1968 Brussels Convention and EU Council Regulation No 44/2001: Jurisdiction in Consumer Contracts Concluded Online

Abstract: This paper addresses the issues on jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded online in the Member States of the European Union through analysis of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, which has been transformed into the Regulation recently. The changes brought by the Regulation to the régime of jurisdiction over consumer contracts in the European Union include the concept of the company ‘directing its activities towards particular Member State or States’ as a ground for a consumer to sue such a company in the country of his domicile. Since the list of criteria that could define the activity as directed to the particular Member State does not exist so far, the future effect of the Regulation remains unclear.     

The European Court of Justice in Bolagsupplysningen: The Brussels I Recast Regulation's jurisdictional rules for online infringement of personality rights further clarified

In the European Union the Brussels Ibis Regulation governs the jurisdiction of Member State courts in civil and commercial matters. The reference for a preliminary ruling coming from the Estonian Supreme Court in the Bolagsupplysningen case offered the European Court of Justice another opportunity to develop its interpretation of the special ground for non-contractual obligations (article 7.2). The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber ruled that legal persons, like natural persons, have the option of bringing a claim based on the infringement of personality rights by an online publication before the courts of the Member State where their centre of interests is located. It laid down that the centre of interests of a legal person pursuing an economic activity is determined by reference to the place where the company carries out the main part of its economic activities. The victim of a tortious internet publication can only seek an order for rectification and removal of the incorrect information in the courts that have jurisdiction over the entirety of the harm sustained and not before the courts that only enjoy jurisdiction with regard to the damage suffered in their territory.     

建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度--海牙《选择法院协议公约》述评

海牙国际私法会议于2005年6月所通过的<选择法院协议公约>系迄今为止国际社会在法院管辖权和外国法院判决承认和执行方面意义最为深远的一个公约.本文首先介绍了本文公约产生的背景以及公约的结构.之后,作者就公约中关于统一管辖权的规定进行了较为详细的评述被选择法院行使管辖权的权利和应该行使管辖权的义务、未被选择法院不行使管辖权的义务以及临时保护措施不受公约约束的例外规定.关于公约中所规定的外国法院判决的承认与执行制度作者从六个方面进行了探讨承认与执行外国判决的一般义务、承认与执行外国判决的例外情形、不审查与事实认定、先决问题、损害赔偿问题以及承认和执行外国判决的法律适用问题.     

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

The free movement of persons within the EU has meant that children at risk of harm from family members may be living in a Member State of which they are not a national. The child may be made subject to legal measures under the national law of the host State for the protection of their welfare. This article explores the competence of the EU to protect children in these circumstances, and the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation in governing jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. It discusses the difference between national child protection systems and the political controversy surrounding English law on adoption following care proceedings issued over a child who is a national of a different Member State. It suggests that further information sharing on national systems and cooperation between courts is necessary for the effectiveness of the law and to encourage understanding of legitimate variation in Member State national family law.     

2005年《选择法院协议公约》拒绝承认与执行外国判决的理由

2005年<选择法院协议公约>中的拒绝承认与执行规则是迄今为止最为详尽的关于间接管辖权的国际统一规则,其中的拒绝承认与执行的理由是间接管辖权规则的核心问题.起草者希望公约能与1958年纽约公约处理国际仲裁一样成功,新公约有可能成为国际民商事诉讼领域第一部全球性的多边条约.公约的间接管辖权规则虽然仅适用于协议管辖权依据,但是对于因其他管辖权依据引起的判决承认与执行,也具有非常重要的参考作用.     

