European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet: An Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The topic of Internet jurisdiction is gaining a considerable amount of attention at the moment. Yet, we are seemingly still a long way from solutions. This article builds on the notion that we are presently in an era of jurisdictional “hyper-regulation” characterised by complexity and a real risk of Internet users being exposed to laws in relation to which they have no realistic means of ensuring compliance. Drawing upon a framework consisting of three jurisdictional core principles, the article seeks to examine whether three recent key developments in EU law contribute to hyper-regulation. Those three developments are: (1) Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which outlines the Regulations “territorial scope”; (2) The combined effect of the proposed e-evidence Directive and the proposed e-evidence Regulation; and (3) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Bolagsupplysningen OÜ. The article also provides an analysis of recent trends and draws some conclusions as to how we may best move forward in this field.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-125
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Volume9
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
Internet
regulation
data protection
court of justice
European Law
evidence
Law
trend

Cite this

@article{a27fe09c844545cabe4f4266715e252f,
title = "European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet: An Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments",
abstract = "The topic of Internet jurisdiction is gaining a considerable amount of attention at the moment. Yet, we are seemingly still a long way from solutions. This article builds on the notion that we are presently in an era of jurisdictional “hyper-regulation” characterised by complexity and a real risk of Internet users being exposed to laws in relation to which they have no realistic means of ensuring compliance. Drawing upon a framework consisting of three jurisdictional core principles, the article seeks to examine whether three recent key developments in EU law contribute to hyper-regulation. Those three developments are: (1) Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which outlines the Regulations “territorial scope”; (2) The combined effect of the proposed e-evidence Directive and the proposed e-evidence Regulation; and (3) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Bolagsupplysningen O{\"U}. The article also provides an analysis of recent trends and draws some conclusions as to how we may best move forward in this field.",
author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "113--125",
journal = "Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law",
issn = "2190-3387",
publisher = "Di P P - N R W",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet

T2 - An Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - The topic of Internet jurisdiction is gaining a considerable amount of attention at the moment. Yet, we are seemingly still a long way from solutions. This article builds on the notion that we are presently in an era of jurisdictional “hyper-regulation” characterised by complexity and a real risk of Internet users being exposed to laws in relation to which they have no realistic means of ensuring compliance. Drawing upon a framework consisting of three jurisdictional core principles, the article seeks to examine whether three recent key developments in EU law contribute to hyper-regulation. Those three developments are: (1) Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which outlines the Regulations “territorial scope”; (2) The combined effect of the proposed e-evidence Directive and the proposed e-evidence Regulation; and (3) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Bolagsupplysningen OÜ. The article also provides an analysis of recent trends and draws some conclusions as to how we may best move forward in this field.

AB - The topic of Internet jurisdiction is gaining a considerable amount of attention at the moment. Yet, we are seemingly still a long way from solutions. This article builds on the notion that we are presently in an era of jurisdictional “hyper-regulation” characterised by complexity and a real risk of Internet users being exposed to laws in relation to which they have no realistic means of ensuring compliance. Drawing upon a framework consisting of three jurisdictional core principles, the article seeks to examine whether three recent key developments in EU law contribute to hyper-regulation. Those three developments are: (1) Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which outlines the Regulations “territorial scope”; (2) The combined effect of the proposed e-evidence Directive and the proposed e-evidence Regulation; and (3) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Bolagsupplysningen OÜ. The article also provides an analysis of recent trends and draws some conclusions as to how we may best move forward in this field.

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 113

EP - 125

JO - Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law

JF - Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law

SN - 2190-3387

IS - 2

ER -