Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:33:33.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a European Approach in the Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jan-Jaap Kuipers

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Globalization has led to the emergence of broadcasting services and books aimed at a global audience. Authors of books, journals, and articles have gained readers worldwide. Due to the Internet, the spreading of ideas on a global level has never been easier. The other side of the coin is that authors run a risk of being exposed to civil proceedings in many jurisdictions. What is considered to be proactive journalism, or a provocative academic comment in some jurisdictions is considered to be libel or defamation in others. We speak of “libel tourism” when defamation proceedings are brought in a forum that has only vague connections to the case, but happens to be very plaintiff-friendly.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2011 , pp. 1681 - 1706
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Matthew Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet (3d. ed. 2011).Google Scholar

2 Avi Bell, Libel Tourism: International Forum Shopping for Defamation Claims (2008), available at http://www.globallawforum.org/UserFiles/puzzle22New(1).pdf (last visited 16 Aug. 2011); Hartley, Trevor, “Libel Tourism” and Conflict of Laws, 59 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 25 (2010).Google Scholar

3 The freedom of speech is recognised in Art. 10 of the ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 10, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR] (also known as “European Convention on Human Rights”), and art. 11 of the EU Charter, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 11, 18 Dec. 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1, 11 [hereinafter EU Charter]. The right to private life is protected by art. 8 ECHR and art. 7 EU Charter.Google Scholar

4 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”), COM (2003) 427 final (July 22, 2003) [hereinafter Rome II Proposal].Google Scholar

5 On the online symposium Rome II and Defamation, both Hartley and Dickinson have expressed a preference to maintain the status quo. Martin George, Rome II and Defamation: Online Symposium, ConflictofLaws.net (19 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/rome-ii-and-defamation-online-symposium. See Dickinson, Andrew, Privacy and Personality Rights in the Rome II Regime—Not Again?, ConflictofLaws.net (19 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/privacy-and-personality-rights-in-the-rome-ii-regime-not-again; Hartley, Trevor, Hartley on the Problem of “Libel Tourism,” ConflictofLaws.net (19 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/hartley-on-the-problem-of-libel-tourism.Google Scholar

6 Council Regulation 44/2001, arts. 2 & 5(3), 2001 O.J. (L 012) 1, 3–4 [hereinafter Brussels I regulation].Google Scholar

7 Case 21/76, Handelswekerij G.J. Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA, 1976 E.C.R. 1735 [hereinafter Mines de Potasse case].Google Scholar

8 Mankowski, Peter, Special Jurisdictions: Article 5, in Brussels I Regulation 77, 192 (Ulrich Magnus & Peter Mankowski eds., 2007).Google Scholar

9 Case C-68/93, Shevill v. Presse Alliance SA, 1995 E.C.R. I-415 [hereinafter Shevill case].Google Scholar

10 Joined Cases C-509/09, eDate Adver. GmbH v. X & C-161/10, Martinez v. Société MGN Ltd. (29 Mar. 2011), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009C0509:EN:NOT [hereinafter eDate & Martinez cases].Google Scholar

11 Id. Google Scholar

12 Hartley identifies the high amount of damages to be a significant factor explaining the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as place for defamation proceedings. Hartley, supra note 2.Google Scholar

13 Martinez case ¶¶ 33–67.Google Scholar

14 Tribunal de grand instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, 3 Mar. 2011, Case No. 0718523043 (Fr.).Google Scholar

15 Paulsson v. Cooper (2011), 105 O.R. 3d 28 (Can. Ont. C.A.) [hereinafter Paulsson case].Google Scholar

16 The court first observed that the applicant had recognized that she merely brought criminal proceedings in France because that would be less costly for her and because the French court was most likely to find in her favor. The court found that since the plaintiff was a French/Israeli citizen who had studied law in France, she should have known that on the merits her action would not stand a chance of success. Tribunal de grand instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, 3 Mar. 2011, Case No. 0718523043 (Fr.).Google Scholar

