Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments, 9 (2018) JIPITEC 113 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments %A Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. %J JIPITEC %D 2018 %V 9 %N 2 %@ 2190-3387 %F svantesson2018 %X 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. %L 340 %K CJEU %K GDPR %K Internet jurisdiction %K e-evidence %K hyper-regulation %K interest balancing %K law enforcement %K legitimate interest %K scope of jurisdiction %K substantial connection %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226 %P 113-125Download
Bibtex
@Article{svantesson2018,
author = "Svantesson, Dan Jerker B.",
title = "European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet -- an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2018",
volume = "9",
number = "2",
pages = "113--125",
keywords = "CJEU; GDPR; Internet jurisdiction; e-evidence; hyper-regulation; interest balancing; law enforcement; legitimate interest; scope of jurisdiction; substantial connection",
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.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. PY - 2018 DA - 2018// TI - European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments JO - JIPITEC SP - 113 EP - 125 VL - 9 IS - 2 KW - CJEU KW - GDPR KW - Internet jurisdiction KW - e-evidence KW - hyper-regulation KW - interest balancing KW - law enforcement KW - legitimate interest KW - scope of jurisdiction KW - substantial connection 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. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226 ID - svantesson2018 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>svantesson2018</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2018</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>9</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226</b:Url> <b:Pages>113-125</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Svantesson</b:Last><b:First>Dan Jerker B.</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments</b:Title> <b:Comments>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.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Svantesson, D TI European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments SO JIPITEC PY 2018 BP 113 EP 125 VL 9 IS 2 DE CJEU; GDPR; Internet jurisdiction; e-evidence; hyper-regulation; interest balancing; law enforcement; legitimate interest; scope of jurisdiction; substantial connection 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. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Svantesson</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Dan Jerker B.</namePart>
</name>
<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.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>CJEU</topic>
<topic>GDPR</topic>
<topic>Internet jurisdiction</topic>
<topic>e-evidence</topic>
<topic>hyper-regulation</topic>
<topic>interest balancing</topic>
<topic>law enforcement</topic>
<topic>legitimate interest</topic>
<topic>scope of jurisdiction</topic>
<topic>substantial connection</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>9</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<date>2018</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>113</start>
<end>125</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">svantesson2018</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 9 (2018) 2 |
|---|---|
| Title |
European Union Claims of Jurisdiction over the Internet – an Analysis of Three Recent Key Developments (eng) |
| Author | Dan Jerker B. Svantesson |
| Language | eng |
| 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. |
| Subject | CJEU, GDPR, Internet jurisdiction, e-evidence, hyper-regulation, interest balancing, law enforcement, legitimate interest, scope of jurisdiction, substantial connection |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-47226 |
