Determining Jurisdiction and the Applicable Law in Cross-Border Unfair Competition and Unfair Commercial Practices Cases
Abstract
The free movement of goods promotes cross-border transactions. Computerization of services and intensified use of the Internet also contribute to the development of trade within the EU. Problems that could once be addressed almost exclusively or at least prevailingly at a national level currently assume cross-border character. This is also true in the case of regulation of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices. Whereas the substantive regulation of unfair competition in both EU and domestic law is quite common in scientific literature, its aspects in private international law are often neglected. Since the EU law has to a large extent replaced national conflict-of-law and procedural rules with unified EU provisions, this article focuses on the EU regulations Rome II and Brussels I bis with the emphasis put on the latter. The aim of this article is to review the rules determining jurisdiction (and the applicable law) on the basis of legal doctrine, current legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Attention also will be paid to both off-line and on-line situations, as well as to the specifics of consumer protection in the context of unfair competition and unfair commercial practices.Downloads
References
Bogdan, M. (2012) Concise Introduction to EU Private International Law (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing).
Dickinson, A. (2008) The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Dyer, A. (1988) Unfair Competition in Private International Law, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie
de droit international de La Haye, Vol. 211 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers), pp. 373–446.
Hellner, M (2008) Unfair Competition and Acts Restricting Free Competition, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. IX - 2007 (Munich: Sellier, European Law Publishers), pp. 49–70.
Hrnčiříková, M., Ryšavý, L. (2014) Mezinárodní právo soukromé. Procesní otázky (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci).
Illmer, M. In: Huber, P. (ed.) (2011) Rome II Regulation: Pocket Commentary (Munich: Sellier, European Law Publishers).
Kuipers, J-J. (2012) Joined Cases C-509/09 & 161/10, eDate Advertising v X and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011, Common Market Law Review, 49(3), pp. 1211–1232.
Kyselovská, T., Rozehnalová, N. a kol. (2014) Rozhodování Soudního dvora EU ve věcech příslušnosti (analýza rozhodnutí dle Nařízení Brusel Ibis) (Brno: Masarykova univerzita).
Magnus, M., Mankowski, P. (eds.) (2016) European Commentaries on Private International Law, Brussel I bis Regulation (Köln: Otto Schmidt). Pauknerová, M. (2008) Evropské mezinárodní právo soukromé (Praha: C.H. Beck).Rosenkranz, T., Rohde, E (2008) The law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of acts of unfair competition and acts restricting free competition under Article 6 Rome II, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 26(4), pp. 435–439.
Rozehnalová, N., TÝČ, V. (2003) Evropský justiční prostor (v civilních otázkách) (Brno, Masarykova univerzita).
Rozehnalová, N., Valdhans, J., Drličková, K. a Kyselovská, T. (2013) Mezinárodní právo soukromé Evropské unie (Nařízení Řím I, Nařízení Řím II, Nařízení Brusel I) (Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR).
Sehnálek, D. (2017) Mezinárodněprávní aspekty nekalé soutěže a nekalých obchodních praktik v právu Evropské unie, Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, XXV(1), pp. 23–40.
Symeonides, S. (2008) Rome II and Tort Conflicts: Missed Opportunity, American Journal of Comparative Law, 56(1), pp. 173–222.
Valdhans, J. (2012) Právní úprava mimosmluvních závazků s mezinárodním prvkem (Praha: C. H. Beck).
Wilman, F.G. (2016) The end of the absence? The growing body of EU legislation on private enforcement and the main remedies it provides for, Common Market Law Review, 53(4), pp. 887–935.
Wurmnest, W., (2016) International jurisdiction in competition damages cases under the Brussels I Regulation: CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, Common Market Law Review, 53(1), pp. 225–247.