in relation to private international law (PIL) in England and Wales has been significantly influenced by the EU PIL framework that was adopted at EU level. The United Kingdom decision to leave the EU might have significant implications for the parties’ access to justice in cross-border cases. This paper aims to devise a theoretical framework that is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of the UK’s decision to leave the EU on the private parties’ access to legal remedies. To this end, the author relies on empirical (qualitative) data that was gathered in 2015 and early 2016 in the context of the EU Private International Law: Legal Application in Reality (‘EUPILLAR’) project, indicating how the current EU PIL framework is functioning in England and Wales. An analysis of the way the parties’ strategies are devised under the current EU PIL regime helps in identifying the aspects which need to be considered, in order to set the research agenda and ascertain how the legal landscape in relation to PIL should be revised in the post-Brexit era.

scholarly journals Los efectos patrimoniales de los matrimonios y de las uniones registradas en la Unión Europea = Property consequences of marriages and of registered partnerships in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Andrés Rodríguez Benot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Property Regimes

Resumen: Desde el 29 de enero de 2019 la mayoría de los países de la UE aplica los Reglamentos 2016/1103 y 2016/1104, de 24 de junio de 2016, sobre los aspectos de Derecho internacional privado de los regímenes matrimoniales y de los efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registradas, respectivamente. Se trata de dos textos extensos y complejos que ofrecen una regulación global o de conjunto de los as­pectos de esta materia en supuestos que impliquen repercusión transfronteriza.Palabras clave: Régimen económico matrimonial,e Efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registra­das. Reglamentos de la UE 2016/1103 y 2016/1104.Abstract: Since 29th January 2019 most of EU Member States apply Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 concerning Private International Law in matters of matrimonial property regimes and in mat­ters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, respectively. Both are long and complex texts that govern comprehensively all issues of those matters having cross-border implications.Keywords: Matrimonial property regimes. Property consequences of registered partnerships. EU Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104.

scholarly journals Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: a Case of ''Privacy Tourism''?

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Revolidis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Online Privacy ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Internet Privacy ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Impact

This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties.

scholarly journals Cross‑Border Mediation: Towards a Balanced Framework for Cross‑Border Dispute Resolution in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-560
Author(s):  
Martin Senftl
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Border Dispute ◽  
The Eu

This paper takes the entry into force of the Singapore Convention on Mediation on 12 September 2020 as an opportunity to reconsider whether the European Union has reached its once ambitious goal to create a balanced relationship between mediation and litigation in cross-border disputes. After a brief overview of the current legal framework for cross-border mediation in the EU in the first section, the meaning of the concept of a balanced relationship and its implications for the regulation of mediation in cross-border disputes are analysed. Starting with the observation that the use of cross-border mediation is still very limited, this second section argues that attempts to establish a balanced relationship in quantitative terms are misguided. Instead of attempting to correct alleged decision deficits by the parties to a dispute, the paper emphasises the regulatory responsibility of European legislators to create a level playing field for different cross-border dispute resolution mechanisms. In this respect, the third section identifies the surprising absence of private international law rules in the EU’s mediation framework as a structural disadvantage of mediation, as compared to litigation and arbitration. The last part of the paper examines in detail the interaction between mediation and the Brussels Ia Regulation to provide specific examples of legal obstacles to cross-border mediation and potential ways to overcome them.

BAIL-IN AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW TO MAKE BANK RESOLUTION MEASURES EFFECTIVE ACROSS BORDERS

2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Lehmann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis

AbstractBank resolution is key to avoiding a repetition of the global financial crisis, where failing financial institutions had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. It permits recapitalizing banks or alternatively winding them down in an orderly fashion without creating systemic risk. Resolution measures, however, suffer from structural weakness. They are taken by States with territorially limited powers, yet they concern entities or groups with global activities and assets in many countries. Under traditional rules of private international law, these activities and assets are governed by the law of other States, which is beyond the remit of the State undertaking the resolution. This paper illustrates the conflict between resolution and private international law by taking the example of the European Union, where the limitations of cross-border issues are most acute. It explains the techniques and mechanisms provided in the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation to make resolution measures effective in intra-Eurozone cases, in intra-EU conflicts with non-Euro Member States and in relation to third States. However, it also shows divergences in the BRRD's transposition into national law and flaws that have been uncovered through first cases decided by national courts. A brief overview of third country regimes furthermore highlights the problems in obtaining recognition of EU resolution measures abroad. This article argues that regulatory cooperation alone is insufficient to overcome these shortcomings. It stresses that the effectiveness of resolution will ultimately depend on the courts. Therefore, mere soft law principles of regulatory cooperation are insufficient. A more stable and uniform text on resolution is required, which could take the form of a legislative guide or, ideally, of a model law. It is submitted that such a text could pave the way for greater effectiveness of cross-border resolution.

scholarly journals Application of Smart Contracts and Blockchain Platforms in Cross-Border Oil and Gas Transactions: Aggravation of Conflict-of-Laws Problem

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 84-94
Author(s):  
D. V. Andriyanov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Smart Contracts ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Computer Algorithms ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Law

Modern international hydrocarbons turnover is becoming more autonomous and decentralized. This process is facilitated not only by the introduction into contractual practice of such network technologies as smart contracts and blockchain platforms, but also by the wide dissemination of sources of non-governmental regulation (lex petrolea). In the context of the network paradigm of private international law, the classic problem of conflict of laws is exacerbated. The author considers the conflict-of-laws aspects of the use of smart contracts based on blockchain technology in cross-border oil and gas transactions, taking into account the fact that the use of computer algorithms does not create a new contract, but is only a special form of transaction. Such “automated” transactions in the oil and gas sector involving multiple jurisdictions create uncertainty in their legal regime. In the absence of a comprehensive substantive legal regulation, and in connection with the phenomenon of lex petrolea, the conflict-of-laws method of regulation predominates. The author shares his reasoning concerning the possibility of extending the application of Regulation No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union “On the Law to be Applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)” to smart contracts. The author concludes that existing regulation is quite applicable to smart contracts in cross-border oil and gas transactions. Another question is whether the law, which is applicable by virtue of a conflict-of-laws rule, provides for an appropriate substantive basis. To date, special legislation on smart contracts has been passed in only several American states. It is predicted that in the future, private international law will not only determine the law applicable to smart contracts, but will also be a guide to disseminating the positive experience of legal regulation of smart contracts in different countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document