If the EU Commission deems a non-EU state to be a ‘safe harbour’ for the purposes of data processing, then personal data about EU citizens can be sent to companies in that non-EU state. This is not new. For example, in 2000 the EU Commission had decided that the USA was a ‘safe harbour’. However, in 2013 Edward Snowden made a series of revelations concerning the USA’s blanket interception of Internet and telecoms systems. These revelations have generated a question of EU law. Namely, can an EU Member State’s national data protection regulator now disregard the EU Commission’s finding that the USA is a ‘safe harbour’, and do so on the basis that the USA’s laws and practices do not adequately protect and respect an EU citizen’s EU Charter rights to privacy and data protection?
Continue readingTag Archives: jurisdiction
Case C-30/14, Ryanair – grounding a go compare an airfare website
Price-comparison websites in the EU are often lawful because the websites they take their information from are databases frequently unprotected by either copyright or the ‘sui generis’ right enshrined in the EU’s Database Directive 96/9/EC. This is true of Ryanair’s website. But Ryanair’s website is however protected by a plank of deviant Dutch ‘copyright’ law. In this case, a Dutch website that compares the price of airfares is seeking to rely on a Dutch exception to the Dutch ‘copyright’ rule, an exception that corresponds to one found in the EU’s Database Directive. The legal question has become whether the Directive applies to all databases and thus websites – even the unprotected ones – and, if so, whether the price-comparison website qualifies as a ‘lawful user’, who does not need to obtain Ryanair’s consent to use Ryanair’s website.
Continue readingCase C-583/12, Sintax Trading – who decides whether imported goods infringe design rights?
For the purposes of the EU’s counterfeit goods Regulation No 1383/2003, who is to decide on whether the design of 64 000 bottles of mouthwash imported into Estonia from Ukraine infringes a registered design in Estonia?
Continue readingCase C-228/11, Melzer – jurisdiction and cross-border participation in a tort
For the purposes of Article 5(3) of EC Regulation 44/2001, does a German court have jurisdiction to hear an action for damages where several people have participated in an unlawful act, including a company domiciled in the United Kingdom?
Continue readingCase C-387/12, Hi Hotel – jurisdiction and participation in copyright infringement
For the purposes of Article 5(3) of EC Regulation 44/2001, does a German court have the jurisdiction to adjudicate copyright infringement where there has been a contributory act in France?
Continue readingCase C-360/12, Coty Prestige Lancaster Group – jurisdiction and participation in trade mark infringement
Can a trade mark be infringed in Germany as a result of an act committed in Belgium? And for the purposes of Article 5(3) of EC Regulation 44/2001, does the harmful event occur in Germany if a tortious act is committed in Belgium but there was participation in the main tortious act which took place in Germany?
Continue reading