17 The total circulation of the review in question (Slavic Review) was 3528. Paulsson case ¶ 12.Google Scholar

18 Paulsson case ¶¶ 25–45.Google Scholar

19 Working Document of the European Parliament on the Amendment of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II)—Work in Progress (23 May 2011), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/juri/dv/836/836983/836983_en.pdf (last visited 15 Aug. 2011).Google Scholar

20 Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council On Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast), COM (2010) 748 final (14 Dec. 2010) [hereinafter Commission Proposal].Google Scholar

21 Beaumont, Paul & Johnston, Emma, Abolition of Exequatur in Brussels I: Is a Public Policy Defence Necessary for the Protection of Human Rights?, 2010 IPRax 105; Schlosser, Peter, The Abolition of Exequatur Proceedings—Including Public Policy Review?, 2010 IPRax 101;Google Scholar

22 Commission Proposal, supra note 20, at 6–7.Google Scholar

23 Brussels I regulation, supra note 6, at art. 36.Google Scholar

24 Article 46 would create an extraordinary remedy in the Member State of enforcement which would enable the defendant to contest any procedural defects in the proceedings before the court of origin which may have infringed the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Id. at art. 46.Google Scholar

25 Case C-7/98, Krombach v. Bamberski, 2000 E.C.R. I-1935; Case C-394/07 Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada, Inc., 2009 E.C.R. I-2563.Google Scholar

26 Balin, Robert, Laura Handman & Erin Reid, Libel Tourism and the Duke's Manservant—An American Perspective, 2009 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 303; Garnett, Richard & Richardson, Megan, Libel Tourism or Just Redress? Reconciling the (English) Right to Reputation with the (American) Right to Free Speech in Cross-Border Libel Cases, 5 J. Private Int'l L. 471 (2009); Warshaw, Aaron, Uncertainty from Abroad: Rome II and the Choice of Law for Defamation Claims, 32 Brook. J. Int'l L. 269 (2006).Google Scholar

27 N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). See Hancock, Catherine, Origins of the Public Figure Doctrine in First Amendment Defamation Law, 50 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 81 (2005); Wertman, Justin, The Newsworthiness Requirement of the Privilege of Neutral Reportage is a Matter of Public Concern, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 789 (1996).Google Scholar

28 A detailed comparative account is given by Collins, supra note 1. See also Lawrence McNamara, Reputation and Defamation (2007).Google Scholar

29 Garnett, & Richardson, , supra note 26, at 481.Google Scholar

30 Brussels I regulation, supra note 6, at art. 4.Google Scholar

31 Case C-281/02, Owusu v. Jackson, 2005 E.C.R. I-1383. See Jonathan Harris, Understanding the English Response to the Europeanization of Private International Law, 4 J. Private Int'l L. 347 (2008); Hartley, Trevor, The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws, 54 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 813 (2005).Google Scholar

32 See, e.g., Diana Wallis, Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”) 39 (27 June 2005) [hereinafter Wallis Report], http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2005-0211+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN (“In contrast to previous instruments where the Community has taken over an existing international convention on private law, in this instance there was no previous convention, which provides a unique opportunity to legislate in a specifically Community context.”).Google Scholar

33 Council Regulation 864/2007, On the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”), 2007 O.J. (L 199) art. 3 [hereinafter Rome II regulation].Google Scholar

34 For example, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the protection of private life should prevail over the freedom of expression if the published photos and articles did not contribute to a debate of general interest. Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, 40 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 (2005).Google Scholar

35 Lord Hoffmann, Fifth Dame Anne Ebsworth Memorial Lecture: The Libel Tourism Myth (6 Feb. 2010), http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/02/the-libel-tourism-myth.Google Scholar

36 Bachchan v. India Abroad Publ'ns, Inc., 585 N.Y.S.2d 661, 665 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992).Google Scholar

37 155 Cong. Rec. S2323–01, S2342–43 (daily ed. 13 Feb. 2009) (statement of Sen. Specter).Google Scholar

