Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

New Draft Report of European Parliament on Future Choice of Law Rule for Privacy and Personality Rights

November 24, 2011/3 Comments/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

The Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament has issued a new 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). The new report takes into account the recent E-Date Advertising judgment of the European Court of Justice.

The Draft Report proposes to add the following provision to the Rome II Regulation:

Article 5a – Privacy and rights relating to personality

(1) Without prejudice to Article 4(2) and (3), the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, shall be the law of the country in which the rights of the person seeking compensation for damage are, or are likely to be, directly and substantially affected.
However, the law applicable shall be the law of the country in which the person claimed to be liable is habitually resident if he or she could not reasonably have foreseen substantial consequences of his or her act occurring in the country designated by the first sentence.

(2) When the rights of the person seeking compensation for damage are, or are likely to be, affected in more than one country, and that person sues in the court of the domicile of the defendant, the claimant may instead choose to base his or her claim on the law of the court seised.

(3) The law applicable to the right of reply or equivalent measures shall be the law of the country in which the broadcaster or publisher has its habitual residence.

(4) The law applicable under this Article may be derogated from by an agreement pursuant to Article 14.

Many thanks to Jan von Hein for the tip-off.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2011-11-24 17:27:122011-11-24 17:27:12New Draft Report of European Parliament on Future Choice of Law Rule for Privacy and Personality Rights
3 replies
  1. Thomas Thiede says:
    November 25, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    With apologies for the shameless self-promotion … those interested in further work on the analytical underpinnings and benefit of a rule based around forseeability might want to look at my 2010 publication available here: .

    An English distillation of this work is in the pipeline and will hopefully appear in article form early next year but in the meantime a short English summary can already be found in a work in progress here:

  2. Thomas Thiede says:
    November 25, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    The links are:
    http://www.jan-sramek-verlag.at/Buchdetails.411.0.html?buchID=23&cHash=ef066431ac

    and

    http://ssrn.com/abstract=1964506

  3. Djordje Krivokapic says:
    December 5, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Are you aware of any commentary or clarification of the proposed solution and the rationale behind it?

    Tnx!

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: PIL Seminar at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, March 2012. Call for Papers Link to: PIL Seminar at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, March 2012. Call for Papers PIL Seminar at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, March 2012. Call for ... Link to: French Plaintiffs Drop Jewish or Not Jewish App Lawsuit Link to: French Plaintiffs Drop Jewish or Not Jewish App Lawsuit French Plaintiffs Drop Jewish or Not Jewish App Lawsuit
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top