Agrégateur de flux

GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) aficionados will have already seen the draft guidelines published by the EDPB – the European data protection board – on the territorial scope of the Regulation.

Of particular interest to conflicts lawyers is the Heading on the application of the ‘targeting’ criterion of GDPR’s Article 3(2). There are clear overlaps here between Brussels I, Rome I, and the GDPR and indeed the EDPB refers to relevant case-law in the ‘directed at’ criterion in Brussels and Rome.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.3, Heading 2.2.8.2.5.

Thank you MPI’s Veerle Van Den Eeckhout for pointing out a highly relevant reference to the CJEU by the Dutch Supreme Court /Hoge Raad. The link between the posted workers Directive and conflict of laws is clear, as I have also explained here. The most interesting part of the reference for conflicts lawyers, ae the questions relating to ‘cabotage’, particularly where a driver carries out work in a country where (s)he is not habitually employed (international trade lawyers will recognise the issue from i.a. NAFTA).

One to keep an eye on.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed 2016, Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.5.

Les droits de la partie civile ne peuvent être exercés que par les personnes justifiant d’un préjudice résultant de l’ensemble des éléments constitutifs de l’infraction concernée. Un tel préjudice ne découle pas du comportement consistant, pour des participants à une compétition sportive, à s’entendre pour en fausser le résultat. En effet, ce comportement ne renvoie qu’à l’un des faits constitutifs de l’infraction d’escroquerie et non à l’ensemble des éléments constitutifs nécessaires pour caractériser l’infraction. 

en lire plus