Advertisement

Social Media and the Protection of Privacy: Current Gaps and Future Directions in European Private International Law

  • Jan von HeinEmail author
  • Anna Bizer
Regular Paper

Abstract

This article considers the current situation in European private international law regarding the protection of privacy and personality rights in social media. When privacy infringements occur on the internet, difficult questions as to determining jurisdiction and the applicable law arise. This field is so far only partially governed by European Union law and still leaves a gap that must be filled by the domestic choice-of-law rules of the member states. The article addresses these problems taking into account the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Keywords

Jurisdiction Choice of law Social media Privacy and personality rights 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold, C.: Die Gerichtsstandsklausel in den AGB von Facebook aus schweizerischer Sicht. Swiss. Rev. Int. Eur. Law 22, 613–631 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auda, A.G.R.: A Proposed solution to the problem of libel tourism. J. Priv. Int. Law 12, 106–131 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Augsberg, I.: Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In: von der Groeben, H., Schwarze, J., Hatje, A. (eds.) Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Council of the European Union: Common Position (EC) No 22/2006 adopted by the Council on 25 September 2006 with a view to adopting Regulation (EC) No .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (ROME II), (2006/C 289 E/04)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cour de Cassation: (France), 1re civ., judgment of 14 January 1997, No 94-16.861, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Recueil Dalloz, jurisprudence 177 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 30 November 1977, Bier ./. Mines de Potasse, 21/76. ECR [1976] 1735Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 07 March 1995, Shevill ./. Press Alliance, C-68/93. ECR [1995] I-415Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 20 May 2003, Rechnungshof ./. Österreichischer Rundfunk, C-465/00 et al. ECR [2003] I-4989Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 November 2011, eDate ./. X and Martinez ./. MGN Limited, C-509/09 and C-161/10. ECR [2011] I-10269Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 July 2012, Ahmed Mahamdia ./. Algeria, C-154/11. ECLI:EU:C:2012:491Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 28 July 2016, VKI ./. Amazon EU, C-191/15, ECLI: EU:C:2016:612Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 18 October 2016, Greece ./. Nikiforidis, C-135/15, ECLI: EU:C:2016:774Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cziupka, J., Unberath, H.: Art. 1 Rome II Regulation. In: Rauscher, T. (ed.) Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht - EuZPR/EuIPR, Band III: Rom I-VO. Rom II-VO. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dicey, A.V., Morris, J.H.C., Collins, L. (eds.): The Conflict of Laws, vol. I and II, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission: Commission Opinion in accordance with point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliaments amendments to the Council common position on the proposal for a Regulation Of The Europe An Parliament And The Council On The Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”); COM(2007) 126 finalGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Parliament: European Parliament resolution of 10 May 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), P7_TA(2012)0200Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Parliament: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications), 10/01/17, COM(2017) 10 finalGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 22 February 1994, Burghartz v. Switzerland, No. 16213/90Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 21 February 2002, Schüssel v. Austria, No. 42409/98Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 24 June 2004, von Hannover v. Germany, No. 59320/00Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 16 October 2008, Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, No. 39627/05Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 09 April 2009, A. v. Norway, No. 28070/06Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 26 November 2015, Annen v. Germany, No. 3690/10Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 1 March 2016, Arlewin v. Sweden, No. 22302/10Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 21 February 2017, Rubio Dosamantes v. Spain, No. 20996/10Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof), 29 March 2011 - VI ZR 111/10. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, 2059–2062Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof), 14 January 2016 - I ZR 65/14. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, 3445–3453Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilbert, F.: EU General Data Protection Regulation: What Impact for Businesses Established Outside the European Union. J. Internet Law 19, 3–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hartley, T.C.: Libel Tourism and Conflict of Laws. Int. Comp. Law Q. 59, 25–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heiderhoff, B.: Transnationaler Schutz der Privatsphäre im internationalen Privatrecht. In: Dethloff, N., Nolte, G., Reinisch, A. (eds.) Freiheit und Regulierung in der Cyberwelt, pp. 35–72. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Hein, J.: Protecting Victims of Cross-Border Torts under Article 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis: Towards a More Differentiated and Balanced Approach. In: Yearbook of Private International Law, vol. 16, pp. 241–274 (2014/2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    von Hein, J.: Article 4 Rome II Regulation. In: Calliess, G.-P. (ed.) Rome Regulations, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Hert, P., Papakonstantinou, V.: The new General Data Protection Regulation: Still a sound system for the protection of individuals? Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 32, 179–194 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hess, B.: The Protection of Privacy in the Case Law of the CJEU. In: Hess, B., Mariottini, C.M. (eds.) Protecting Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law and by Data Protection, pp. 81–113. Nomos, Baden-Baden (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kenny, D., Heffernan, L.: Defamation and privacy in the Rome II Regulation. In: Stone, P., Farah, Y. (eds.) Research Handbook on EU Private International Law, pp. 315–343. Elgar, Cheltenham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kühling, J., Martini, M.: Die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung: Revolution oder Evolution im europäischen und deutschen Datenschutzrecht? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 27, 448–454 (2016)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    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, JLS/2007/C4/028, Final Report (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meier, F.M.: Unification of choice-of-law rules for defamation claims. J. Priv. Int. Law 12, 492–520 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mills, A.: The law applicable to cross-border defamation on social media: whose law governs free speech in ‘Facebookistan’? J. Media Law 7, 1–35 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nielsen, P.A.: Libel Tourism And EU Private International Law. J. Priv. Int. Law 9, 269–288 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peuker, E.: The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Powerful Tool for Data Subjects? VerfBlog (2016).  https://doi.org/10.17176/20160622-161620
  42. 42.
    Rühl, G.: The Protection of Weaker Parties in the Private International Law of the European Union: A Portrait of Inconsistency and Conceptual Truancy. J. Priv. Int. Law 10, 335–358 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schantz, P.: Die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung-Beginn einer neuen Zeitrechnung im Datenschutzrecht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 69, 1841–1847 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Comparative and Private International Law, Department IIIUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations