Jurisdiction for cross-border breach of personality and defamation: eDate advertising and Martinez

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1007-1016
    Number of pages10
    JournalInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly
    Volume61
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 31 Oct 2012

    Fingerprint

    jurisdiction
    delict
    personality
    website
    regulation
    European Community
    newspaper
    electronic commerce
    court of justice
    event
    facebook
    reputation
    privacy
    communication technology
    communications
    ability

    Keywords

    • defamation
    • image rights
    • breach of personality
    • online publication
    • jurisdiction

    Cite this

    @article{1f22c95c03b14af28b21a3a75aaf76d9,
    title = "Jurisdiction for cross-border breach of personality and defamation: eDate advertising and Martinez",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "defamation , image rights, breach of personality, online publication, jurisdiction",
    author = "Lorna Gillies",
    year = "2012",
    month = "10",
    day = "31",
    doi = "10.1017/S0020589312000413",
    language = "English",
    volume = "61",
    pages = "1007--1016",
    journal = "International and Comparative Law Quarterly",
    issn = "0020-5893",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Jurisdiction for cross-border breach of personality and defamation

    T2 - eDate advertising and Martinez

    AU - Gillies, Lorna

    PY - 2012/10/31

    Y1 - 2012/10/31

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    KW - defamation

    KW - image rights

    KW - breach of personality

    KW - online publication

    KW - jurisdiction

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869431630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly

    U2 - 10.1017/S0020589312000413

    DO - 10.1017/S0020589312000413

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:84869431630

    VL - 61

    SP - 1007

    EP - 1016

    JO - International and Comparative Law Quarterly

    JF - International and Comparative Law Quarterly

    SN - 0020-5893

    IS - 4

    ER -