International Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights

The legal provision applicable to determine the jurisdiction to decide claims regarding the cross-border infringement of personality rights is Article 7, Section 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia). Article 7, Section 2, gives jurisdiction in non-contractual matters to the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. Called to interpret the concept of place where the harmful event occurred, the ECJ was forced to make an interpretative effort in case of online infringement of personality rights. It was so, because the information that is placed online can be accessed in any country. The offenses that occur on the Internet can have a global reach and cause damage with greater geographical extension and repercussions in the legal sphere of the victim, especially due to the geographical wide location of its users. The aim of this study is to highlight the latest trends of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding this topic.&nbsp

The Application of the General Rule of the Rome II Regulation to Internet Torts

Regulation No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) establishes the regime that governs the applicable law concerning torts situations involving a conflict of laws. The Rome II Regulation doesn’t have a specific rule regarding the Internet, however, many different types of torts occur online, and an effort to adapt the Rome II Regulation rules is crucial, due to the specific features of the Internet. This study addresses the adaptation of Article 4 (general rule applicable in the absence of a choice-of-law agreement), so it can be applied to Internet torts, especially Section 1 that determines the application of the law of the place of the damage. The main problem that arises from this rule is the concept of damage, specifically where the Internet is concerned: the concept of damage online; how can damage online be located; how can we solve those situations where it is difficult to locate the damage or the damage is spread across several countries

Choice-of-court Agreements in the E-commerce International Contracts

The choice-of-court agreements are a common practice in the e commerce international contracts. In the European Union, the choice-of-courts agreements find their legal framework in Article 25 of Regulation 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 (Brussels I bis). The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current legal framework, in the European Union, of the jurisdiction agreements in international contracts concluded in e commerce, comparing it to the previous one, and taking into consideration the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ)

The beneficiaries of the option to resort to the jurisdiction of the creditor’s habitual residence in the maintenance obligations regulation - the reversal of jurisprudence in the judgment WV versus

Este breve comentário analisa a decisão do TJUE Wv contra Landkreis Hamburg e a controvérsia que foi dirimida sobre a possibilidade de uma entidade pública recorrer ao tribunal do lu-gar da residência habitual do credor de alimentos, de acordo com o art. 3º al. b) do Regulamento Sobre Obrigações Alimentares, numa ação de regresso contra o devedor de alimentos relativa ao crédito de alimentos que lhe foi transmitido por sub-rogação legal, em resultado de prestações de assistência social.This brief commentary analyses the judgment of the ECJ, Wv against Landkreis Ham-burg, and the controversy that was settled over the possibility of a public entity appealing to the court of the creditor’s habitual residence, according to Article 3 (b) of the Maintenance Obligations Regulation, in an action for recovery of maintenance brought against the debtor concerning the maintenance credit that was transmitted to him by legal subrogation, as a result of social assistance benefits

Direito de asilo versus rapto internacional de crianças

The decision of European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) A against B, of August 2, 2021, confronts the legal framework of the right to asylum and of the international child abduction, and justifies the present commentary. The controversial issue resided in determining whether the transfer of a child to another Member State, due to an administrative decision taken in accordance with Regulation No. 604/2013, of 26 June 2013, establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Dublin III Regulation) constituted an unlawful removal of children, pursuant to Regulation No. No 2201/2003, of 27 November 2003, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIA Regulation) and the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention). This case puts the legal framework of the international child abduction in conflict with the regime of the right to asylum. What is going to be analysed is in what terms it is possible to harmonize the application of both legal frameworks, taking into account the best.A decisão do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia (TJUE) A contra B, de 2 de agosto de 2021, põe em confronto o regime jurídico do direito de asilo e o rapto internacional de crianças e, nesta medida, justifica a nossa atenção e o comentário que agora apresentamos. A questão controvertida residia em determinar se a transferência de uma criança para outro Estado-Membro, devido a uma decisão administrativa tomada de acordo com o Regulamento n.º 604/2013, de 26 de junho de 2013, que estabelece os critérios e mecanismos de determinação do Estado-Membro responsável pela análise de um pedido de proteção internacional apresentado num dos Estados-Membros por um nacional de um país terceiro ou por um apátrida (Regulamento Dublin III) constituía uma deslocação ilícita de crianças, nos termos do Regulamento n.º 2201/2003, de 27 de Novembro de 2003, relativo à competência, ao reconhecimento e à execução de decisões em matéria matrimonial e em matéria de responsabilidade parental (Regulamento Bruxelas II bis) e da Convenção de Haia de 1980 sobre os Aspetos Civis do Rapto Internacional de Crianças (Convenção de Haia). Este caso põe em confronto o regime jurídico do rapto internacional de crianças e do direito de asilo. O que passaremos a analisar em seguida é em que termos é possível harmonizar a aplicação de ambos os regimes jurídicos, tendo em consideração o superior interesse da criança e, utilizando como exemplo ilustrativo, a referida decisão do TJUE

