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 113-125

Download

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.
ER

Download

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

JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Article search
Extended article search
Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter
Follow Us
twitter