Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:32:02.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JURISDICTION FOR CROSS-BORDER BREACH OF PERSONALITY AND DEFAMATION: EDATE ADVERTISING AND MARTINEZ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2012

Lorna Gillies
Lorna Gillies*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Leicester, lorna.e.gillies@leicester.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the conjoined cases C-509/09 e-Date Advertising GmbH v X and C-161/10 Olivier Martinez and others v MGN Ltd,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was required to determine the scope of applicability of both Article 5(3) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation)2 and Article 3 of Directive EC 2000/31 (the Electronic Commerce Directive). Both cases were concerned with defamation and breach of personality and image rights as a result of the publication of two newspaper articles which were accessible online via each of the defendants' websites. As readers will be fully aware, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation enables claimants to establish special jurisdiction in the case of a tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts of the Member State where a harmful event has occurred or may occur. The effectiveness of Article 5(3) as a ground of jurisdiction focuses on the locality of the event. The question that arose in both cases was, essentially, where could the claimants bring proceedings for breach of personality and defamation as a result of newspaper articles published online via websites,3 when those websites were accessible in multiple jurisdictions? According to an experienced legal practitioner in the United Kingdom, ‘more than 25 billion individual items of content are shared each month on Facebook alone.’4 There are increasing concerns regarding the dissemination of comments through the medium of ‘ubiquit(ous), converged and displace(d)’5 Web 2.0 communications technologies. Such communications increase the potential for criminal and civil consequences in numerous jurisdictions. The ability of injured parties (famous or not) to seek redress in the most appropriate forum for the purposes of protecting their private lives and reputations is acutely significant.6

Type
Current Developments: Private International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 1007 - 1016
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 C-509/09 e-Date Advertising GmbH v X and C-161/10 Olivier Martinez and others v MGN Ltd [2012] 3 WLR 227.

2 Readers will be aware that, at the time of writing, a ‘recast’ of the Regulation is under consideration in Brussels : COM 2010 748 FINAL COD 2010/0383, 14 December 2010.

3 Stone, P, EU Private International Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2010) 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 A Hamer, ‘Breaches in security of personal data’ in K Mathieson (ed), Privacy Law Handbook (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP/The Law Society 2010) 99.

5 Collins, , The Law of Defamation on the Internet (3rd edn, OUP 2010)Google Scholar 33. Words modified for syntax.

6 See generally Christie, I, Moreham, N and Warby, M (eds), Tugendhat and Christie, The law of privacy and the media (OUP 2010)Google Scholar; Tumbridge, James, ‘Defamation—the dilemma for bloggers and their commenters,’ (2009) 31(10) European Intellectual Property Review 505Google Scholar.

7 [1976] ECR 1735 (hereafter Bier).

8 C-26/91 Jacob Handte v TMCS [1992] ECR 1-3967.

9 Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder [1988] ECR 5565; Collins, L (ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2006)Google Scholar para 11-299, 416.

10 As distinct from the ‘substantive domestic law sense’; Fawcett, J and Carruthers, J, Cheshire, North and Fawcett: Private International Law (14th edn, Butterworths 2008)Google Scholar 249.

11 Reichert v Dresdner Bank (No 2) C-261/90 [1992] ECR I-2149; C-167/00 Verein Fur Konsumenteninformation v K H Henkel [2002] ECR I-8111; Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH [2002] ECR I-7357.

12 Kalfelis (n 8); Cheshire ,North and Fawcett (n 9) 248.

13 Collins (n 5) para 23.10, 433.

14 Cheshire, North and Fawcett (n 10) 254–5.

15 Warren, S and Brandeis, L, ‘The right to privacy’ (1890) 4 HarvLRev 193Google Scholar.

16 Mathieson, K (ed), Privacy Law Handbook (Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP/The Law Society 2010)Google Scholar 4.

17 Bigos, O, ‘Jurisdiction over cross-border wrongs on the Internet’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 588–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see eg the English case Applause Store Productions Ltd and Firsht v Raphael [2008] EWCH 1781 (QB).

18 Westin, A, Privacy and Freedom (Athenaeum 1967) 7Google Scholar; Christie, Moreham and Warby (n 6) x.

19 Wright, , Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart 2002) 163Google Scholar.

20 Rowland, D, Kohl, U and Charlesworth, A, Information Technology Law (4th edn, Routledge 2011) 150–1Google Scholar.

21 Collins, M, The Law of Defamation on the Internet (1st edn, OUP 2001)Google Scholar para 23-05, 273; K Mathieson (n 16) 1. See also D Wallis (Rapporteur), ‘European Parliament Draft Report with Recommendations to the Commission on the Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)’ (2009/2170 (INI) 2 December 2011) 5.

22 Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA Civ 595; Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22; McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714; Collins (n 5) para 23.06 ff, 431.

23 Rowland et al (n 20) 151.

24 Cheshire, North and Fawcett (n 10) 252.

25 2003 SC 36; see Edwards, L, ‘The Scotsman, the Greek, the Mauritian company and the Internet: where on earth do things happen in cyberspace?’ 2004 Edinburgh Law Review 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For criticism of the ‘mere accessibility’ of a website in establishing jurisdiction, see Joubert, N, ‘Cyber-Torts and Personal Jurisdiction: The Paris Court of Appeal Takes A Stand’ (2009) 58 ICLQ 476Google Scholar.

