Electronic Transactions: Jurisdictional Issues in the European Union
One of the main consequences of the ubiquitous usage of Internet as a means to conduct business has been the progressive internationalization of contracts created to support such transactions. As electronic commerce becomes International commerce, the reality is that commercial disputes will occur creating such questions as: "In which country do I bring proceedings?" and "Which law is to be applied to solve disputes?" The decentralized and global structure of the Internet and its decentralized operation have given e-commerce a transnational element that affects two questions essential to any transaction: applicable law and jurisdiction in the event of dispute. The sharing of applicable law and jurisdiction among States in respect of international transactions traditionally has been based on the use of contact factors generally of a territorial nature (the place where real estate is located, customary residence, principal establishment, place of shipping goods). The characteristics of the Internet as a new space sometimes make it difficult to apply these rules, and may make them inoperative or lead to results that are surprising or totally foreign to the contracting parties and other elements and circumstances of the case.
[1] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen Thomas Riis Legal Aspects
of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.75
[2] Ursula Pachl, Jurisdiction and applicable law on cross-border consumer
contracts, at http://www.beuc.org/
[3] Official Journal of the European Communities 1998 C 27/3 (the Brussels
convention) and 1988 L 319/9 (the Lugano Convention). Brussels and
Lugano Conventions have almost identical texts and were ratified by all
EU Members (Lugano Contention was not ratified by Greece though).
So we could say that the rules of the Brussels Convention are not only
those rules contained in the original text, but also all modifications that
took place combined with the rules of Lugano Convention.
[4] Official Journal of the European Communities 2001 L 12/1. Denmark
does not participate in the adoption of this Regulation and is neither
bound by it nor subject to its application. The Brussels Convention thus
continues to apply between Denmark and other contracting states. As
Lugano Convention will continue to apply in relations between Iceland
and Norway, the new Regulation applies only between Finland and
Sweden, as far as Nordic countries are concerned. So I will deal with all
three documents in this paper.
[5] As all three documents have almost the same structure, I will refer to a
relevant article, meaning that it-s the same in all three documents, unless
there is a difference.
[6] ECJ in the case of De Bloos v. Bouyer, (1976) ECR 1497, see also ECJ
in the case of Tessili v. Dunlop, (1976) ECR 1473.
[7] De Bloos v. Bouyer case
[8] ECJ in the case of Ivenel v. Schwab, (1982) ECR 1891, case # 133/81;
see also ECJ in the case of Shenaval v. Kreischer, (1987) ECR 239, case
266/85.
[9] Catherine Kessedjian, Electronic Data interchange, Internet and
Electronic Commerce, Hague Conference on Private International Law,
Preliminary document #7 of April 2000, p. 19
[10] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen og Thomas Riis Legal
Aspects of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.78
[11] De Bloos v Buyer, (1976) ECR 1497
[12] Somafer v Saar-Ferngas, (1978) ECR 2183
[13] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen og Thomas Riis Legal
Aspects of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.79
[14] Electronic Commerce Directive, 2000 OJ L178
[15] Proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, Brussels,
14.07.199 COM (1999) 348 final 99/0154 (CNS)
[16] Proposed European e-commerce law would stifle business, at
http://www.iccwbo.org/
[17] Lorna Gillies, Jurisdiction for Consumer Contracts European Union:
Modified Rules of Jurisdiction for Electronic Consumer Contracts, in the
computer law & Security report, Vol.17 (Issue 6), 2001, p. 397 at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
[18] Proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments- in civil and commercial matters, Brussels,
14.07.199 COM (1999) 348 final 99/0154 (CNS)
[1] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen Thomas Riis Legal Aspects
of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.75
[2] Ursula Pachl, Jurisdiction and applicable law on cross-border consumer
contracts, at http://www.beuc.org/
[3] Official Journal of the European Communities 1998 C 27/3 (the Brussels
convention) and 1988 L 319/9 (the Lugano Convention). Brussels and
Lugano Conventions have almost identical texts and were ratified by all
EU Members (Lugano Contention was not ratified by Greece though).
So we could say that the rules of the Brussels Convention are not only
those rules contained in the original text, but also all modifications that
took place combined with the rules of Lugano Convention.
[4] Official Journal of the European Communities 2001 L 12/1. Denmark
does not participate in the adoption of this Regulation and is neither
bound by it nor subject to its application. The Brussels Convention thus
continues to apply between Denmark and other contracting states. As
Lugano Convention will continue to apply in relations between Iceland
and Norway, the new Regulation applies only between Finland and
Sweden, as far as Nordic countries are concerned. So I will deal with all
three documents in this paper.
[5] As all three documents have almost the same structure, I will refer to a
relevant article, meaning that it-s the same in all three documents, unless
there is a difference.
[6] ECJ in the case of De Bloos v. Bouyer, (1976) ECR 1497, see also ECJ
in the case of Tessili v. Dunlop, (1976) ECR 1473.
[7] De Bloos v. Bouyer case
[8] ECJ in the case of Ivenel v. Schwab, (1982) ECR 1891, case # 133/81;
see also ECJ in the case of Shenaval v. Kreischer, (1987) ECR 239, case
266/85.
[9] Catherine Kessedjian, Electronic Data interchange, Internet and
Electronic Commerce, Hague Conference on Private International Law,
Preliminary document #7 of April 2000, p. 19
[10] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen og Thomas Riis Legal
Aspects of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.78
[11] De Bloos v Buyer, (1976) ECR 1497
[12] Somafer v Saar-Ferngas, (1978) ECR 2183
[13] Michael Bodgan, Electronic Commerce: Problems of Jurisdiction and
Applicable Law, in Jens Fejo, Ruth Nielsen og Thomas Riis Legal
Aspects of Electronic Commerce (2001), p.79
[14] Electronic Commerce Directive, 2000 OJ L178
[15] Proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, Brussels,
14.07.199 COM (1999) 348 final 99/0154 (CNS)
[16] Proposed European e-commerce law would stifle business, at
http://www.iccwbo.org/
[17] Lorna Gillies, Jurisdiction for Consumer Contracts European Union:
Modified Rules of Jurisdiction for Electronic Consumer Contracts, in the
computer law & Security report, Vol.17 (Issue 6), 2001, p. 397 at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
[18] Proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments- in civil and commercial matters, Brussels,
14.07.199 COM (1999) 348 final 99/0154 (CNS)
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:51493", author = "Faeze Razmpa", title = "Electronic Transactions: Jurisdictional Issues in the European Union", abstract = "One of the main consequences of the ubiquitous usage of Internet as a means to conduct business has been the progressive internationalization of contracts created to support such transactions. As electronic commerce becomes International commerce, the reality is that commercial disputes will occur creating such questions as: "In which country do I bring proceedings?" and "Which law is to be applied to solve disputes?" The decentralized and global structure of the Internet and its decentralized operation have given e-commerce a transnational element that affects two questions essential to any transaction: applicable law and jurisdiction in the event of dispute. The sharing of applicable law and jurisdiction among States in respect of international transactions traditionally has been based on the use of contact factors generally of a territorial nature (the place where real estate is located, customary residence, principal establishment, place of shipping goods). The characteristics of the Internet as a new space sometimes make it difficult to apply these rules, and may make them inoperative or lead to results that are surprising or totally foreign to the contracting parties and other elements and circumstances of the case.
", keywords = "Electronic, European Union, Jurisdiction, Internet", volume = "5", number = "5", pages = "427-4", }