Analysing the application of Brussels I in regulating e-commerce jurisdiction in the European Union – Success,deficiencies and proposed changes

This article analyses the regulatory framework of e-commerce jurisdiction in the European Union (EU). Firstly, it discusses and analyses the current regime under the Brussels Regulation, highlighting its success in consumer protection and the deficiencies for e-commerce jurisdiction, which need to be addressed. Secondly, the article compares the EU regime with that of the United States (US). It is argued that the US courts follow uncertain and distinct approaches compared to the clear rules of the Brussels Regulation. Their present approach of minimum contacts analysis as followed in the Yahoo! case poses problems for a transnational EU litigant in similar cases. Thirdly, the article examines the recent proposals adopted by the European Commission to remedy the deficiencies in the Regulation. The most important change proposed is the inclusion of third-state defendants within its ambit. It is argued that the changes to be adopted by the European Parliament are insufficient, and the author therefore provides recommendations. Lastly, the article highlights the inability of the proposed changes to address the deficiencies identified by the discussion.     

泰国的涉外民商事管辖权制度

在泰国,对不涉及不动产或与此相关的权利和利益的诉讼,由被告住所地或诉因发生地能行使地域管辖权的法院管辖;有关不动产或其他与不动产有关的权利的诉讼,由有地域管辖权的被告住所地法院或不动产所在地法院管辖.外国国家不能成为泰国法院的当事人;当事人不能自主地选择管辖法院;在外国法院待审的案件还可向有管辖权的泰国法院提交;泰国法律制度中没有不方便法院这一概念.     

The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law

At present, India is not a signatory to any international treaty or Convention that regulates the disputes arising from the international jurisdiction of courts or the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in transnational civil or commercial matters. These aspects are, consequently, regulated by the country’s private international law as espoused via case-law, in the absence of any codification of the rules on the subject. This has, therefore, exposed the Indian legal system to the threat of being unpredictable, inconsistent or even obsolete in some respects as far as the governance of international civil and commercial disputes are concerned. The paper, accordingly, investigates the plausible role that the two instruments presently under the scope of the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Judgment Project, namely, the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements [the HCCA] and the recent Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments [the Draft Convention], may have on the development of the Indian legal system. While the HCCA is already in force with three ratifications till date, the Draft Convention is merely in the form of a draft text that would hopefully see the light of the day, depending upon the consensus between the Members of the Hague Conference. Apropos, this paper identifies the loopholes in the relevant rules of the Indian private international law on the international jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and demonstrates the manner in which, these aspects may be addressed if the country endorses the two instruments under the Judgments Project.     

Chapter 6: Modification Jurisdiction

This chapter explains the rules governing modification jurisdiction, focusing on the exclusive continuing jurisdiction provision of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. 1738A(d). In every interstate child custody case where modification of an existing custody decree is at issue, courts should determine the effect of the PKPA's exclusive continuing jurisdiction rule on the exercise of jurisdiction. Have counsel address the applicability of the PKPA either orally or in a brief.     

Jurisdiction problems regarding Internet torts: Critical remarks

As the facts that led to the Dow Jones/Gutnick-decision of the High Court of Australia (10 December 2002) illustrate, the Internet is a powerful platform for communication. Its continuous worldwide accessibility urges discussion of a number of questions regarding tort jurisdiction. These are the starting points for some critical remarks regarding states' reciprocal claims to cross-border activities and the way in which they deal with the interests of the involved parties. For tort jurisdiction, the paper proposes and applies criteria for the assessment of the place where the harmful event has occurred or may occur (art. 5, subsection 3 Regulation 44/2001), as explained by the European Court of Justice of the European Union. Special attention is hereby given to some particularities that characterize Internet torts. On the one hand it concerns the alleged global assignment of jurisdiction that art. 5, subsection 3 may lead to and on the other hand the scope of the assigned jurisdiction in the court of the place where the damage occurs. The European approach is confronted with the principles of personal jurisdiction that are embedded in long arm statutes and the Due Process Clause, as applied in some leading American cases regarding Internet jurisdiction. It leads to suggestions regarding the development of a marginal test for the reasonableness of the jurisdiction art. 5, subsection 3 could lead to in a particular case, as well from the point of view of the weight of the connecting factor as to the scope of the jurisdiction that is based upon it.     

互联网环境下的国际民事管辖权

互联网对国际民事管辖权提出了挑战,必须研究新的确定管辖权的标准。滑动标尺法以被告通过互联网所从事的行为与法院地的密切程度来决定法院是否有管辖权;影响方法将行为产生的影响作为行使管辖权的标准;目标指向方法是前面两种方法的发展,更注重被告的互联网行为的明显指向和该行为对法院地造成后果的可预见性;欧洲的“消费者保护优先”模式将消费者的住所等作为管辖权标准。在互联网环境下,应以协议选择管辖原则、不方便法院原则和先受理法院原则协调管辖权冲突。我国现行立法存在缺陷,相关司法实践较少。就互联网环境下的国际民事管辖权,我国立法应严格限制专属管辖,禁止国籍管辖,允许当事人协议选择法院,参考目标指向方法和“消费者保护优先”模式确定我国的管辖标准。     

越南民商事管辖权制度探析

越南国会是越南最高权力机关和立法机关.越南法院分为三级:最高人民法院、地方人民法院和地区人民法院.对于"商事纠纷"的含义,在一些重要方面越南的规则与国际标准不同.<经济纠纷法>列举了经济法庭有权裁决的争议类型.包含"涉外因素"的经济案件,由越南经济法庭审理.地方(区)人民法院行使管辖权的依据是被告营业地或住所在法院管辖区内.管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面:外交豁免与领事豁免、外国土地和管辖权选择协议.未决诉讼案件原则和不方便法院原则并没有得到越南法学家们的广泛承认.管辖权冲突问题由越南最高人民法院解决.     

跨境证券犯罪刑事管辖及法律适用探讨

境内与境外的证券市场适用不同的法律监管体制,跨境证券犯罪的跨境特征可能使境内境外对相关证券犯罪均具有刑事管辖权,从而引发刑事管辖冲突。对于跨境证券交易的监管和法律适用,无论是在法律规定层面还是在司法实践层面,均应遵循“主场原则”。应明确监管职能上的分工以避免适用不同法律法规的混乱情况,应体现最大的监管效能并减少区际法律冲突。跨境证券犯罪的刑事管辖权归属应充分尊重行政监管原则和考虑前置性法律的适用,并与行政管辖权归属保持一致。跨境证券犯罪的刑事管辖权归属应考虑犯罪行为社会危害的主要发生地。以内幕交易为代表的跨境证券犯罪的主要行为是“交易”,根据区际刑事管辖冲突的解决规则,应由交易行为的发生地管辖,按照交易地的刑法对相关行为进行刑事评价。     

关于我国网络犯罪刑事管辖权立法的思考

在确定网络犯罪刑事管辖权时,适用传统的刑事管辖权理论面临诸多困境。许多国家的立法以及《网络犯罪公约》都在尝试解决这一问题,而我国关于网络犯罪管辖权的立法明显滞后。为了惩治和打击网络犯罪,我国应根据可能、公正、方便及国际协调原则,分别确立网络犯罪的国内管辖权和国际管辖权。对网络犯罪的国内管辖,可适用刑法中的地域管辖理论,借鉴民事网络案件的管辖权规则,以网络犯罪的IP地址作为确定管辖权的依据。在网络犯罪的国际管辖权方面,建议确立以属地管辖为基础、以法益受到损害的关联性为补充的有限扩张原则;同时,应通过参加或缔结网络犯罪刑事管辖的多边或双边国际条约来解决网络犯罪刑事管辖权的冲突问题。     

论《罗马条例Ⅰ》对欧盟合同冲突法的发展及对我国的启示

在国际民商事判决的执行和非合同之债法律适用领域,欧盟已经成功地以条例的形式进行了统一立法。但在合同冲突法领域,欧盟却迟至2008年才将1980年《罗马公约》转化为共同体立法——《罗马条例Ⅰ》。转化使得欧盟合同冲突法融入了共同体这一自足的法律体系,规则的解释得以统一,和其他领域的冲突法规则得以协调。在内容方面,《罗马条例Ⅰ》对《罗马公约》进行了一定发展,适度强化了当事人意思自治原则;对客观选择方法做了较大调整,降低了最密切联系原则的地位;以惯常居所统一了属人法;排除了客观选择方法中合同分割法的适用。这些发展均以追求合同法律适用的确定性、可预见性等欧洲大陆国际私法的传统价值为目标。这些发展对我国即将进行审议的《涉外民事关系法律适用法》中的合同冲突法部分的规则设计具有莫大的借鉴意义。     

The uncertain future of data retention laws in the EU: Is a legislative reset possible?

The article discusses the CJEU's most important case law, including interpretations presented in recent cases relating to data retention for both national security purposes (Privacy International, La Quadrature du Net) and the fight against serious crime (H.K). The analysis is a starting point for discussing the draft e-Privacy Regulation, in particular a controversial proposal introduced by the EU Council that may limit the Court's jurisdiction in cases involving data retention rules that cover state security.Negotiated over the past five years, the draft e-Privacy Regulation fleshes out EU data protection rules governing electronic communication services. As a result, the way in which obligations under the Regulation are defined is critical in setting a standard for retention rules consistent with CJEU case law for decades to come. At the same time, succumbing to pressure from Member States may have the opposite result – the emergence of new ambiguities concerning not only the admissibility of data retention but also the competence of EU institutions to regulate this area of the telecommunications sector.     

Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 hague child abduction convention

ABSTRACT

This article addresses two contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: (i) domestic violence and (ii) child participation. It also outlines three components of a global socio-legal policy and research initiative undertaken to address these issues and, where relevant, their intersection. The published literature on these topics, including the children’s objections exception, is explored, as are the ways in which these challenges are addressed within some of the 101 Contracting States to the Convention and through the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. Regard is paid to the data provided by the statistical analysis of applications made under the Convention in 2015 by Lowe and Stephens, and the changes which will occur once the Recast of The European Brussels 11a Regulation comes into operation. The likely impact for 1980 Hague Convention abduction proceedings of the UK having left the European Union at 23.00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is contemplated. Other current international initiatives are discussed, including the development of a child-friendly version of the Convention through The International Association of Child Law Researchers. Training is a key to changing attitudes and upskilling family justice professionals to ensure the Convention operates in a fully child-centric way. This will maintain and strengthen the Convention by keeping it ‘fit for purpose’.     

Enforcing trust judgments within the European Union: European Enforcement Orders

New rules have been introduced for enforcement of judgmentsin European Member States. Since 21 October 2005, for judgmentsdated after 20 January 2005 it has been possible to use a newenforcement system called the European Enforcement Order aswell as the old system of registering foreign judgments. Thisarticle examines the new rules as they apply to judgments intrust cases.     

晚近ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决的实证考察——兼谈我国首次被申诉案件的管辖权抗辩

近年来，ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决出现平稳增加的趋势。管辖权是ICSID仲裁庭得以作出有效裁决的基石，投资者和东道国也往往在进入实体争议之前首先就管辖权问题争锋相对。通过对近十年来ICSID仲裁庭的管辖权裁决进行分析，特别是结合公约内容中相关要件的规定，管辖权裁决的特征和趋势逐渐显露。考察晚近ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决，有助于分析ICSID仲裁庭自身的运作机制，积累实践案例经验，对于我国首次作为被申诉方参与ICSID进行管辖权抗辩也具有较强的启示作用。     

论专属经济区刑事管辖权的行使

对专属经济区行使刑事管辖权是保护主权权利和法理维权的需要,我国一直疏于行使该项权利。《联合国海洋法公约》对沿海国行使刑事管辖权既予以肯定又予以限制,我国应在该《公约》规定的范围内积极行使刑事立法管辖权和刑事司法管辖权,在附属刑法中对外国人侵犯我国主权权利及其附属权利的犯罪行为规定刑罚罚则,避免刑事立法空洞化。同时我国应对权属无争议专属经济区依法行使刑事管辖权,对权属重叠或争议的专属经济区根据对等原则行使刑事管辖权,并严格遵照《公约》规定保障当事国、当事船舶、当事人的权利。