Lugar del hecho dañoso y obligaciones extracontractuales. La sentencia del TJUE de 25 octubre 2011 y el coste de la litigación internacional en Internet

The Court of Justice of the European Union faces, one more time, the interpretation of art. 5.3 of council Regulation 44/2001: «a person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued: (...) 3. in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where... Deskribapen osoa

Egile nagusia: Lorente Martínez, Isabel
Formatua: Artikulua
Hizkuntza: Gaztelania
Argitaratua: Universidad Carlos III: Área de Derecho Internacional Privado. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. 2012
Gaiak:
Sarrera elektronikoa: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4184060
Etiketak: Erantsi etiketa bat
Etiketarik gabe, Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen!
Azalaren irudirik gabe QR Kodea
Gorde:
Laburpena: The Court of Justice of the European Union faces, one more time, the interpretation of art. 5.3 of council Regulation 44/2001: «a person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued: (...) 3. in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur». This time the Court dealt with two different cases both derived from certain alleged damage resulting from information published on the Internet. The real problem is the Internet. Principle of ubiquity applies, true. But it is not easy as it seems. The Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 25 October 2011 creates a new head of jurisdiction in favour of the claimant, hidden in art. 5.(3). A new connecting criterion which is the place where a person has the centre of his interests that corresponds in general to his habitual residence.