Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: a Case of ''Privacy Tourism''?

Ioannis Revolidis
{"title":"Judicial Jurisdiction over Internet Privacy Violations and the GDPR: a Case of ''Privacy Tourism''?","authors":"Ioannis Revolidis","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"7-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper discusses the impact of art. 79(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in international litigation over online privacy violations. The first part introduces the tendency of the European legislator to treat private international law problems in the field of data protection as isolated and independent from the traditional secondary private international law acts. The second part analyses the current status quo of international jurisdiction over online privacy violations according to Regulation 1215/2012. After briefly examining the eDate and Martinez ruling (joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), it concludes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has stretched the jurisdictional grounds of art. 7(2) Regulation 1215/2012 too far in order to afford strong protection to data subjects. In that sense, it raises doubts on whether art. 79(2) was necessary. Following this conclusion, it tries to explore the uneasy relationship of GDPR art. 79(2) with the jurisdictional regime established under Regulation 1215/2012. Instead of an epilogue, the last part tries to make some reflections on the impact of GDPR art. 79(2) in privacy litigation cases involving non-EU parties.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网络隐私侵权的司法管辖权与GDPR——以“私人旅游”为例?
本文讨论了艺术的影响。《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)第79(2)条关于网络隐私侵犯的国际诉讼。第一部分介绍了欧洲立法者将数据保护领域的国际私法问题视为独立于传统的次要国际私法行为的倾向。第二部分根据第1215/2012号条例分析了网络隐私侵权国际管辖权的现状。在简要审查了eDate和Martinez的裁决(合并案件C-509/09和C-161/10)后,它得出结论,欧盟法院扩大了第三条的管辖范围。7(2)为了给数据主体提供强有力的保护,第1215/2012号条例太过了。从这个意义上说,它使人怀疑第七十九条第二款是否必要。根据这一结论,它试图探讨GDPR第79(2)条与根据第1215/2012号条例建立的管辖制度之间的不稳定关系。最后一部分不是结语,而是试图对GDPR第79(2)条在涉及非欧盟当事人的隐私诉讼案件中的影响进行一些思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Addressing Evolving Digital Piracy Through Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Mobdro Case Study (Un)lock and (Un)loaded: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms in the Open-source Era after the 2013 Hysteria Patent-Eligible Invention Requirement Under the European Patent Convention and its Implications on Creations Involving Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity: Notorious, but Often Misused and Confused Terms How the Two Child Abuse Cases Helped to Shape the Test of Originality of Photographic Works
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1