The Application of the Rome II Regulation on the Internet Torts

The internet is a global system of interconnected networks that enable the development of private relations in contact with several legal systems. Different type of torts may occur on the cybernetic space. The Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) does not have specific rules for the internet torts, but that does not make it inapplicable to them. Sometimes the application of the Rome II Regulation rules to the internet torts will not have particular features, but most of the times the global scope and flexibility of location, two of the main characteristics of the internet, require an effort of adaptation of the Rome II Regulation rules. We tried to determine which conflict-of-law rules of the Rome II Regulation may be applicable to the internet torts and how that application should be done. There are damages carried out on the internet that falls under the general rules of the Rome II Regulation (Article 4 and Article 14), that arises from an infringement of an intellectual property rights (Article 8), cases of product liability (Article 5) and damages that arises of unfair competition or acts restricting free competition (article 6). As a previous step we have determined the scope of application of the Rome II Regulation and analyzed the relation between the Rome II Regulation and the Directive on electronic commerce

The e-commerce international consumer contract in the European Union

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) adapts the rule laid down in the Rome Convention regarding international consumer contracts, to take into account the requirements of the consumer protection in an international contract, as the weaker party, and the demands of electronic commerce. Article 6 determines the types of international contract protected and establishes the mechanisms to protect the consumer. However, the legal provision in question is not free from complications and requires an effort of interpretation to adjust the rule to the diffuse nature of the internet and to the characteristics of electronic commerce. This paper identifies the difficulties of application of the provision to e-commerce and discusses the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ)

Aspectos civis do rapto internacional de crianças: entre a Convenção de Haia e o regulamento Bruxelas II bis

A Convenção de Haia sobre os Aspectos Civis do Rapto Internacional de Crianças foi elaborada com o objectivo de proteger ou atenuar os efeitos da deslocação ou retenção ilícita através de fronteiras para as crianças, procurando garantir o regresso célere da criança ao país da sua residência habitual antes da deslocação. As soluções da Convenção de Haia foram pensadas para o regresso rápido da criança ao seu meio social e familiar de origem em caso de deslocação ou retenção ilícita e para impedir que a pessoa, geralmente o pai ou a mãe, que deslocou a criança para outro país, consiga obter uma decisão administrativa ou judicial neste último país que legitime a situação factual que foi criada. É uma das convenções com maior sucesso da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado, estando em vigor actualmente em noventa e quatro Estados, por isso, em primeiro lugar, é objectivo deste trabalho explicar o sistema instituído pela Convenção de Haia. Em segundo lugar, serão identificadas as soluções encontradas pelo Regulamento n.º 2201/2003 relativo à competência, ao reconhecimento e à execução de decisões em matéria matrimonial e de responsabilidade parental (Bruxelas II bis) para aperfeiçoar o regime da Convenção de Haia

A deslocação ou retenção ilícitas de crianças no Regulamento n.º 2201/2003 (Bruxelas II bis)

Resumo: A deslocação ilícita de crianças na União Europeia assume uma importância crescente à medida que se verifica um aumento dos movimentos migratórios que podem potenciar estas situações, quer quando um dos pais resolve deslocar-se para outro Estado-Membro, fazendo-se acompanhar da criança, quer quando resolve voltar ao seu país de origem com a criança. Reconhecendo os efeitos nefastos que esta situação pode implicar para o desenvolvimento da criança, o regulamento Bruxelas II bis contém normas que visam regular a deslocação ou retenção ilícitas de crianças com vista a obter um regresso célere da criança ao país onde residia antes dessa deslocação. É este regime que será analisado, tendo em conta a jurisprudência do TJUE.   Palavras-passe: deslocação ou retenção ilícitas de crianças; rapto internacional de crianças; regulamento n.º 2201/2003; regulamento Bruxelas II bis. Abstract: The wrongful removal of children in the European Union is becoming increasingly important as there is a raise of migration that can enhance these situations, when one parent decides to move to another Member State with the child, or when one parent decides to return to his country of origin with the child. Recognizing the adverse effects that this situation may lead in the development of the child, the Regulation Brussels II bis contains provisions intended to govern the wrongful removal or retention of children in order to get a speedy return of the child to the country where he had his habitual residence before the removal. This regime is going to be analyzed, taking into account the ECJ jurisprudence.   Key words: wrongful removal or retention of the child; international child abduction; regulation No 2201/2003; regulation Brussels II bis

Direito na lusofonia: diálogos constitucionais no espaço lusófono

Vol. 2II Volume de Atas do III Congresso Direito na Lusofonia.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio