Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice 0198806922, 9780198806929

Citation preview

Internet Jurisdiction

Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice J U L IA   HÖ R N L E

1

3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Julia Hörnle 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020934590 ISBN 978–​0–​19–​880692–​9 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

To those who are prepared to swim against the prevailing current to seek deeper understanding.

Foreword Reading Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice reminded me of the concluding words by Martti Koskenniemi in Sovereignty in Fragments (CUP, 2010): ‘In the context of war, economic collapse, and environmental destruction, sovereignty points to the possibility, however limited or idealistic, that whatever comes to happen, one is not just a pawn in other people’s games but, for better or for worse, the master of one’s own fate.’ At a time when appeal to sovereignty tends to invoke ideas of populism, nationalism, xenophobia, and insularity, Koskenniemi’s words are a powerful reminder of its liberal, democratic, and idealistic aspirations of self-​governance. Sovereignty gives us a way to self-​govern and to agree to disagree, and thus for a multitude of communities to live peacefully together. The topic of jurisdiction in its transnational settings is quintessentially about implementing that self-​governance against socio-​economic or socio-​technical global landscapes that make it messy. The rise of the internet and global network society has amplified that messiness by several orders of magnitude. The task of disentangling those transnational online knots in all their innumerable instantiations –​from civil disputes (IP, contract, defamation, data protection) to criminal and regulatory infractions (hate or terrorist speech, gambling), from investigation and adjudication to enforcement jurisdiction –​is painstaking, and yet vital for constructing and reconstructing those national spaces of sovereignty. This monograph engages in that task with patience and confidence; by drawing on a huge number of legislative and judicial examples from across the (Western) world, the discussion shows us, the readers, how national spaces are –​in law and practice –​reasserting themselves against the online forces of globalization. Although different states set their legislative priorities very differently, what they do have in common is the urge to defend their national cultural, political or economic domains. Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice also shows courage –​a courage that has become a hallmark of many internet law academics –​in daring to challenge entrenched legal disciplinary boundaries. By covering competence questions under private international law and under public international law, Julia’s monographs continues a tradition that has formidable forefathers, notably Michael Akehurst (1972) and Frederick A Mann (1964, 1984), and has recently been revived by, for example, Alex Mill’s Confluence of Public and Private International Law (2009), but remains a deeply subversive act amongst traditionalists –​despite the common roots of the two disciplines. The advantages of an integrated approach are numerous. Practically, it means there is no need to impose artificial silos on regulatory activities that are pervasive in the transnational (online) sphere and for which the private or public categorizations are fairly unimportant. Classically, whilst questions about intermediary liability are neither on their face nor traditionally connected to the topic of jurisdiction, in the internet context they have become (and rightly so) a staple part of the jurisdictional discussion (Chapter 3). Online intermediaries –​whether search engines, social media

viii Foreword platforms, e-​commerce sites or internet access providers -​are the new ‘border guards’ on whom the burden to effectively ‘enforce’ national laws, via notice-​and-​takedown or blocking orders, rests. This burden ultimately flows from the territorially strictly delimited enforcement jurisdiction of states under public international law. The ‘enforcement’ obligations of local intermediaries over foreign content extend across a wide spectrum of harms as covered by civil, criminal, and regulatory laws, and there is a little to be gained from compartmentalizing them. Equally, ambiguously private or public substantive legal areas, most pertinently data protection law, need not be squeezed out of the inquiry on the ground of being poor fit. As data protection law has become the epitome of IT regulation, it also perfectly illustrates how jurisdictional wrangling embodies a contest between different normative settlements by different states (nicely covered in Chapter 7) upon which online transnationality exerts a ‘natural’ pressure towards a convergence. A comparative public and private international law perspective on internet transnationality is also helpful in exposing the political and economic drivers behind the rules of private international law which are all too often treated as mere neutral, technical rules with no wider collective purpose or agenda, and purely concerned with what is just and fair as between the parties. Yet, the (un)willingness of a court to let a transnational dispute on copyright or defamation law (see Chapters 8–​12) slip its national net can be vividly understood as capturing not just the private interests of the parties, but important collective interests when juxtaposed against an international law framing of jurisdiction, which is more explicitly embedded in the vigilantly guarded self-​interests of states. In reverse, doctrines or principles such as comity or forum non conveniens from the private sphere are useful to understand state practice in the deciding whether to prosecute an international online crime or not (Chapter 4). At the same time, their strongly permissive nature reveals their weak claim to being rules or doctrines properly so called, rather than merely descriptive labels for the wide judicial or executive discretion exhibited in transnational wrangling (with intra-​EU relations being an important exception). In as much as Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice takes a comprehensive perspective on internet jurisdiction, it also shows acute awareness of the limits of that perspective. The fact is that much transnational regulation or quasi-​regulation of the internet simply falls outside the jurisdictional inquiry, or a state-​based perspective (Chapter 2). In other words, sovereignty is after all waning, or at least being shared with other overlapping regulatory spaces. Here the concept of ‘global law’ provides a useful terrain for contesting the effective coverage and relevance of state law vis-​ à-​vis alternatives, such as online dispute resolution systems. More interestingly, the growing practice by states to ‘instruct’ online platforms to not only deal with illegal content, but harmful content that falls short of illegality, presents a peculiar form of delegation of authority to these private corporate actors to fix their own meanings of right and wrong, and then enforce them, often at a global level. As Julia observes, such private regulation creates inroads into our freedoms without the normal safeguards provided by the rule of law or by human rights entitlements whose focus is government not governance. Again, the limits of state jurisdiction vis-​à-​vis alternative non-​state orders are disempowering, given that corporate actors are only and rather

Foreword  ix imperfectly held accountable by the market. Opting out of their orders is generally not a realistic option. Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice leaves much room for argument –​as any good monograph should. Readers might, for example, ponder the accuracy of constructing the internet as ‘borderless’ and ‘decentralised’. It seems both true and not true. It seems not true if one considers that the complementary legal constructs of territory and borders have, for some time, been implemented and indeed ‘protected’ by ‘border guards’ other than those literally standing on the border. Every time a bank applies a national rule to an international money transfer, it guards the sovereign national banking space. The internet has its very own border guards. For example, when Google responds to a European right-​to-​be-​forgotten request on its search engine, it creates and recreates borders around an EU online space and delineates it from other national online spaces from which such requests cannot be made. Jumping to the end of the monograph, a reader might also ponder whether the argument that some jurisdictional discordances may be solved or lessened through states’ self-​restraint or better co-​ordination between them, is rather too optimistic. The phenomenon of regulatory arbitrage, where companies use and abuse different levels of state regulation for forum shopping or tax avoidance, is long-​standing and hardly in the interests of states collectively (even if it benefits individual ones) and yet, it has seen fairly little progress by way of effective inter-​state cooperation. What are the forces, if any, that make the internet, or some areas of online transnationality, exceptional in this respect? In its ambitious comprehensiveness and in its willingness to combine micro and macro analysis, Internet Jurisdiction: Law and Practice provides an excellent platform for engendering debate on internet jurisdiction (and the many areas with which it intersects) for years to come. Uta Kohl Professor of Law, Southampton Law School Author of Jurisdiction and the Internet (CUP, 2007)

Preface The fundamental clash between the internet enabling borderless data flows and national laws whose authority ends at a territorial border has intrigued me since I started teaching the LLM course Internet Law at Queen Mary University of London in 2001. Before that, while working as a solicitor at Eversheds Brussels Office and meeting with EU Commission officials in various fora discussing the drafts of what was to become the E-​commerce Directive 2000/​31/​EC and the Brussels Jurisdiction Regulation 44/​ 2001, I realized the chasm between the Internal Market objective and legal doctrines in private international law. While the latter had the objective of preserving a fair balance between claimants and defendants in civil cases, the former had the objective of harnessing the economic opportunities, which e-​commerce was about to bring in terms of cross-​border trade within the EU. In many ways, this conflict encapsulates two different understandings of the function of law. On the one hand, the function of law is to balance different stakeholders’ interests and, through this balance, implement fundamental values of a society. This balance is influenced by cultural and political considerations, which in turn differ from nation state to nation state. On the other hand the function of law is to increase transactional efficiency thereby leading to greater economic wealth. Greater overall wealth is achieved through cross-​border trade which then leads to conflicts between national legal systems. While legal systems are closed to each other in the sense that they exist in parallel universes, the necessary cross-​border interaction inevitably leads to conflicts between legal systems. These conflicts are not new, but they have been exacerbated and multiplied by the characteristics of the internet as a borderless communications medium to the extent that the self-​sufficiency of the nation state has been shaken at its roots. This book analyses these conflicts with respect to rules on jurisdiction and the applicable law, from multiple vantage points: civil and commercial law, criminal law and regulatory laws with a focus on the specific challenges caused by the internet, and more recently social media and cloud computing. I found the analysis intellectually stimulating, but at the same time deeply frustrating as the solution to these legal challenges can only partly be addressed by changing the legal rules themselves, as legal systems cannot reach beyond themselves. I hope that readers likewise find this book intellectually satisfying in its legal analysis and in providing a comparison between different approaches to jurisdiction and conflicts of law questions in the internet era. Finally, no woman is an island –​I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to a number of individuals who have helped me in my journey of writing this book. First of all I would like to thank Professor Giovanni Sartor who invited me to stay at the European University Institute in 2017, Professor Thomas Hoeren who kindly hosted me at the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law, University of Münster in 2017 and Professor Ulrich Sieber who enabled me to spend a research period at the fantastic research facilities of the Max Planck Institute

xii Preface for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg during 2018, supported by a generous grant of the Max Planck Gesellschaft. My thanks also go to the German Academic Exchange Service for their grant financing my stay at the University of Münster. I would also like to applaud the editorial team at Oxford University Press for their support and editing of this book. Furthermore, I am grateful for the research assistance of Asma Al Abbarova, Lisa Engelbrecht, Zita Heuer, and grateful for the co-​ operation with my two co-​contributors of chapters, Dr Ioannis Revolidis and Dr Elif Kuşkonmaz. Moreover, I pay tribute to the LLM and PhD students who I have been lucky to teach over the last twenty years at Queen Mary University of London and my fantastic colleagues at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Professors Chris Reed, Ian Walden, Christopher Millard, Anne Flanagan, Gavin Sutter, and Laura Edgar. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my partner, Sean Wilcox, who has supported my book writing and research spells, here and abroad, and tolerated the resultant stress-​levels and anti-​social absorption.