38 Bin Mahfouz v. Ehrenfeld, [2005] EWHC (QB) 1156, [22], [52] (Eng.).Google Scholar

39 Garnett, & Richardson, , supra note 26, at 480.Google Scholar

40 Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act), Pub. L. No. 111–223, 124 Stat. 2380 (to be codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1, 4101–05 (2012)).Google Scholar

41 International diplomacy could have played a role here. See Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, Press Standard Privacy and Libel, 2009-0, H.C. 362-I, at 54. The report called upon the U.K. government to seek to discuss the situation with its U.S. counterparts in Washington.Google Scholar

42 Consultation on a Preliminary Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, art. 7 (3 May 2002), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/rome_ii/news_hearing_rome2_en.htm (last visited 15 Aug. 2011).Google Scholar

43 Wagner, Rolf, Das Vermittlungsverfahren zur Rome II—Verordnung, in Die richtige Ordnung: Festschrift für Jan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag, 715 (Dietmar Baetge, Jan von Hein & Michael von Hinden eds., 2008).Google Scholar

44 Rome II Proposal, art. 6Google Scholar

45 Wallis Report 39, amends. 9 & 10.Google Scholar

46 Wagner, supra note 43.Google Scholar

47 See generally Andrew Dickinson, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations 234–38 (2008); Kunke, Christopher, Rome II and Defamation: Will the Tail Wag the Dog?, 19 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1733 (2005); Wagner, Gerhard, Article 6 of the Commission Proposal: Violation of Privacy—Defamation by Mass Media, 13 Eur. Rev. Private L. 21 (2005); Eechoud, Mireille van, The Position of Broadcasters and Other Media Under the Proposed EC ‘Rome II’ Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, 2006 IRIS Plus, no. 2006-10, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=973774 (last visited 15 Aug. 2011).Google Scholar

48 Rome II regulation art. 30(2).Google Scholar

49 Mankowski, Peter, Herkunftslandprinzip und deutsches Umsetzungsgesetz zur e-commerce Richtlinie, 2002 IPRax 257; Spindler, Gerald, Herkunftslandprinzip und Kollisionsrecht—Binnenmarktintegration ohne Harmonisierung?, 66 RabelsZ 633, 651 (2002).Google Scholar

50 For an account of the discussion, see Michael Hellner, The Country of Origin Principle in the E-Commerce Directive: A Conflict with Conflict of Laws?, in Les Conflits de Lois et le Système Juridique Communautaire 205 (Angelika Fuchs et al. eds., 2004).Google Scholar

51 Directive 2000/31/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market (“Directive on Electronic Commerce”), 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1, art. 1(4) [hereinafter E-Commerce Directive].Google Scholar

52 Working Document on Determining the International Application of EU Data Protection Law to Personal Data Processing on the Internet by Non-EU Based Web Sites, Eu. Parl. Doc. 5035/01/EN/Final WP 56, 6 (2002), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2002/wp56_en.pdf (last visited 15 Aug. 2011).Google Scholar

53 See generally Martinez & eDate cases.Google Scholar

54 A.G. Cruz Villlalón argues in his opinion in Martinez & eDate that the E-Commerce Directive does not lay down a conflict of laws rule. Id. at ¶¶ 68–81.Google Scholar

55 Joined Cases 286/82, Luisi v. Ministero del Tesoro & 26/83, Carbone v. Ministero del Tesoro, 1984 E.C.R. 377; Case 186/87, Cowan v. Trésor Public, 1989 E.C.R. 195.Google Scholar

56 Dickinson, supra note 47, at 645.Google Scholar

57 Case C-205/07, Gysbrechts v. Santurel Inter BVBA, 2008 E.C.R. I-9947.Google Scholar

58 For greater detail, see Jan-Jaap Kuipers, EU Law and Private International Law: The Interrelationship in Contractual Obligations (forthcoming 2011) (manuscript at 329).Google Scholar

59 E-Commerce Directive recital 23.Google Scholar

60 The Mainstrat Study also concludes that Art. 4 constitutes a connecting factor but presupposes that “national law applicable” refers to both public and private law, without explaining it.Google Scholar

61 Michaels, Ralf, EU Law as Private International Law? Reconceptualising the Country-of-Origin Principle as Vested-Rights Theory, 2 J. Private Int'l L. 195 (2006).Google Scholar

62 Wilderspin, Michael, The Rome II Regulation; Some Policy Observations, 26 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 408, 410 (2008).Google Scholar

63 Mainstrat, Comparative Study on the Situation in the 27 Member States as Regards the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Arising out of Violations of Privacy and Rights Relating to Personality (Feb. 2009), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc/study_privacy_en.pdf. [hereinafter Mainstrat Study].Google Scholar

64 Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania.Google Scholar

65 Mainstrat Study 81.Google Scholar

66 Einführungsgesetzes zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche [BGB] [Civil Code] art. 40(1) (Ger).Google Scholar

67 Dickinson, supra note 43, at 238.Google Scholar

68 Case C-275/06, Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v. Telefónica de España SAU, 2008 E.C.R. I-271. See Peter Oliver, The Protection of Privacy in the Economic Sphere Before the European Court of Justice, 46 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1443 (2009).Google Scholar

69 George, supra note 5. See Angela Mills Wade, EPC on the Link Between Brussels I and Rome II in Cases Affecting the Media, Conflictoflaws.net (July 25, 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/epc-on-the-link-between-brussels-i-and-rome-ii-in-cases-affecting-the-media.Google Scholar

70 Wade, Mills, supra note 69.Google Scholar

71 Code Private International Law art. 99.2.1 (Belg.).Google Scholar

72 Code Private International Law art. 108.3 (Bulg.).Google Scholar

73 Law Concerning the Settlement of Private International Law Relations of Sept. 22, 1992, art. 112, no. 105 (Rom.).Google Scholar

74 George, supra note 5. See Jan von Hein, Von Hein on Rome II and Defamation, Conflictoflaws.net (19 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/von-hein-on-rome-ii-and-defamation.Google Scholar

75 Wagner, Gerhard, Ehrenschutz und Pressefreiheit im europäischen zivilverfahrens—und Internationalen Privatrecht, 62 RabelsZ 243 (1998); George, supra note 5. Heiderhoff, Bettina, Privacy and Personality Rights in the Rome II Regime—Yes, Lex Fori, Please!, Conflictoflaws.net (20 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/heiderhoff-privacy-and-personality-rights-in-the-rome-ii-regime-yes-lex-fori-please.Google Scholar

76 Case C-220/88, Dumez France SA v. Hessische Landesbank, 1990 E.C.R. I-49, ¶ 17; Case C-364/93, Marinari v. Lloyds Bank PLC, 1995 E.C.R. I-2719, ¶ 10; Case C-189/08, Zuid-Chemie BV v. Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA, 2009 E.C.R. I-6917.Google Scholar

77 George, supra note 5. See Olivera Boskovic, Boskovic on Rome II and Defamation, Conflictoflaws.net (20 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/boskovic-on-rome-ii-and-defamation. Boskovic proposes to simply delete the defamation exception and make defamation subject to the general conflict of laws rules.Google Scholar

78 Under Article 2 Brussels I a defendant can be sued in the courts of the place where he is domiciled. Brussels I report art. 2.Google Scholar

79 Wagner, Gerhard, Internationales Deliktsrecht, die Arbeiten an der Rom II-Verordnung und der Europäische Deliktsgerichtsstand, 2006 IPRax 372.Google Scholar

80 In the same sense: Hartley, supra note 2, at 35; Hinden, Michael von, Ein europäisches Kollisionsrecht für die Medien, in Die richtige Ordnung: Festschrift für Jan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag .573 (Dietmar Baetge, Jan von Hein & Michael von Hinden eds., 2008). Von Hinden proposes a center of gravity test (Schwerpunktbildung) but falls for its determination back upon the place of habitual residence of the victim, provided that distribution occurred in that place.Google Scholar

81 In the same sense: Thomas Thiede, Sachgerechte Haftung der Massenmedien bei grenzüberschreitender Berichterstattung, in Medienpolitiek und Recht 149 (H. Koziol et al. eds., 2010). Thiede proposes a flexible system based upon the closest connection when a publication occurs in several countries. The forseeability of the application of that law to the author and of the objectively most closely related legal system is relevant. The latter depends upon the perception of affront by an average observer and the social connections of the person affected.Google Scholar

82 The same is proposed by Kunke, supra note 47. Kunke proposes to introduce elements of the governmental interest analysis in Rome II while taking the place where the most significant elements of the damage occurred as ground rule.Google Scholar

83 George, supra note 5. See Louis Perreau-Saussine, Perreau-Saussine on Rome II and Defamation, Conflictoflaws.net (21 July 2010), http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/perreau-saussine-on-rome-ii-and-defamation.Google Scholar

84 Richard Plender, Michael Wilderspin & The Eur. Parl., The European Private International Law of Obligations (2009); Stephan Rammeloo, Das neue EG–Vertragskollisionsrecht—Die artt. 4, 5 und 6 des Übereinkommens über das auf vertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwenden Recht von 19.6.1980: Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse objektiver Vertragsanknüpfungen (1992).Google Scholar

85 Council Convention 80/934/EEC, On the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, 1980 O.J. (L 266) 1, 2, art. 4(2). This paragraph has been slightly oversimplified. A presumption was also established by Articles 4(3), relating to contracts for the right in an immovable property, and 4(4), relating to contracts of carriage.Google Scholar

86 Case C-133/08, Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v. Balkenende Oosthuizen BV & MIC Operations BV, 2009 E.C.R. I-9687. The different national approaches are discussed in the opinion of A.G. Bot. See Stephan Rammeloo, Op de valreep … Eenvormige interpretatie door Hof van Justitie EG van artikel 4 EVO, 28 NIPR 20 (2010).Google Scholar

87 HR 25 september 1992, NIPR 1993, 105 m.nt. AA (Société Nouvelle des Papéteries de L'Aa SA/BV Machinefabriek BOA) (Neth.); HR 17 oktober 2008, LJN BE7201, C07/037HR, (Centraal Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers/Baros AG) (Neth.); Rammeloo, Stephan, Die Auslegung von Art. 4 Abs. 2 und Abs. 5 EVÜ: Eine niederländische Perspektive, 1994 IPRax 243, 43–45; Struycken, Teun, Een letter of credit en accessoire aanknoping 19 NIPR 204 (2001).Google Scholar

88 Bank of Baroda v Vysya Bank, Ltd., [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 87 (Q.B.D. (Comm. Ct.)) (Eng.); Marconi Commc'ns Int'l, Ltd. v. PT Pan Indonesian Bank, Ltd., [2005] EWCA (Civ) 422, [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 72 (Eng.); Definitely Maybe (Touring), Ltd. v. Marek Lieberberg Konzertagentur GmbH, [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 455 (Q.B.D. (Comm. Ct.)) (Eng.).Google Scholar

89 See generally eDate & Martinez cases.Google Scholar

90 The introduction of a specific public policy clause dealing with defamation would however be superfluous. Article 26 Rome II already provides that the application of a provision of the governing law may be refused if such application would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum.Google Scholar

The authors are organizers of the UCD School of Law's Fifth Annual Postgraduate Conference on Human Rights, and would like to thank the German Law Journal, and in particular its student editorial board for the excellent work in preparing this symposium publication; the staff of UCD School of Law, particularly Dr. Fiona de Londras, Professor John Jackson, Professor Imelda Maher, John Biggins and Suzanne Egan; the PhD candidates at UCD School of Law, particularly Joanne O'Toole Byrne, Aoife Foley, Anatole Abaquesne, Donal Casey, Chuanman You and Rumyana Grozdanova; Michael O'Boyle, Justice John Hedigan, Sean O'Toghda, Carl Grainger, Colin Smith, members of the Board of the Irish Society of International Law, and of course, all the participants, chairs and discussants that invaluably contributed to the event.Google Scholar