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.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 369-405
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Internet Communication ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Personality Rights ◽  
General Data ◽  
Brussels Regulation

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.

The Second Internet: The Brussels Bourgeois Internet

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
Kieron O’Hara
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Space ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Internet Privacy ◽  
Data Protection Directive ◽  
General Data ◽  
Data Protection Law

This chapter describes the Brussels Bourgeois Internet. The ideal consists of positive, managed liberty where rights of others are respected, as in the bourgeois public space, where liberty follows only when rights are secured. The exemplar of this approach is the European Union, which uses administrative means, soft law, and regulation to project its vision across the Internet. Privacy and data protection have become the most emblematic struggles. Under the Data Protection Directive of 1995, the European Union developed data-protection law and numerous privacy rights, including a right to be forgotten, won in a case against Google Spain in 2014, the arguments about which are dissected. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) followed in 2018, amplifying this approach. GDPR is having the effect of enforcing European data-protection law on international players (the ‘Brussels effect’), while the European Union over the years has developed unmatched expertise in data-protection law.

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.

scholarly journals EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE EU GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 531-565
Author(s):  
Md. Toriqul Islam ◽  
Mohammad Ershadul Karim
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
General Data ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Data Controller ◽  
The Eu

The General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) of the European Union (EU) emerges as a hot-button issue in contemporary global politics, policies, and business. Based on an omnibus legal substance, extensive extraterritorial scope and influential market powers, it appears as a standard for global data protection regulations as can be witnessed by the growing tendency of adopting, or adjusting relevant national laws following the instrument across the globe. Under Article 3, of the GDPR applies against any data controller or processor within and outside the EU, who process the personal data of EU residents. Therefore, the long arm of the GDPR is extended to cover the whole world, including Malaysia. This gives rise to tension worldwide, as non-compliance thereof leads to severe fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual turnover. This is not a hypothetical possibility, rather a reality, as a huge amount of fines are already imposed on many foreign companies, such as Google, Facebook, Uber, and Equifax to name a few. Such a scenario, due to the existence of state sovereignty principles under international law, has made the researchers around the world curious about some questions, why does the EU adopt an instrument having the extraterritorial application; whether the extraterritorial scope is legitimate under normative international law; how the provisions of this instrument can be enforced, and how these are justified. This article attempts to search for answers to those questions by analyzing the relevant rules and norms of international law and the techniques of the EU employed. The article concludes with the findings that the extraterritorial scope of the GDPR is justified under international law in a changed global context. The findings of this article will enlighten the relevant stakeholders, including Malaysian policymakers and business entities, to realise the theoretical aspects of inclusion of the extraterritorial feature of the GDPR, and this understanding may facilitate them to map their future strategies.

The (Extra-)territorial Scope Rules of the New European Data Protection Law from a Private International Law Perspective—A Model for South Africa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Baumann ◽  
Nazreen Ismail
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Technical Developments ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Data Protection Law

Novel technical developments are a source for new business models and, at the same time, a challenge for legal systems and in particular data protection laws. A fundamental challenge in this respect is the delocalisation of data proceedings enabled by modern technologies. In addition, most cases related to such new data driven business models contain foreign elements. From a data protection perspective this raises numerous legal questions, related to the territorial scope of data protection instruments and their relation to the established rules and principles of private international law. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) addresses the delocalisation with extra-territorial scope rules, but the discussion on how those provisions are embedded in the legal framework of private international law has only started. This article will address those questions in context of the GDPR and the South African Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) from a comparative perspective. After a brief overview of the GDPR, the requirements of the territorial scope rules of Articles 3(1) and (2) GDPR will be examined. Thereafter, the doctrinal classification of these rules within the established categories of private international law and the question of whether a choice of the applicable data protection law is permitted within the legal framework of the EU will be investigated. In conclusion, the article examines the territorial scope of the POPIA and provides recommendations for an improvement of the existing rules de lege ferenda.

scholarly journals FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS AND THE LEGAL SECURITY OF DOCUMENTS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 76-89
Author(s):  
Mădălina Cocoșatu ◽  
◽  
Claudia Elena Marinică ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Impact

The increase of international and European Union migration has led to increasing attention to the impact of Member States' legislation on the recognition, legal certainty and standardization of procedures for the movement of official documents, as part of the free movement of persons within the European Union. This article responds to European Union's needs by examining the extent to which the various regulations, in particular regulations having direct and immediate application, being long and complex and comprehensively governing some cross-border procedures that underline the recognition of official documents within the European Union. It is a fact that the Union facilitates and accelerates the cross-border application of aspects of the free movement of persons in private international law, encourages the simplification of the requirements for the presentation of certain official documents in EU, while strengthening the security of Union citizens' identity cards and residence documents etc. By using the historical and comparative method, the conclusions drawn from this analysis refer to the need to apply these legislative rules established due to the necessity to ensure legal certainty and predictability at Union level, but also offering to European citizens an attractive option compared to the classic variants of international law, the latter providing at times a more convincing and comprehensive legal certainty.

scholarly journals The Impact Of Rome I Regulatıon In Albanıan Prıvate Internatıonal Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Ilda Mucmataj
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I ◽  
The Impact

In terms of globalization, the economic activities have overcome national boundaries of states. So due to people’s mobility and their frequent relations in private field, the number of private international actions has increased as well, and gives in this way the importance of private international law. The conflict of law rules in the national law were not unaffected by European integration. So, the developments that took place in the European Union in the field of private international law over the past years had a large impact on the national conflict of laws rules in Albania, especially on the conflict of laws rules of certain specific areas of law. The aim of this article is to analyze the interaction between European Union law and the Albanian conflict of laws rules in the area of contractual obligations. So on one hand, I have presented a general analysis on the main provisions of the EC Regulation No. 593/2008 of The European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law applicable to contractual obligations, known as (Rome I), as the role of the European Union is becoming increasingly active in PIL. While, on the other hand I have presented a short introduction of the historical development of APIL and its characteristics and then I have given a comparative view of Albanian Private international Law relating to the contractual obligations with the focus on party autonomy provisions. The article concludes with a short conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document