Table of Cases INTERNATIONAL Court of Justice of the European Union C-​2/​74 Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631, (CJEU). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46  n.80 C-​12/​76 Tesili v Dunlop ECLI:EU:C:1976:133. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266–​67 n.22, 278–​79 n.102 C-​14/​76 De Bloos v Bouyer ECLI:EU:C:1976:134. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278–​79  n.103 C-​21/​76 Handelswekerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potassed’Alsace SA [1976] ECR-​1735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284–​85 n.131, 371 n.24, 373 nn.38–​43, 378–​79, 387, 413 n.62, 415–​16, 438 n.12 C-​24/​76 Estasis Salotti v RÜWA ECLI:EU:C:1976:177. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 n.90 C-​25/​76 Segoura v Bonakdarian ECLI:EU:C:1976:178. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 n.90 C-​29/​76 LTU v Eurocontrol ECLI:EU:C:1976:137. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 n.40 C-​150/​77 Bertrand v Paul Ott KG 21 June 1978 ECLI:EU:C:1978:137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 n.135, 352 n.177, 353 n.182, 353 n.183, 354 n.191 C-​33/​78 Somafer SA v Saar-​Ferngas AB [1978] ECR 2184. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376–​77  n.74 C-​125/​79 Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères [1980] ECR 1055. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374–​75  n.60 C-​814/​79 Netherlands v Rüffer ECLI:EU:C:1980:291. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 n.41 C-​166/​80 Klomps v Michel [1981] ECR 1593. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66  n.12 C-​288/​82 Duijnstee v Goderbauer [1983] ECR 3663. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 n.145 C-​258/​83 Brennero v Wendel [1984]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287–​88  n.149 C-​220/​84 Autoteile v Malhé ECLI:EU:C:1985:302. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66  n.13 C-​89/​85 A Ahlstrom Osakeyhtio v Commission of the European Communities [1988] ECR 5193 (Wood Pulp). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–​32 n.226, 85–​86 n.26, 85–​86 n.28, 85–​86 n.32, 85–​86 n.33, 86–​87, 256–​57 n.168 C-​81/​87 Daily Mail [1988] ECR 5500, [1988] 3 CMLR 713 (CJEU). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46  n.79 C-​189/​87 Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schrӧder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co [1988]ECR 5579, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459 . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66 n.16, 271 n.68, 370–​71 n.18, 375–​76  n.69 C-​220/​88 Dumez France SA v Hessische Landesbank[1990] ECR-​49, ECLI:EU:C:1990:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66 n.17, 307 n.136, 371 n.24, 372 n.33 C-​221/​89 Factortame [1991] ECR I-​3905, [1991] CMLR 589 (CJEU). . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46  n.79 C-​26/​91 Jakob Handte v TMCS ECLI:EU:C:1992:268. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66 n.16, 271 n.66 C-​89/​91 Shearson Lehmann Hutton v TVB, 19 January 1993 ECLI:EU:C:1993:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 n.135, 352 n.177, 352 n.179, 353 n.182, 353 n.183, 354 n.191, 354 n.195, 354–​55, 358 n.222 C-​68/​93 Fiona Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-​415, ECLI:EU:C:1995:61. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 n.84, 285–​86 n.133, 308 n.145, 371 n.24, 372 n.30, 373 n.37, 381, 387 n.190, 403, 416 n.99, 438–​39 C-​364/​93 Antonio Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 n.136, 371 n.24, 372 n.33 C-​55/​94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-​4165 (CJEU). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46  n.80 C-​106/​95 MSG v Les Gravières Rhénanes SARL ECLI:EU:C:1997:70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 n.99 C-​269/​95 Benincasa v Dentalkit ECLI:EU:C:1997:337. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266–​67  n.24 C-​51/​97 Réunion Européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff ’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV, and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002 ECLI:EU:C:1998:509. . . . . . . . 271 n.67