26 Cheshire, North and Fawcett (n 10) 254–5. On downloading see G Smith, ‘Here, there or everywhere? Cross-border liability on the internet’ 2007 CTLR 46 who refers, inter alia to the English case Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWCH 2422 (QB).

27 Stone, P, EU Private International Law (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2006) 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Bier.

29 Word added for syntax, given the Brussels Convention applied at the time of the Bier decision.

30 Opinion of the AG Cruz Villalón para I, citing Preamble 11, Brussels I Regulation.

31 As affirmed in Henderson v Jaouen [2002] EWCA Civ 75; Kronhofer v Maier [2004] Il Pr 27; Marinari v Lloyds Bank [1996] QB 217.

32 Farah, Y, ‘Jurisdictional Aspects of Electronic Torts, in the Footsteps of Shevill v Press Alliance SA’ (2005) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 198Google Scholar; Smith (n 26) 43, 46.

33 Cheshire, North and Fawcett (n 10) 256.

34 Shevill v Press Alliance SA [1995] 2 AC 18.

35 Domicrest v Swiss Bank Corpn [1999] QB 548.

36 Edwards (n 25) 100.

37 Opinion of AG Cruz Villalón, para 2.

38 Cheshire, North and Fawcett (n 10) 253; Jenard Report, 26; Hartley, T, International Commercial Litigation, Text, Cases and Materials on Private International Law (CUP 2009) 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Collins (n 21) para.3.20, 38.

40 Collins (n 9) para 11-305, 419.

41 Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185.

42 Gutnick v Dow Jones (2002) 201 CLR 575.

43 ibid 631.

44 ibid 581.

45 Collins (n 5) para 26.39, 490.

46 Olafsson v Gissurason (No2) [2008] 1 WLR 2016.

47 ibid per Sir Anthony Clarke MR at para 35.

48 Christie, Moreham and Warby (n 6) para 8.103, 387.

49 Young v New Haven Advocate US No 02-1394; Heathgrades.com v Northwest Healthcare Alliance US 02-1250; see eg Siddiqi, A, ‘Welcome to the City of Bytes? An Assessment of the Traditional Methods Employed in the International Application of Jurisdiction Over Internet Activities – Including A Critique of Suggested Approaches’ (2001) 14 New York International Law Review 43Google Scholar.

50 Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited [1999] 4 All ER 342.

51 ibid 209.

52 Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2000] 1WLR 1004.

53 Loutchanksy v Times Newspaper Ltd (Nos 2–5) [2002] QB 783.

54 Times Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom [2009] EMLR 14; K Macmillan, ‘‘‘Internet publication rule’’ survives’ (2009) 14(3) Communications Law 80.

55 Smith (n 26) 46.

56 Directive EC 2000/31.

57 Stone (n 27) 93. Cf the ability for injunctive relief against such parties remains; Christie, Moreham and Warby (n 6) para 8.97, 384 and para 12.49, 546.

58 [2007] 1 WLR 1243.

59 Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v (1) Designtechnica Corporation (2) Google UK Ltd (3) Google Inc [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB).

60 Decision of the Grand Chamber, para 16.

61 Judgment from the Grand Chamber, para 18.

62 The latter does not exist as a distinct right under English Law; K. Mathieson, ‘The Overlap of Privacy with Other Rights: Defamation, Copyright Freedom of Information and Protection of Sources,’ in K Mathieson (n 16) 106.

63 AG Villalón's Opinion, para 30.

64 ibid para 31.

65 ibid B, para 42.

66 ibid para 44.

67 ibid para 47.

68 ibid para 55.

69 ibid para 59, words added and modified for syntax.

70 As affirmed in C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reedere Karl Schluter GmbH & Co and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller [2011] OJ C55/4 and more recently by AG Villalón in C-173/11 Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, 21 June 2012, <http://curia.europa.eu> accessed 29 June 2012. Cf Joubert (n 25) who suggests a test (using objective criteria) similar to that of the ‘minimum contacts’ approach used in the United States to establish specific personal jurisdiction over a contractual dispute, to move away from mere accessibility of a website.

71 AG Opinion, paras 65–66.

72 ibid para 66.

73 Gillies, L, ‘A Review of the New Jurisdiction Rules for Electronic Consumer Contract’ Commentary, 2001(1) JILTGoogle Scholar <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_1/gillies/> 28 February 2001.

74 Henkel (n 11).

75 Opinion of the Grand Chamber, para 45.

76 ibid para 46.

77 ibid para 48.

78 ibid para 49.

79 Brand, R, ‘Tort Jurisdiction in a Multilateral Convention: The Lessons of the Due Process Clause and the Brussels Convention’ (1998) XXIV BrookJIntlL 149Google Scholar.

80 Opinion of the Grand Chamber (n 75) para 68.

81 Stone, P, ‘The Treatment of Electronic Contract and Torts in Private International Law under European Community Legislation’ (2002) 11(2) Information and Telecommunications Law 133Google Scholar.

82 Wallis (n 21) 5; C Wilkström, (Rapporteur), European Parliament Report with Recommendations to the Commission on the Amendment of Regulation (EC), No.864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II) (2009/2170 (INI)) 2 May 2012.

83 Mills, A, The Confluence of Public and Private International Law, Justice, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in International Constitutional Ordering of Private Law (CUP 2010) 18Google Scholar.

84 L Gillies, ‘Re-Conceptualising Conflicts Justice via the Approximation of Residual Jurisdiction in EC 44/2001’, April 2012, on file with author.

85 Collins (n 9) para 11-302, 418.