xxii  Table of Cases C-​7/​98 Krombach v Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266–​67  n.20 C-​240/​98, C-​241/​98, C-​242/​98, C-​243/​98, and C-​244/​98 Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Roció Murciano Quintero 27 June 2000 ECLI:EU:C:2000:346. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 n.176, 352 n.178, 353 n.181, 359–​60 n.230 C-​412/​98 Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA and Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC) ECLI:EU:C:2000:399 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265–​66  n.15 C-​96/​00 Rudolf Gabriel 11 July 2002 ECLI:EU:C:2002:436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 n.204, 356 n.213 C-​167/​00 VKI v Henkel ECLI:EU:C:2002:555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 n.43 C-​334/​00 Tacconi v Sinto Maschinenfabrik ECLI:EU:C:2002:499. . . . . . . 266–​67 n.24, 271 n.68 C-​464/​01 Johann Gruber v BayWa AG 20 January 2005 ECLI:EU:C:2005:32; Advocate General’s Opinion 16 September 2004 ECLI:EU:C:2004:529. . . . . 353–​54 n.184, 353–​54  n.187 C-​27/​02 Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH 20 January 2005 ECLI:EU:C:2005:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 n.207 C-​116/​02 Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl [2003]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 n.145 C-​265/​02 Frahuil SA v Assitalia SpA ECLI:EU:C:2004:77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 n.67 C-​281/​02 Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECR I-​1383, ECLI:EU:C:2005:120. . . . . . . . . . . 266–​67 n.25, 269–​70 n.49, 318 n.226, 374 n.58 C-​4/​03 GesellschaftfürAntriebstechnikmbH v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG [2006] ECR I-​6509. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 n.124, 423 n.154 C-​336/​03 EasyCar Ltd v OFT 10 March 2005 ECLI:EU:C:2005:150. . . . . . . . . . . . . 350–​51  n.166 C-​539/​03 Roche Nederland BV v Primus [2006] ECR I-​6535. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 n.124 C-​436/​04 Van Esbroeck, EU:C:2006:165. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.230 C-​303/​05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECRI-​3633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 n.177 C-​367/​05 Kraaijenbrink, EU:C:2007:444. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.230 C-​386/​05 Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH [2007] . . . . . 281–​82  n.121 C-​402/​05P and C-​415/​05P Kadi [2009] AC 1225 ECLI:EU:C:2008:11. . . . . . . . . . . 165–​66  n.169 C-​98/​06 Freeport Plc v Arnoldsson [2007] ECR I-​839 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375–​76  n.68 C-​180/​06 Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers 14 May 2009 ECLI:EU:C:2009:303. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346–​47 n.131, 356 n.212 C-​316/​07 Markus Stoβ [2010] ECR I-​8069. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46  n.81 C-​533/​07 Falco Privatstiftung v Gisela Weller-​Lindhorst [2009]. . . . . . . . . . . . 279 n.106, 280–​81 C-​381/​08 Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl [2010]. . . . . . . . . . . 279 n.104, 279–​80 n.111, 282–​83  n.122 C-​585/​08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-​144/​09 Hotel Alpenhof v Oliver Heller 7 December 2010 ECLI:EU:C:2010:740. . . . . 245–​46 n.88, 254 n.142, 260–​61 n.195, 350–​51 n.170, 352 n.180, 362 n.248, 362 n.253, 363 n.266, 364, 379–​80 n.107, 379–​80 n.108, 414–​15 n.79, 415–​16, 444–​45 C-​19/​09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA [2010]. . . . . . 283 n.125 C-​261/​09 Mantello 16 November 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:683. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168–​69  n.188 C-​324/​09 L’Oréal v eBay International [2011] ECR I-​6011, EU:C:2011:474. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 n.33, 37–​38 n.38, 39 n.53, 414 n.76, 414–​16, 426–​27, 434–​35,  445 C-​509/​09 and C-​161/​10 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez v MGN Limited [2011] ECR I-​10269, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 n.181, 272 n.73, 285–​86 n.141, 371 n.24, 373 n.39, 373 n.41, 373 n.42, 373–​74 n.46, 377–​78 n.84–​86, 403, 413 n.63, 413 n.67, 416 n.100, 445 C-​70/​10 Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM, Judgment of 24 November 2011, [2012] ECDR 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–​37 n.27, 36–​37 n.30, 37 n.35, 55 n.208 C-​145/​10 Painer v Standard Verlag EU:C:2011:798 [2012] ECDR 6. . . . . . . . . . 375–​76 n.69–​72

Table of Cases  xxiii C-​327/​10 Hypoteční Banka v Udo Lindner 17 November 2011 ECLI:EU:C:2011:745. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 n.147 C-​489/​10 Bonda EU:C:2012:319. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.231 C-​523/​10 Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:220. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–​86 n.137, 286, 371 n.29, 413 n.67, 413–​14 n.75, 416 n.101, 417 n.111, 417–​18 n.119, 434–​35 C-​617/​10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson 26 February 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:280. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.231, 172–​73 n.224 C-​617/​10 ÅkerbergFransson EU:C:2013:105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 C-​5/​11 Donner ECLI:EU:C:2012:370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 n.76, 415, 445 C-​128/​11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle Intenational Corp. [2012]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279–​80  n.111 C-​133/​11 Folien Fischer AG [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:664 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 n.27 C-​173/​11 Football Data Co v Sportsradar ECLI:EU:C:2012:642. . . . . . . . . 414 n.76, 415–​16, 445 C-​190/​11 Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi 6 September 2012 ECLI:EU:C:2012:542. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 n.272, 366 C-​396/​11 Radu Judgment of 29 January 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165–​66  n.170 C-​397/​11 Jӧrӧs 30 May 2013 ECLI EU:C:2013:340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 n.234, 360 C-​399/​11 Melloni Judgment of 26 February 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107. . . . . . . . . . . . 165 n.167 C-​419/​11 Gerald Feichter 14 March 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 n.192 C-​49/​12 The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Sunico ECLI:EU:C:2013:545. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 n.43 C-​131/​12 Google Spain v AEPD/​Mario Costeja Gonzalez Judgment of 13 May 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317; Judgment of 25 June 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:424. . . . . . . . . . 220 n.583, 229 n.634, 233–​34, 235–​36 n.14, 239, 244 n.72, 245–​46 n.78, 245–​46 n.84, 247–​48 n.94, 247–​48 n.98, 247–​48 n.100, 248, 249, 250, 251 n.118, 254, 258, 262 C-​170/​12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG EU:C:2013:635. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–​86 n.136, 414 n.72, 414 n.75, 416, 417 n.111 C-​218/​12 Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic 17 October 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:666. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 n.180, 366 n.278, 366–​67 C-​293/​12 and C-​594/​12, Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:238. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 n.348, 229 n.634 C-​360/​12 Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV ECLI:EU:C:2014:1318. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425–​26 n.177, 426 n.181, 426 C-​469/​12 Krejci Lager v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH [2013] . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 n.106 C-​478/​12 Maletic v lastminute.com 14 November 2013 ECLI:EU: C:2013:735 . . . . . . . . . 269–​70 n.49, 352 n.178, 352 n.179, 357 n.217, 357–​58, 359–​60 n.229 C-​548/​12 Brogsitter [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370–​71 n.18, 370–​71 n.21 C-​302/​13 flyLAL-​Lithuanian Airlines AS v StarptautiskālidostaRīga VAS ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 n.43 C-​375/​13 Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank 28 January 2015 ECLI:EU:C:2015:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 n.178, 352 n.179, 358 n.223 C-​441/​13 Pez Hejduk v Energie Agentur NRW GmbH [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2212. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285–​86 n.136, 413–​14 n.68, 414 n.73, 414 n.75, 417 n.108, 418 n.115 C-​567/​13 Nora Baczo v Raiffeisen Bank 12 February 2015 ECLI:EU:C:2015:88. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 n.178, 360 n.236 C-​110/​14 Horatiu Ovidu Costea v SC Volksbank Romania SA 3 September 2015 ECLI:EU:C:2015:538. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354–​55  n.197 C-​230/​14 Weltimmo v Nemzeti Judgment of 25 June 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:426. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 n.10, 238 n.24, 245–​46 n.83, 245–​46 n.85, 245–​46 n.86

xxiv  Table of Cases C-​230/​14 Weltimmo v Nemzeti Judgment of 1 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:639. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233–​34 n.5, 235 n.10, 236–​37 n.19, 238 n.22, 238–​39, 242, 244 n.72, 244–​45 n.76, 245 n.77, 245–​46 n.78, 245–​46 n.85, 245–​46 n.86, 248 n.101 C-​296/​14 Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd, 23 December 2015 ECLI:EU:C:2015:844. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347–​48 n.145, 352 n.179, 357–​58 n.219 C-​322/​14 Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH ECLI:EU:C:2015:334. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277–​78 n.93, 277–​78 n.96 C-​362/​14 Max Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner 6 October 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180–​81 n.290, 189–​91 n.375, 191, 192, 193–​97, 229 n.634, 239 n.29, 258 n.176 C-​572/​14 Austro-​Mechana Gesellschaftzur Wahrnehmungmechanisch-​musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU ECLI:EU:C:2016:286. . . . . . . . . . . . 271 n.68, 413 n.60 C-​191/​15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon Judgment of 28 July 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245–​46 n.89, 248 n.102, 250, 269 n.47, 430–​31 n.231 C-​203/​15 and C-​698/​15 Tele2 Sverige AB and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 n.348, 229 n.634 C-​404/​15 and C-​659/​15 PPU Aranyosi and Căldăraru 5 April 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168–​69  n.188 C-​524/​15 Menci ECLI:EU:C:2018:197. . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.230, 110 n.231, 110 n.233 , 113 n.261 C-​617/​15 Hummel Holding EU:C:2017:390. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425–​26  n.178 C-​24/​16 and C-​25/​16 Nintendo v Big Ben Interactive ECLI:EU:C:2017:724. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 n.164, 425 n.173, 427–​28 n.194, 429–​30 C-​194/​16 Bolagsupplysningen v Svensk Handel Judgment of 17 October 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2017:766. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 n.54, 375 n.63 C-​210/​16 Unabhӓngiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-​Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-​Holstein GmbH Advocate General Opinion of 24 October 2017. . . . . . . . . . . 233–​34 n.5, 236–​37 n.17, 245–​46 n.78, 249 n.107, 249 n.109, 249 n.110, 249 n.111, 250, 262 C-​210/​16 Unabhӓngiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-​Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-​Holstein GmbH Judgment of 5 June 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:388. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233–​34 n.5, 237 n.17, 238 n.22, 238 n.25, 238 n.26, 238–​39 n.27, 245–​46 n.78, 247–​48 n.98, 249 n.106, 249 n.110, 249 n.111, 249 n.108 C-​231/​16 Merck EU:C:2017:771. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 n.208 C-​367/​16 David Piotrowski 23 January 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168–​69  n.183 C-​477/​16 PPU Kovalkovas 10 November 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:861 . . . . . . . . . . . 168–​69  n.188 C-​498/​16 Schrems v Facebook Ireland Ltd EU:C:2017:863, EU:C:2018:37; [2018] 1 WLR 4343. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332–​33 n.12, 354–​55 n.198, 378–​79 n.95 C-​537/​16 Garlsson Real Estate and Others ECLI:EU:C:2018:193 . . . . . . . . 110 n.230, 110 n.231, 110 n.233, 113 n.261 C-​596/​16 Di Puma ECLI:EU:C:2018:192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 n.230 C-​27/​17 flyLAL-​Lithuanian Airlines, in liquidation v Starptautiskalidosta Riga VAS ECLI:EU:C:2018:136. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 n.66 C-​324/​17 Criminal Proceedings Against Ivan Gavanozov Judgment of 24 October 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:892 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172–​73  n.226 C-​507/​17 Google LLC v CNIL ECLI:EU:C:2019:772, Judgment of 24 September 2019. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 n.122, 251–​52 n.123, 375 n.65, 440–​41 C-​571/​17 PPU Samet Ardic 22 December 2017 ECLI:EU:C:2017:1026. . . . . . . . . . 168–​69  n.188

Table of Cases  xxv C-​18/​18 Eva Glawischnig-​Piesczek v Facebook, Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of 4 June 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2019:458. . . . . . . . . . . 37 n.32, 37 n.35, 37–​38 n.36, 37–​38 n.38, 37–​38 n.39, 62–​63 n.278, 80 n.378, 440 C-​18/​18 Eva Glawischnig-​Piesczek v Facebook, Judgment of 3 October 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:821. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–​38, 375 n.64, 375 n.67 C-​172/​18 AMS Neve Ltd v Heritage Audio SL ECLI EU: C:2019:276 . . . . . . . . . . . . 415–​16 n.94, 424–​25 n.168, 425 n.172, 425 n.175, 425–​26 n.178, 426 n.180, 426–​28 n.208 C-​208/​18 Petruchova v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev ECLI:EU:C:2019:314; CJEU Judgment ECLI:EU:C:2019:825 . . . . . . 354–​55  n.197 C-​311/​18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Max Schrems (Schrems II) Advocate General Opinion of 19 December 2019 ECLI:EU:C:2019:1145. . . . . . 182–​83 n.308, 192–​93 n.383, 193–​95 n.397, 232, 239–​40 n.32 C-​311/​18 Data Protection Commissioner v Maximilian Schrems ECLI:EU:C:2020:559. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163–​64 n.157, 239 n.31 C-​464/​18 ZX v Ryanair DAC of 11 April 2019 ECLI:EU:C:2019:311. . . . . . . . . . . . 349–​50 n.157, 350–​51 n.166, 376–​77 n.77 European Human Rights Reports A and B v Norway, Applications 24130/​11 and 29758/​11, Judgment of 15 November 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 n.261 Ahmet Yildirim v Turkey Application 3111/​10, Judgment of 18 December 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–​37 n.29, 36–​37 n.31, 62 n.273 Al-​Skeini v United Kingdom (55721/​07) (2011) 53 EHRR 18 . . . . . . . . . . 6 n.19, 6 n.20, 23 n.148 Arlewin v Sweden App No 22302/​10 ECtHR, Judgment of 1 March 2016, (2016) 41 BHRC 571. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377–​78  n.89 Delfi AS v Estonia (64569/​09) [2015] EMLR 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39–​40  n.62 Ekin v France ECtHR Application 39288/​98, Judgment of 17 July 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 n.274 Jaloud v Netherlands (47708/​08) (2015) 60 EHRR 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 n.19 MTE v Hungary (22947/​2013), Judgment of 2 February 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39–​40  n.63 Pisari v Moldova and Russia (42139/​12) unreported 19 October 2015 (ECHR) . . . . . . . . . 6 n.19 Sunday Times v United Kingdom Series A No 30 (1979-​80) 2 EHRR 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 n.273 General Court/​Court of First Instance T-​102/​96 Gencor Ltd v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR II-​753. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–​32 n.226, 86–​87 n.34, 86–​87 n.36, 256–​57 n.168 T-​286/​09 Intel Corp v European Commission EU:T:2014:547; [2014] 5 CMLR 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–​32 n.226, 256–​57 n.168 T-​738/​16 La Quadrature du Net v Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 T-​760/​16 Digital Rights Ireland v Commission OJ C22 of 22 January 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Permanent Court of International Justice S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.) PCIJ Rep Series A No 10 (September 7). . . . . . . . . 8 n.36, 83 n.8, 84 n.15, 84 n.18, 85, 88 n.46, 135–​36 n.193, 256–​57 n.167 NATIONAL COURTS Australia Attorney-​General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers (1988) 165 CLR 30 (High Court of Australia). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 n.299

xxvi  Table of Cases John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 n.339 Koop v Bebb (1951) 84 CLR 629. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 n.328 Norbert Steinhardt v Meth (1961) 105 CLR 440. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406–​7  n.7 Potter v Broken Hill (1906) 3 CLR 479. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406–​7 n.4,  420–​21 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 n.339 Belgium Belgian Yahoo! case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148, 150, 197 n.423, 197–​98, 201–​2, 204, 438–​39 n.14 Skype Belgium ME 20.F1.105151-​12, Judgment of 27 October 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 n.467 Canada Douez v Facebook Inc. 2017 SCC 33, Supreme Court of Canada Judgment of 23 June 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332–​33 n.12, 342 Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 n.285, 440–​41 Libman v The Queen [1985] 2 SCR 178 (SCC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 n.181, 137 n.211, 139 n.221 Pompey Industrie v ECU Line NV [2003] 1 SCR 450. . . . . 342–​43 n.96, 343 n.102, 344 n.113 Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 n.339 France LICRA and UEJA v Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 22 May 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–​93 n.77,  448–​49 LICRA and UEFJ v Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 20 November 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–​93 n.77,  448–​49 Germany BGH (Decisions of the Federal Court of Justice) BGH 3 StR 88/​14, Decision of 19 August 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–​18 n.28, 120–​21 n.47 BGH 12.12.2000-​1StR 184/​00, BGHSt 46,212 (221)—​Tӧben. . . . . . . . . . . . 120 n.46, 121, 445–​46 BGH, Judgment of June 29, 2010—​VI ZR 122/​09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGH, Judgment of September 24, 1986—​VIII ZR 320/​85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGH, Judgment of November 25, 1993—​IX ZR 32/​93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGH, Judgment of February 28, 1996—​XII ZR 181/​93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGH, Judgment of March 2, 2010—​VI ZR 23/​09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGH, GRUR 1978, 194 = NJW 1977, 1590—​profil . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.133, 382 n.137, 383 n.148 BGH GRUR 2010, 462 Tz 20 f—​The New York Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 n.150, 383–​84 n.155, 383–​84 n.158, 383–​84 n.159, 383–​84 n.160, 384–​85 BGH GRUR 2005, 431 = NJW 2005, 1435 [1436]—​hotel maritime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84  n.152 BGH GRUR 2013, 751-​Autocomplete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84  n.159 BGH MMR 2011, 490. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84  n.159 BGH NJW 2012, 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84 n.159, 385 n.168 BGH NJW 96, 1128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 n.263, 395 n.265 BGH NJW 99, 2893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 n.265 BGH NstZ-​RR 2000, 361. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 n.166 BGHSt 2, 160 (161). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 n.165 BGHSt 18, 283. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 n.154 BGHSt 44, 52; 51, 29 at 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 n.29 BGHSt 45, 65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 n.170 BGHSt 45, 68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–​28  n.118 BGHSt 46, 212 (221). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 n.46 BGHSt 46, 292(307). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 n.138

Table of Cases  xxvii BGHZ 98, 263at 273. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGHZ 124, 237at 240. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGHZ 132, 105 at 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGHZ 184, 313. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 n.125 BGHZ 192, 204. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 n.31 BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court) BVerfG 75, 1 at 15 and ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2007:rk20071204. 2bvr003806. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–​9 n.204, 108–​9 n.206 BVerfGE (Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court) BVerfGE 3, 248 at 252. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–​9  n.204 BVerfGE 12, 62 at 66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–​9  n.204 BVerfGE 56, 22 at 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–​9  n.204 German Caselaw Berger, GRURInt 2005, 465. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.138 Danckwerts, GRUR 2007, 104. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.138 GRUR 2005, 261 German Constitutional Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 n.32 Kaufmann, MMR 2006, 714 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.138 Mankowski, MMR 2002, 814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.138 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 124–​29, 128. . . . . . 382–​83 n.145, 382–​83 n.146, 382–​83 n.147 Rolex Ricardo judgment BGHZ 158 of 11 March 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34–​35  n.12 Solmecke, MMR 2007, 490 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 n.138 Case VI ZR 111/​10 Sieben Tage Moskau Judgment 29 March 2011, [2012] ILPr 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380–​81 n.116, 385 n.169, 387–​88 Facebook Ireland, Facebook Inc v UnabhängigesLandeszentrumfürDatenschutz Schleswig-​Holstein, Az 8B 60/​12, Judgment of 14 February 2013 (Case against Facebook Ireland) and Az B8 61/​12, Judgment of 14 February 2013 (Case against Facebook Inc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 n.113 Regional Appeal Courts OLG Karlsruhe GRUR-​RS 2016, 115437. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84 n.156, 385 n.172 OLG Brandenburg MMR 2017, 261. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84 n.159, 384 n.162, 384 n.163 OLG Köln BeckRS 2017, 124095. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383–​84 n.159, 385 n.171, 385 n.173 OLG Bremen MMR 2001, 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 n.162 Italy Google Italy Tribunal of Milan and Sentenza 8611/​12 del 21-​12-​2012, Corte di Appello di Milano. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246–​47  n.93 New Zealand Ortmann v the United States of America [2017] NZHC 189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n.93 Ortmann v the United States of America DC North Shore CRI-​2012-​092-​001647, 23 December 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 n.92 United Kingdom Ablynx NV v VHsquared Ltd [2019] FSR 29 (Pat). . . . . . 419 n.121, 419–​20 n.122, 419–​20 n.123 Adams v Cape Industries [1990] Ch 433 (CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 n.177 Agnew v Lansfӧrsäkringsbolagens [2000] 1 All ER 73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370–​71  n.22 Ahuja v PoliticaNovine [2016] 1 WLR 1414 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387–​88 n.193, 389 n.206, 389 n.209, 389–​90 n.218, 390 n.223

xxviii  Table of Cases Al-​Amoudi v Brisard [2007] 1 WLR 113 (QB). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391–​92  n.232 Allen v Deputy International [2014] EWHC 753 (QB). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397–​98  n.280 Altimo Holdings v Kyrgyz Mobil [2012] 1 WLR 1804 (PC) . . . . . . . . . . 388 n.200, 389–​90 n.218, 389–​90  n.219 Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 n.184 Anan Kasei Co Ltd v Molycorp Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd [2017] FSR 13 (Pat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 n.121, 419–​20 n.122 Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2211 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 n.251 Ashton v OJSC Russian Aluminium [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 n.195 Assange [2012] 2 AC 471 (SC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 n.166, 167 n.176, 167–​68 n.179, 170–​71 n.198 Babcock v Jackson [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 286. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400–​1  n.316 Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 n.189, 388 n.197, 388 n.199 Board of Trade v Owen [1957] AC 602 (HL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132–​33  n.173 Bonnier Media Ltd v Greg Lloyd Smith [2002] SCLR 977 (OH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 n.26 Bonnier Media Ltd v Smith [2002] 7 WLUK 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 n.50 Boys v Chaplin [1968] 2 QB 1 (CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400–​1  n.317 Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 (HL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 n.269, 399–​400 n.302, 400–​1 n.310, 400–​1 n.316, 401 n.328 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 (HoL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406–​7 n.9, 420–​22,  429–​30 Bunt v Tilley [2007) 1 WLR 1243 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–​37  n.27 Callaghan v Independent News and Media Ltd [2009] NIQB 1 (QBD). . . . . . . . . . . . . 369–​70  n.1 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232 (HL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387–​88  n.191 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 n.203 Chadha v Dow Jones [1999] EMLR 724. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 n.212 Chopra v Bank of Singapore [2015] EWHC 1549 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 n.289 Clark v TripAdvisor LLC, 2014 WL 7255192, Court of Session. . . . . . . . . . . 386 n.180, 386 n.183 Coin Controls Ltd v Suzo International (UK) Ltd [1999] Ch 33 (ChD). . . . . . . . . . . 419–​20  n.122 Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 HL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108–​9  n.202 Cox v Army Council [1963] A.C. 48(HL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132–​33  n.173 Cox v Ergo Versicherung [2014] UKSC 22 (SC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397–​98  n.280 Crosstown Music Co v Rive Droite Music Ltd [2012] Ch 68 (CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421–​22  n.141 Davison v Habeeb [2011] EWHC 3031 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391–​92  n.235 Davison v Habeeb [2012] 3 CMLR 104. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 n.34 Dawson v Broughton [2007] 7 WLUK 921. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 n.292 DefLepp Music v Stuart Brown [1986] RPC 273 (HC) 274. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 n.11 Douglas v Hello (No 2) [2003] EMLR 28 (CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398–​99  n.295 Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, (2003) 210 C.L.R 575 . . . . . . . . . 387 n.189, 388–​89 n.203 DPP v Stonehouse [1977] 65 Cr App R 192. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 n.199, 136 Ecobank Transnational Inc v Tanoh [2016] 1 WLR 2231 (CA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 n.224 Ellis [1899] 1 QB 230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 n.196 EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (ChD) . . . . . . . . . 433 n.246 Equitas Ltd v Wave City Shipping Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 923 (Comm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 n.27 Euroeco Fuels (Poland) v Szczecin Port Authority [2018] EWHC 1081 (QB) . . . . 388 n.200, 389 Euromarket Designs v Peters [2000] ETMR 1025 (ChD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 n.251 Financial Services Authority v Bayshore Nominees Ltd & Others [2009] EWHC 285 (Ch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 n.43 Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Skarga [2013] EWCA Civ 275. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 n.290 Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel NV [1998] FSR 222 (CA). . . . . . . . . 419–​20